Firstly, it is not entirely clear how many houses are needed in Cubbington to meet the SWLP requirements, nor how much land is required for this purpose. Section 4.5 identifies Cubbington as a growth village, with Policy DS6 Level of Housing Growth setting a district target of 16,776 new homes between 2011 and 2029, with Growth Villages contributing a minimum of 968 new homes. Does this imply that we need to build over 968 houses in Cubbington to meet this target? Moreover, does this 968-target include the H25, H26, and Waverley Riding School housing developments in Figure 11 section 4.5, plus 133 new houses built in 2024, thereby requiring 835 new houses?

Additionally, I am seeking clarification on the amount of land needed to accommodate the aforementioned housing requirements. Is it anticipated that this development will be concentrated in a single area, or spread across multiple locations in Cubbington?

I am particularly concerned about the land proposed for development as part of the call for land, as it is all Green Belt. I strongly believe that our Green Belt areas should remain protected to prevent urban expansion, which is why they are designated as "Green Belt."

Section 5 of the Neighbourhood Plan Policies, CNDP2, addresses the protection of other green spaces and Table 2, Local Green Space Assessment. It worries me that these areas are only recommended for protection under a light policy, rather than being as vigorously protected as in CNDP1, which could potentially lead to future development on these lands. The comments in Table 2 clearly show that residents support the protection of green spaces, with Site 97 (Glebe Farm), Mill Lan (The Nob), and North and South Cubbington Woods being particularly important for Cubbington and the surrounding area.

Site 97 Glebe Farm specifically raises concerns, as it is identified for Housing/Residential on the interactive map. If this land were to be developed, it would have disastrous consequences for the local area, environment, farming, and community.
This site faces several challenges:
• It is Green Belt land.
• It is significant agricultural farmland.
• It boasts natural beauty with rolling hills and views across fields to the woods. (Appendix 4 - Protecting Green Spaces - Views & Vistas - Cubbington. V6 - Views - Offchurch Lane - Public Footpath towards Offchurch River Leam - Newbold Comyn, and V7 - Views - Offchurch Lane towards Rugby Road)
• It is a site of multiple public footpaths, as above.
• It provides habitats for wildlife such as foxes, badgers, newts, (Some most likely Protected), and numerous insect, birders and other animal species that rely on these fields, hedges, and trees/woods for survival.
• The uneven landscape poses significant development challenges, adding to the costs.
• There is a substantial risk of flooding due to the sloping landscape and the presence of many natural springs/broks that contribute to the river Leam.
• Glebe Farm serves as a natural divide between Lillington and Cubbington, building on this land would remove this boundary.
• Access is poor, other than from Offchurch Road between Thwaites and Windmill Hill, significantly impacting local traffic.
• The road network is poor and restricted for high traffic volumes entering Offchurch Road, with narrow and winding roads to the island
• Risk to the school at the top of the hill, with potential increase in traffic, could pose a risk of accidents with children crossing the road.
I would like to gain a better understanding of how Green Belt land will be treated and what the recommendations are for the sites listed in Table 2, particularly Site 97 (Glebe Farm).

1.0 Background
No comment
2.0 Cubbington Neighbourhood Development Plan Key Issues, Vision and Objectives
No comment
3.0 Cubbington Neighbourhood Area
Comment re: Figure 4. – The aerial photograph used in Figure 4 of the submission plan is out
of date and does not show the impact of the construction of the High Speed Two (HS2) railway
line to the east of the Neighbourhood Plan Area. The new railway cuts through a significant
proportion of the Neighbourhood Plan Area including ‘South Cubbington Wood’ and farmland
to the east of Cubbington. This is a key feature in the landscape of ‘the area today’ and should
therefore be visible within the photograph used in Figure 4 in order to provide context.
Comment re: History and Development of Cubbington – the context of the development of
the HS2 line to the east of the Neighbourhood Plan Area is not included within this section.
This development has had a significant impact of the village and is referred to in later sections
of the plan. Context should be provided here in respect of this development which has had a
significant impact on the landscape to the east of Cubbington; cutting through ‘South
Cubbington Wood’ and the farmland to the east of Cubbington and permanently redirecting
public rights of way.
4.0 Planning Context
Comment re: Emerging Planning Policy – on the 22nd November 2024, Warwick District
Council (WDC) and Stratford on Avon District Council (SoADC) published the Regulation 18
‘Preferred Options Consultation’ paper of the South Warwickshire Local Plan, as part of the
Agenda for the Joint Cabinet Committee meeting scheduled for 6pm on 12th December 2024.
The decision of the Joint Cabinet Committee will take place after this Neighbourhood Plan
consultation period has closed. The Planning Context within the Neighbourhood Plan should
be updated to take account of the emerging Local Plan process. Most notably for Cubbington
as follows:
• The chosen Spatial Growth Strategy of; ‘Sustainable Travel and Economy’
• The identification of the ‘Strategic Growth Location; East of Lillington Group’ which is
within the Neighbourhood Plan Area.
• The Part 1 Green Belt review which identifies the following land parcels around
Cubbington as follows:
2
Location Parcel Ref: Overall Assessment to Green Belt
LSP 6 ‘Moderate Contribution’
LSP7 ‘Weak Contribution’
CUB1 ‘Moderate Contribution’
CUB2 ‘Moderate Contribution’
CUB3 ‘Moderate Contribution’
• The ‘East of Lillington Group’ identified as the ‘emerging best performing’ Strategic
Growth Location against the Sustainability Appraisal framework.
5.0 Neighbourhood Plan Policies
Comment re: Policy CNDP1 – Protecting Local Green Space
The following areas as shown on the Policies Map are within the Green Belt and are therefore
already provided strong planning protection. It should be questioned whether any ‘additional
local benefit’ is gained by further designating them as ‘Local Green Space’:
• CNDP 1/2 – Austen Court play area
• CNDP 1/3 – North Cubbington Wood
• CNDP 1/4 – South Cubbington Wood
• CNDP 1/5 – The Runghills
Comment re: para 5.7 - Open spaces are defined in the Town and Country Planning Act 1990
as; ‘any land laid out as public garden, or used for the purposes of public recreation, or land
which is a disused burial ground.’ It is questionable whether the sites identified in ‘Table 2’
are within this definition (see further detail below).
Comment re: Policy CNDP2 – Protecting Other Green Spaces
The policy refers to ‘other green spaces,’ there is no clear definition of what this encompasses.
There appears to be confusion between the definition of ‘green space’ and ‘open space.’ Item
‘b’ within the draft policy refers to ‘open space’ in relation to local environment, amenity and
active public recreation use. This is a narrower definition than seems to be implied by the use
of the term ‘other green space.’
Comment re: para 5.8 The majority of land around Cubbington is within the Green Belt and
therefore already hassignificant planning protection. It istherefore questioned whether draft
policy CNDP2 has any real function.
Comment re: para 5.9 this paragraph refers to ‘in addition to protecting the two spaces
identified under Policy CNDP 1.’ There are five areas identified in draft policy CNDP1. This
appears to be an error.
Comment re: Table 2. Local Green Space Assessment
Comment re: ‘HS2 Route’ – The land between Cubbington Woods and the village is not ‘open
space’ as defined in the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. The land is private farmland in
3
arable crop production. The land is crossed by three public right of way footpaths. All three
footpaths have been disrupted and redirected by the construction of HS2. This land, which
extends to over 130 acres, is described in Table 2 as ‘to be maintained as open green space.’
The land is not currently designated as ‘open green space’ and it is inappropriate to therefore
suggest that it should be maintained as such. The reference to site ref: 202 indicates that
there is a desire to preclude this land from the emerging Local Plan process which would be
inappropriate particularly given the status of Cubbington as a ‘Growth Village’. The reference
to site 202 in this section of the plan should be removed. All of this land is protected by Green
Belt policy and therefore it is not necessary for the Neighbourhood Plan to try and provide
further restriction, particularly via Policy CNDP2, which is poorly defined.
Comment re: ‘Site 97 South Warwickshire local plan’ – The land between Lillington and
Cubbington is described as ‘open land’ in Table 2. It is not clear what the definition of ‘open
land’ is? This land is private farmland in arable crop production. The land is crossed by two
public rights of way footpaths. This land does not meet the definition of ‘open space’ as
defined in the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. In total this land extends to over 130
acres. All of this land is protected by Green Belt policy and therefore it is not necessary for
the Neighbourhood Plan to try to provide further restriction, particularly via Policy CNDP2,
which is poorly defined.
Comment re: Policy CNDP2 – it is not clear what areas of land this draft policy refers to. The
areas identified in Table 2 are large and comprise a large proportion of the Neighbourhood
Plan area. The majority of these areas are protected by Green Belt policy and therefore it does
not seem necessary for Policy CNDP2 to be included within the Plan. Policy CNDP2 should be
removed from the plan.
Policy CNDP3 – Sustainable Design and Construction
No Comment
Comment re: Policy CNDP4 – Conserving and Enhancing the Landscape
It is noted that the enhancement of the landscape is likely to be delivered through new
development. The degradation of the landscape by HS2 provides opportunity for repair and
enhancement if funds can be achieved via new development within the village.
Comment re: Figure 18 – Landscape Sensitivity to Housing Development was published in
2013 and is therefore out of date. In particular, the construction of HS2 has changed the
landscape to the east of village. HS2 now provides a clear ‘defensible boundary’ for
development rather than the ‘open countryside’ referred to in the Inspector’s report. The
emerging evidence of the South Warwickshire Local Plan should be considered and it is likely
that developers will commission suitable evidence to accompany planning applications for
consideration against Policy CNDP 4 at the appropriate time. Figure 18 should be deleted.
Policy CNDP 5 – Cubbington Conservation Area
No Comment
4
Policy CNDP 6 – Protection and Enhancement of Community Facilities
Comment re: para 5.36 the desire to protect, enhance and renew community facilities is
noted. The delivery of new development will generate planning gain by way of Section 106
contributions and Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL). WDC are a CIL charging authority. The
delivery of development will generate capital in order to deliver on policy CNDP 6.
Comment re: Policy CNDP7 – Community Infrastructure
Both land and capital can be provided via the delivery of new development on a site within
the village. By working with applicants, the Parish can meet the aspirations of the
Neighbourhood Plan. It is likely that some new development within Cubbington will be
delivered via emerging local and national planning policies and the Neighbourhood Plan
should ensure the necessary infrastructure is delivered to meet the needs of the current
residents as well as those of new residents.

The main reasons cited for our refusal has always gone back to it being close to green belt land and I have been for pre planning advice since having family to see if we can make our living situation better (still only a 3 bedroom house with an upstairs bathroom) but it has always been a firm no due to the desire to protect the openness. Therefore, I am extremely concerned and shocked to read that the land proposed for development as part of the call for land is all Green Belt and in fact very close to home and on green belt land.

In addition to this and even more surprising to me, Site 97 Glebe Farm is identified for Housing/Residential on the interactive map. If this land is to be developed it not only seems completely unfair given the challenges we have had with our proposals I feel developing it to this level of complete excess would also have a horrendous impact for the local area, environment, farming, and community.

I would like to gain a better understanding of how Green Belt land will be treated in the future as it suddenly doesn’t seem as protected as it was during my applications and what the recommendations are for Glebe Farm