St Mary Lands already has a comprehensive management plan from 2005, there
is no explanation why a new "master plan" is required, or why it should
be part of the Local Plan, or how it will be constructed, or why a single
tenant ( whose tenancy runs out before the end of the local plan) is being
given a privileged position on input? Or how the obvious conflicts of
interest this could create would be mitigated?
Perhaps it would be better to have a general clause dealing with publicly
owned parks in warwick district and include within it St Mary Lands? Given
the planned for rapid population growth, surely the need for free access to
recreation spaces such as parkland is essential for public health , well
being and recreation. I suggest all identified in the recent topen space
audit carried out by WDC are included and listed as areas of planning
restraint where development would only be allowed in exceptional
circumstances.

In earlier consultations ( town centre plan) the general public was asked
if Warwick Racecourse should be treated as a special planning case and this
was rejected by an overwhelming majority, so it is bizarre that it has
reappeared at a late stage into the local plan?

In 3.142 should not all users of St Mary Lands be part of the input into a
new "master plan" as they were in drafting of the current plan?

Why is "visitor accommodation" mentioned there isn't any presently on
St Mary Lands and a proposed hotel was rejected by the planning committee
as the site was unsuitable, and the applicant did not use their right of
appeal?
This therefore appears to be a form of predetermination and undermines the
Council's own planning committee decision from 2012, without out any
justification?
There is no shortage of hotels in Warwick District or in Warwick with a
recent large hotel opening within 1 mile of this site and planning
permission for 120 bedroom one beside Morrison's which has not yet been
built. Further budget hotels would in fact damage the visitor economy , and
lead to smaller hotels and guest house closing. ( The Jockey Club in
objecting to the Premier Inn stated there was no enough demand for more
than one large budget hotel in Warwick). Evidence at planning was presented
demonstrating that additional hotels were merely likely to be part of an
economic substitution effect. Therefore why is the District Council wishing
to favour one private potential operator over existing businesses?
If the council is committed to "economic vitality" of the visitor
accommodation sector, surely any master plan for St Mary Lands which
includes a controversial hotel should seek to examine the likely economic
impact on existing businesses. If not why are the needs of the Jockey Club
rather than local independent businesses felt to be of more importance to
WDC?
Given that many local hotels have closed or might be in economic
difficulty, should there not be a clause in the local plan stating that no
additional large hotels ( more than 50 bedrooms) would be permitted without
an economic impact study?

CT7 mentions economic vitality of the racecourse, yet all the published
public evidence in the form of a BHA report on Horse Racing and the Jockey
Club accounts demonstrates five years of record profits and turnover. What
evidence has been presented of pressing economic need to hand over areas
of public park to Jockey Club control - given Jockey Club is already
making record profits ( and does not publish the data or accounts for
Warwick Racecourse which does not appear to be managed as a separate unit,
but is rather a subsidiary of Cheltenham Racecourse)?

There is no mention of the Warwick District Council Act 1984, half of which
specifically deals with St Mary Lands, this omission is bizarre. Some of
the proposals in CT7 appear to be in conflict with the Act of Parliament
- specifically the requirement to keep 25 hectares undeveloped and
available for public access and recreation.

I suggest an additional line that no development or masterplan would be
allowed which was in conflict with the Warwick District Council Act 1984,
might solve the issue?