Object
Publication Draft
Representation ID: 65452
Received: 27/06/2014
Respondent: Jaqueline D'Arcy
Legally compliant? No
Sound? No
Duty to co-operate? No
Why have Warwick Castle and Warwick Racecourseinto one clause?
Objected to the development of both previously, upheld.
Why does Warwick Castle and Warwick racecourse warrant a separate clause in the Local Plan?
A public enquiry St Marys lands required
A management plan that was implemented from 2005, Why is a new " plan" is required? Why it should be part of the Local Plan.
A proposed hotel had previously been rejected by the planning committee as the site was deemed unsuitable. This undermines the Council's own planning committee decision from 2012, justification??
I wish to raise a number of objections to CT7 in the Local Plan.
Why have Warwick Castle and Warwick Racecourse
into one clause?
Warwick residents have objected to the development of both previously.
There are far more important visitor attractions in Warwick District, so why does Warwick Castle and Warwick racecourse warrant a separate clause in the Local Plan?
I would suggest a public enquiry St Marys lands as this is an on going saga.
St Mary Lands already has a management plan that was implemented from 2005, Why is a new " plan" is required? Why it should be part of the Local Plan.
A proposed hotel had previously been rejected by the planning committee as the site was deemed unsuitable. This undermines the Council's own planning committee decision from 2012, without out any justification.
Regards
Jaqueline D'Arcy