Prior to the formation of the original Local Plan, Cubbington Parish Council (the Parish Council) was invited to enter into informal discussions with an officer of Warwick District Council (WDC) to assist in the evaluation of candidate sites for new housing within Cubbington Parish. The Parish Council was an enthusiastic and cooperative participant in these discussions and was able to support the proposal to include sites H25 and H26 for a total allocation of 75 homes. The decision to increase the allocation for these sites to 100 homes was made unilaterally by WDC without consultation with or even referral to, the Parish Council.
The two fields now assigned the reference H50 were not identified as candidates during the discussions, and so no views have been exchanged between WDC and the Parish Council regarding their suitability for housing development. It appears unlikely, based upon the views expressed in this present consultation response that the Parish Council would have been able to agree with WDC that H50 would be a suitable location for new housing.
WDC assessment of H50
In its February 2016 report Village Profile and Housing Allocations WDC makes the following assessment of the suitability of H50 for housing development:
"This site is considered suitable in part. To the north of Rugby Road, landscape sensitivity is a significant constraint. However, the area to the south of Rugby Road has more development potential, but will require significant surface water management measures. This part of the site is also better related to the village core and provides an opportunity to soften the settlement edge.
"The area is within a Green Belt parcel that plays a role in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment. However, the route of HS2 lays only one field beyond the site boundary. This limits the weight that can be applied to the role this site plays in safeguarding countryside from encroachment.
"Taking account of landscape and flooding mitigation, it is estimated that in total around 4 hectares of the site is developable, providing capacity for around 95 dwellings."
The Parish Council agrees that, as identified in this assessment, there are three major constraints on the development of the site: surface water run-off and flood risk, landscape considerations, and encroaching into the Green Belt. It is the firm view of the Parish Council that these constraints are significant enough to render the decision to develop even a portion of the 11.76 hectares that are available as unsound. Our reasons for holding this view are set out below, considering each of the three constraints separately.
Surface water run-off and flood risk
Susceptibility to flooding
A recent severe flood event has led to the community of Cubbington being very alert to the risk of flooding affecting properties in the low-lying parts of the old village core. The at-risk streets have the potential to act as a basin for surface water run-off from the farmland on the hills that surround the village, particularly those to the north and east. This is precisely what happened following heavy rainfall in the summer of 2007, and more than forty homes were flooded as a result. This flooding occurred despite the existence of the Pingle Brook Flood Alleviation Scheme, which has been in operation on the eastern side of the old village core since 2002; the volume of water involved in the flood event simply overwhelmed the capacity of this scheme.
The potential for repeat events to occur was thought sufficiently high for an investment of around £800,000 to be made in a new flood alleviation scheme that has been in operation since 2014. This scheme collects run-off from the fields east of the village, stores it in a balancing pond at Mill Lane (on the south-eastern edge of the village) and feeds it through a buried pipe so as to by-pass the village and be discharged outside the southern edge of the old village core.
However, doubts remain about the adequacy of the storm water drainage system that serves the at-risk parts of the village, and residents become justifiably anxious whenever periods of heavy rainfall occur.

During its limited time in operation the new flood alleviation scheme has proved to be a satisfactory solution to the Cubbington flooding problem, but the Parish Council is anxious that this should remain the case and that, in particular, no changes are made to the hydrological characteristics of the village environment that could contribute to the design limits of the scheme being exceeded in future.
WDC evaluation of flood risk
WDC published its Level 1 Strategic Flood Risk Assessment (SFRA) report in April 2013. This report, which was commissioned from Mouchel Consulting, singles out, in section 7.5, Cubbington as a "sensitive development location" where "development would significantly increase flood risk elsewhere". The recommendation of this report is that "future development [in Cubbington] is avoided"
WDC document SA04 Sustainability Assessment of Potential Village Site Allocations of November 2013 refers to the April 2013 SFRA and the observation therein that "Cubbington suffers from major surface water flooding and that the drainage systems in the area (public, private, highway or land drainage) were not designed to cope with the exceptional conditions". SA04 also quotes the recommendation that future development is avoided but conflates this, mistakenly in the view of the Parish Council, with a further recommendation in section 7.5 of the SFRA that "effective planning policies should be implemented in accordance with the SUDS recommendations provided [in the SFRA]". This would appear to indicate that the SFRA is making contradictory recommendations: on the one hand that development should be avoided in Cubbington, and on the other that development should be permitted provided that the provision of a SUDS (sustainable drainage system) is specified as a planning condition. Inspection of section 7.5 reveals that there is no such contradiction in the original; the SFRA is clear in its recommendation that there should be no new development in Cubbington, and the reference to implementing SUDS is a general one to apply "throughout the study area". The former recommendation obviously replaces the latter in the case of Cubbington, where it would appear that a SUDS is not considered to be an effective remedy.
It follows that the conclusion drawn in SA04 - that "unless local plan policies are developed to address the issues of flooding with regard to new development in Cubbington, given its sensitivity there are likely to be major short to long-term negative effects" - is based upon a false assumption.
This mistaken interpretation of the SFRA appears to be carried forward into the February 2016 Sustainability Appraisal Addendum Report (SAAR). This document acknowledges that H50 "is located adjacent to an area of flood risk in the southern corner of the site, and is also susceptible to surface water flooding along the eastern border". Whilst the Parish Council broadly concurs with this assessment, it views it as an understatement of the contribution that the two fields forming H50 make to surface water run-off that can find its way into the streets of our village. As the SAAR correctly reports, "surface water drains to the watercourse south of the site" and this ditch feeds the Pingle Brook (see pages 37/57 and 38/57 of Appendix III of the SAAR).
Despite this broadly correct assessment, the SAAR concludes that "there is sufficient mitigation available to ensure that there will be a residual neutral effect against SA Objective 11".
In paragraph 7.6, the Village Profile and Housing Allocations report concedes that "Cubbington has a history of surface water flooding particularly surface water arising from the eastern side of the village". However, the same paragraph refers to "recent flood assessments [that suggest] that the area to the north of Rugby Road has low susceptibility to flooding as does much of the area to the south of Rugby Road". Despite this observation being counter to the earlier SFRA and also to the experience of Cubbington residents - very wet conditions underfoot are frequently encountered by walkers using the footpath that runs along the southern edge of the southern field (Shakespeare's Avon Way) and we hold photographic and video evidence of extreme surface water run-off from the northern field - as far as we have been able to determine no source for this risk downgrading is provided in the WDC Evidence Base. Our inquiry of WDC has revealed, however, that this contrary assessment is based upon the opinion of a drainage engineer who is a WDC officer.

The WDC officer's summary of the flood risk from development of the northern field is:
"The site will not cause increased flooding to south Cubbington village although surface water runoff should be carefully managed not to flood the village."
His/her opinion of the position regarding development of the southern field is:
"The site is likely to increase flooding onto the Cubbington village and surface water management plan should be implemented to control discharge to the Pingle Brook and reduce downstream flooding."
The Parish Council views drainage and flood alleviation schemes a poor substitute for avoiding creating or exacerbating sources of flood water. Such schemes can never be guaranteed to work as they always have a maximum capacity that can be exceeded during extreme weather conditions.
The Parish Council is astounded that a recommendation made by an internationally-renowned firm of consultants, that future development of Cubbington should be avoided on grounds of flood risk, has been cast aside by WDC on the say so of one of its officers.
It is the Parish Council's firmly-held view that the recommendation of the SAAR should only be rejected if a detailed hydrological survey, commissioned from an independent consultancy, shows that the SAAR recommendation is unwarranted.
Planning policy requirements
The procedure to be adopted in considering applications for development in areas that are at risk from flooding is set out in Policy FW1 in the Warwick District Local Plan 2011-2029 (on pages 139 to 141). This policy requires development to be "directed away from areas of flood risk", but does allow development to be considered in extremis, subject to certain criteria also being satisfied. One such criterion (sub-paragraph b) is that it must be demonstrated that "no suitable alternative sites are available in an area of lower risk": we can find no such demonstration specific to H50 in the WDC documentation. A second criterion that is very relevant to H50 is sub-paragraph d, which requires, inter alia, that the proposed development "does not increase the flood risk on site or elsewhere". It is the view of the Parish Council that, even if a SUDS is mandated, it is inevitable that development on H50 will increase the flood risk to parts of the old village core.
It therefore appears that, on at least two counts, any housing development on H50 carries the risk of contravening WDC's own policy. The Parish Council accepts that any specific proposal for development on H50 will, when the time comes, be judged against the requirements of Policy FW1, but feels that its inclusion in the Local Plan makes the presumption that the fields will be developed for housing and gives the developer a strong hand in any planning application.
The Parish Council is firmly of the opinion that the flood risks associated with development mean that, rather than be included as a development site in the Local Plan, these two fields should be safeguarded from development, as provided for under Policy FW1.
The Parish Council further submits that, in the light of the opinion in the SFRA that "future development [in Cubbington] is avoided", a review should also be carried out of the flooding risk associated with the inclusion of sites H25 and H26 in the Local Plan.
Landscape impacts
WDC assessment of landscape value
For the purposes of the November 2013 report Landscape Sensitivity and Ecological and Geological Study the landscape surrounding Cubbington has been divided into "parcels", with each being allocated an identifying code. The northern field of H50 lays within parcel CB-03 and the southern field in CB-04. Both of these parcels have been rated in the report as having a "high" sensitivity to housing development, and have been assessed as "unsuitable for [housing] development" (see Appendix L1 to the report).
In the February 2015 document SA10 Sustainability Appraisal Report two sites within CB-03 (CU3*O Allotment Gardens Coventry Road and CU4*O Waverley Equestrian Centre) were rejected on the grounds that inclusion in the Local Plan "would lead to a significant finger of new development into an area of high landscape value" (see page 88/126 of Table 4.20).

In paragraph 7.5 of its February 2016 report Village Profile and Housing Allocations WDC acknowledges the November 2013 assessment, but qualifies it as having been "undertaken prior to HS2 being confirmed". The report advises that, presumably now it appears with high certainty that HS2 will proceed, WDC "has sought clarification on the impact that HS2 has on land parcels to the east of the village - notably parcel CB03 and CB04". This reassessment has resulted in the northern and southern fields that form H50 being regarded differently:
* The northern field "is still considered to be of high landscape sensitivity because any development here will be visually prominent as it would be on higher ground"
* The report appears to downplay the landscape impacts of housing development on the southern field, without actually seeking to rerate it from high.
The reasons cited for relaxing the approach on the southern field is that it "is lower [than the northern field] and the current settlement edge is more pronounced than the settlement edge within the northern zone". The existing housing development "immediately to the north of St. Marys Church" - presumably this refers to Pinehurst - is cited as "a particular detractor" on the grounds that it "obscures part of the tower when viewed from travelling in a westerly direction along Rugby Road". The report also asserts that housing development in the southern field could have a positive impact on landscape as it "could be used to soften the settlement edge, particularly if views to the church tower are preserved".
The Parish Council treats this reassessment with suspicion. We do not regard the November 2013 assessment as being in any way compromised by HS2 being more likely, because:
* In the long term HS2 will have little landscape impact in this area, as both track and train will be buried in a cutting.
* Whilst there may be more significant landscape impacts when HS2 is under construction, the bulk of this work is likely to be completed before any development of H50 takes place, as it will be necessary to complete the realignment of the B4453 required to accommodate HS2 before H50 work can commence.
* The authors of the November 2013 report refer to HS2 being a future feature in the landscape east of Cubbington, but make no comment that it would affect their rating of the landscape around Cubbington.
* WDC does not actually include HS2 in any of the reasons given in the February 2016 report for downgrading the landscape importance of the southern field.
Accordingly, the Parish Council holds the view that the high landscape value attributed to both parcels within which H50 is situated should stand.
Planning policy
The strategic policy adopted by WDC in distributing housing across Warwick District is set out in Policy DS4 in the Warwick District Local Plan 2011-2029 (on page 16). Sub-paragraph f of this policy refers specifically to areas assessed as having a high landscape value and unequivocally promises that all such sites will be "avoided". No variation to this pledge is envisaged by DS4. It therefore appears, prima facie, that the inclusion of H50 as an identified site for housing development in the Local Plan is in breach of this policy.
Green Belt
Significance of Green Belt
H50 lies wholly within the Green Belt parcel identified as CB1 in the June 2015 Joint Green Belt Study. The individual scores revealed in Appendix 1, Part 1 to this report assign a rating of 13/20 to this parcel, assessed against the five purposes of Green Belt. This overall rating is built up as follows:
Purpose 1 - To check the unrestricted sprawl of large built-up areas.
Issue 1a - Ribbon development: Score 2 out of 2.
Issue 1b - Openness: Score 1 out of 2.
Purpose 2 - To prevent neighbouring towns merging into one another: Score 2 out of 4.
Purpose 3 - To assist in the safeguarding of the countryside from encroachment.

Issue 3a - Significance of existing urbanising influences: Score 2 out of 2.
Issue 3b - Significance of boundaries/features to contain development and prevent encroachment: Score 2 out of 2.
Purpose 4 - To preserve the setting and special character of historic towns: Score 0 out of 4.
Purpose 5 - To assist in urban regeneration by encouraging the recycling of derelict and other urban land: Score 4 out of 4 (same for all parcels).
Whilst this score of 13 rates CB1 as 'mid-performing', it is obvious from the distribution of scores that CB1 plays an important role in the aspiration to restrict urban sprawl and rural encroachment. In this respect, the Parish Council regards H50 as a more substantial encroachment into the current Green Belt around Cubbington than either H25 or H26 represents: in particular, it results in a significant closing of the gap with a neighbouring settlement (Weston under Wetherley).
Impact of HS2
In its February 2016 report Village Profile and Housing Allocations WDC acknowledges that the Green Belt parcel containing H50 "plays a role in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment" (refer to the table under paragraph 7.13). The report qualifies this, however, by pointing out that "the route of HS2 lays only one field beyond the site boundary" and that this fact "limits the weight that can be applied to the role this site plays in safeguarding countryside from encroachment".
The Parish Council does not concur with this view. Whilst it regards HS2 as an unwelcome encroachment into the Green Belt around Cubbington, it does not see it as a particularly significant one. The area of land that will be directly lost is comparatively small, and is, of course, linearly dispersed. The Parish Council sees HS2 as a one-off loss of Green Belt and does not envisage that it will spawn associated development in our parish.
Planning policy
The Parish Council feels that the policy of the Green Belt has served the United Kingdom very well for more than a half-century, but regards is as under increasing threat from the demands of developers. Despite this, it sees the Green Belt as equally, if not more, relevant than it has been at any time during its existence.
The Parish Council recognises that, despite identifying the protection of the Green Belt as a function of one of the twelve core land-use planning principles set out in the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), and claiming that "the Government attaches great importance to Green Belts", that the same document also allows Green Belt boundaries to be altered "in exceptional circumstances, through the preparation or review of the Local Plan" (see paragraphs 17, 79 and 83 of the NPPF).
The strategic policy adopted by WDC in distributing housing across Warwick District is set out in Policy DS4 in the Warwick District Local Plan 2011-2029 (on page 16). Sub-paragraph g of this policy promises that housing development within the Green Belt will be limited "to those locations where exceptional circumstances can be justified". Amongst the factors to be taken into account in determining whether exceptional circumstances can be justified are whether there are alternative suitable sites that are not within the Green Belt, and whether the site within the Green Belt is able to meet "specific housing ... needs that cannot be met elsewhere". The Parish Council interprets this policy as requiring a specific justification to be made for each Green Belt site nominated for development within the Local Plan, but has been unable to find any such specific justification for site H50 in the WDC Evidence Base.
Other matters
Improvement in infrastructure and village facilities
It is admitted in the SAAR that "given the capacity of [H50] it is considered unlikely that development will deliver significant improvements to the local facilities and services on offer" in Cubbington (see page 36/57). The Parish Council accepts that this is likely to be the case, but regrets that this will mean that the new houses will place additional strain on the existing education and medical facilities used by Cubbington residents, without offering the prospect of some gains in services and facilities being enjoyed as a result.

Any construction work in the southern field of H50 will have a direct detrimental impact upon the village's educational facilities, as the Cubbington CoE School backs onto this field.
WDC have been advised of an error on page 36/57 of the SAAR. The H50 site is more than one kilometre from the Rugby Road shops.
Transport links
Within the works planned for HS2 the B4453 will be raised on an embankment to reach a height of four metres where it bridges the railway tracks. No mention has been made of this in WDC's analysis, nor of the potential effect this will have on the construction of access points from a housing development on H50.
WDC have been advised of an error on page 36/57 of the SAAR. The 538 bus route does not pass through Cubbington. There is a bus stop on Rugby Road, about four hundred metres from the H50 site, for the half-hourly 68 service to Leamington Spa and Warwick. There is also one return 69 service per day along Rugby Road to Leamington Spa. Travelling by bus to Coventry currently requires changing services in Leamington.
The route of the 68 service is long, taking around seventy minutes to complete. It passes through areas of Leamington and Warwick which suffer from significant traffic congestion. This compromises the punctuality and reliability of the service; a fact which the Parish Council is frequently reminded about by way of complaints made to councillors by Cubbington residents. The proposals to extend some 68 services onward from Warwick to Coventry (service X68) from the summer of this year will only serve to exacerbate the current problems, as will the expected increase in traffic congestion south of Warwick and Leamington Spa that the proposals in the Local Plan will engender. Due to the very circuitous route, the X68 to Coventry is unlikely to attract travellers from Cubbington. It is more than likely Cubbington residents will prefer to change buses in Leamington, as it is now.
The most direct route to Coventry by car is via the Coventry Road, and one is required to negotiate a busy, high-speed junction at Coventry Road/Leicester Lane. All of the available routes are busy at peak times. There is no direct route to Coventry.
In the light of the above, the Parish Council wishes to challenge the assessment in Table 3 in Village Profile and Housing Allocations that Cubbington has a "medium" relationship to Coventry. The Parish Council regards links to Coventry as poor, and questions whether a village with poor transport links to Coventry should be identified as a site suitable for the additional housing required to accommodate Coventry's growth.