No

Representation ID: 88204

Received: 14/02/2025

Respondent: Mrs Sally Ellis

The area is poorly drained and the soil and structure is liable to flash flooding that would be exacerbated by any building.
The surrounding roads are unsuitable for increased traffic and there is no capacity with doctors, dentists, schools, shopping or employment for further residents.
Cubbington has a very insular, individual character that would be destroyed by linkage to Lillington. They are even separated politically, both locally and parliamentary.

Yes

Representation ID: 88230

Received: 14/02/2025

Respondent: Mrs Ida Marjorie Brown

For housing and recreation yes - a logical location for a range of housing and affordability

No

Representation ID: 88277

Received: 14/02/2025

Respondent: Lt Col Matthew Paterson

SG05 appears the least suitable of all the proposed Warwick/Leamington sites.
It is the furthest from major transport and grocery sites and would add to already heavy traffic transiting south of the rivers, already significant traffic bottlenecks.
Building on all of SG05 would see the loss of a valued riding stable (spa view) and the loss of more footpaths in open countryside and valued panoramas of countryside than any other Warwick/Leamington site.
As green belt land its loss should be considered after non-green belt sites given the permanent nature of the loss.
‘Connecting’ Lillington and Cubbington serves little obvious purpose.

No

Representation ID: 88279

Received: 14/02/2025

Respondent: Mrs Shoshana Stokes

The infrastructure in this area will NOT support the level of development proposed. All larger shops/retail parks are South Leamington, the schools in the area are already oversubscribed, the nearest hospital, Warwick, only last month declared a critical incident, the road links are not there and developing would put significant pressure on the existing network of roads available. There has already been severe local disruption due to the failed HS2 project and yet more damage to the local countryside would be incredibly detrimental. New houses should not be erected at cost to local existing residents.

No

Representation ID: 88375

Received: 15/02/2025

Respondent: Mrs Viki McNulty

We do not need more houses spoiling our surroundings and adding additional pressure to our roads and networks

No

Representation ID: 88429

Received: 15/02/2025

Respondent: Mr A Patrick

The topography of this area provides valuable walking exercise and open views for health/recreation. These qualities are not valued enough by planners. Any development here should be designed to preserve these features for existing and new residents. In general edge of town development is the worst for generating car trips. Proximity to bus stops is of no value unless the bus service is markedly improved - and that would require town wide constraints on car use. Cycle path access to local facilities outside the development would also be required, which patchwork developments never deliver.

No

Representation ID: 88481

Received: 16/02/2025

Respondent: Mr Ben Kelsey

I live in cubbington and think it would be devastating to have the SG05 build go ahead. I have a young family and really don't want the extra pollution and building works ruin there experience of growing up. The traffic will also be a disaster

No

Representation ID: 88482

Received: 16/02/2025

Respondent: Mrs Annabel Sims

Loss of green belt amenity
Lack of school places
Lack of doctors/dentists
Lack of large supermarkets - all are south side of Leamington
Poor road infrastructure - route to Leamington is very congested

No

Representation ID: 88509

Received: 16/02/2025

Respondent: Mrs Jane Neale

Increased traffic onto already busy roads. Are you trying to emulate the traffic chaos seen in south Leamington?
Increase in traffic pollution
Impact on doctors, schools, police and the local hospitals will not have been considered

No

Representation ID: 88620

Received: 17/02/2025

Respondent: Mr Jerry Corless

Large amount of open countryside already spoilt by HS2 works the remaining open land is a valuable resource.

Other

Representation ID: 88660

Received: 17/02/2025

Respondent: Mr Ian Middleton

I do not object to infilling the gap between Lillington and Cubbington. Thwaites is the only major employer in the vicinity. Area should be reserved for Thwaites to expand in the future should their need arise. Failure to do this may hamper and ultimately close Thwaites. Without outline details of infrastructure (eg new shops, schools, etc), this adds to congestion on the Leam bridges as access to main supermarkets. Also need to consider commuting distances to work locations.

Yes

Representation ID: 88683

Received: 17/02/2025

Respondent: Mr Crispin Passmore

More housing here. Mix of affordable to buy, for private sale, for private rent and social housing pepper potted to standard designs

No

Representation ID: 88789

Received: 17/02/2025

Respondent: Mrs Claire Evans

This is inappropriate development of green belt land and will impact the character of Cubbington village. I do not feel the current infrastructure particularly the road system, schools and access to larger supermarkets is appropriate for such a large development.

No

Representation ID: 88858

Received: 18/02/2025

Respondent: Mr Ian Henderson

SG06 meets all 5 purposes of a green belt. The assessment made in the consultants report does not adequately reflect the benefit to local people of this area of land which is extensively used for recreational purposes while respecting the high quality of its agricultural use and its contribution to local biodiversity.
Previous attempts to build on this land have been vigorously rejected by planning inspectors.
There is no need to build on green belt land to achieve the required number of new dwellings.
Also development of SG06 will undoubtedly result in significant car use in and around Leamington.

No

Representation ID: 88902

Received: 18/02/2025

Respondent: Mr W McMaster

Land at top of Oakridge Road prone to extreme flooding during heavy rain. This causes excess water to come off field onto side path and back gardens of number 21 and many other properties in the area. Due to extremely poor drainage on field disturbing the land and building houses would exasperate the problem. This would cause more water problems/flooding in the area. Work to rectify problem by Severn Trent years ago made flooding worse for Oakridge Road and many other roads in the area. Access onto field from Oakridge Road totally unsuitable. Road too narrow.

No

Representation ID: 88947

Received: 19/02/2025

Respondent: Ms Zoe Adams

Additional housing in Lillington would be detrimental to wildlife, businesses and the already increased traffic causing it to be dangerous.

No

Representation ID: 89018

Received: 19/02/2025

Respondent: Keith & Barbara Stanford

We do not wish to lose our identity as a village!

More traffic
Strain on schools
Strain on doctors surgeries
Potential flooding
Loss of countryside footpaths
Water efficiency
State of roads
Loss of trees
All of these items should be considered within this plan

Yes

Representation ID: 89029

Received: 19/02/2025

Respondent: Mrs Sara Bird

Close to existing infrastructure

No

Representation ID: 89179

Received: 19/02/2025

Respondent: Mrs Rowan Fisher

I am concerned that building a lot of housing on the edges of town will inevitably lead to more and more gridlock in the town centre. Particularly as weekly food shopping is all down one end of town. It would be good to see some plans for better public transport, more big supermarkets up the north end of town, etc, before welcoming this house building.

No

Representation ID: 89235

Received: 19/02/2025

Respondent: Mr Chris Rogers

No. The local schools are already at capacity or over subscribed, the waiting times at doctors are too long. The roads are in adequate already. Theres so many better sites nearer long bridge or nearer the A46 corridor

No

Representation ID: 89242

Received: 19/02/2025

Respondent: Mrs Melanie Balmer

We moved to the area last year to be in a village location with green belt areas, this would be completely destroyed with more new houses. The traffic is already heavy and any additional building would only make this worse. The area has already been impacted with a plot of new houses and the ongoing destruction oh HS2. Any further plots will impact house prices and cause people to relocate and should be compensated

No

Representation ID: 89250

Received: 19/02/2025

Respondent: Mrs Charlotte Smith

The area lies within the “green belt” this should be a protected and remain a protected area. Preserving the open space is vital to remain the area as agricultural land, not only this the area is enjoyed by local walkers and dog walkers. It is the habitat for wild animals.
Building on this area will increase risk of flooding due to the sloping landscape.
The roads are also unable to handle high volumes of traffic and will change the nature and beauty of area.

No

Representation ID: 89251

Received: 19/02/2025

Respondent: Mrs Charlotte Smith

The area lies within the “green belt” this should be a protected and remain a protected area. Preserving the open space is vital to remain the area as agricultural land, not only this the area is enjoyed by local walkers and dog walkers. It is the habitat for wild animals.
Building on this area will increase risk of flooding due to the sloping landscape.
The roads are also unable to handle high volumes of traffic and will change the nature and beauty of area.

Yes

Representation ID: 89256

Received: 19/02/2025

Respondent: Mrs Megan Smith

I am very conserved with the proposal of building on this site. I believe that it will have a detrimental effect to the whole of Cubbington and lillington in the future and open us up to flooding especially with the effects already seen with global warming. It will have a massive effect on the current wildlife and wildflowers in this area. We already have lost land to hs2. The road infrastructure is already struggling

Yes

Representation ID: 89323

Received: 20/02/2025

Respondent: Mr Paul Fulham

Cubbington is not suitable for the large amount of heavy duty traffic (as per HS2 restrictions travelling through the village) and yet the SG05 area is proposed for 1000’s of new homes. This is a quiet village location and yet we will be subjected to 1000’s new homes in the shape of characterless concrete Lego boxes. The infrastructure cannot cope with an influx of new families, 1000’s of cars, no new schools, or doctors surgeries or shops. I moved to Cubbington 3 months ago and the “searches” made no mention of new developments within the area, who should I sue?

No

Representation ID: 89402

Received: 20/02/2025

Respondent: Mrs Elizabeth Mottram

SG05 infill would merge the conurbations of Cubbington and Lillington, removing one key function of green belt. There is no A road adjacent, unlike other SG sites nearby, and the existing roads are already oversubscribed. The congestion caused by extra traffic (including public transport) crossing to South Leamington (eg. retail access) is already bad and would only worsen. Park and Ride from Blackdown would serve no purpose.

No

Representation ID: 89452

Received: 20/02/2025

Respondent: Mr Andrew Brooks

We need more green spaces, not less, for the health of the people and the natural world. Use Brownfield instead.

No

Representation ID: 89514

Received: 20/02/2025

Respondent: Miss Emily Carleton

Green belt land. Avoid wherever possible.

No

Representation ID: 89630

Received: 21/02/2025

Respondent: Mr Scott Hodges

I object to the proposed SG05 development in Cubbington as it lies within protected Green Belt land, essential for local food production and wildlife habitats. The site provides valuable green space for recreation and mental well-being. Its sloping, uneven terrain and natural springs present development challenges and increase flood risks. Windmill Hill is already a dangerous, congested road, and further development would worsen safety issues. This plan would also blur the distinct divide between Lillington and Cubbington, harming the village's character. I urge the council to reject this proposal to preserve our environment and infrastructure.

No

Representation ID: 89632

Received: 21/02/2025

Respondent: Mrs Barbara Munro

This will cause huge problems for the area.Traffic will be very heavy.Flooding will also be a problem