Object
Draft South Pennine Moors SPA/SAC Planning Framework Supplementary Planning Document
Representation ID: 27744
Received: 24/03/2021
Respondent: Persimmon Homes (West Yorkshire)
Agent: Lichfields
The flow chart (Figure 2) in paragraph 3.3 is not correct with reference to supporting habitat. For the reasons set out above there can be no a Likely Significant Effect if it can be demonstrated through empirical evidence that SPA birds are not present on a development site.
Paragraph 3.4: This needs to be substantially rewritten should the draft Local Plan policies be updated.
Paragraphs 3.5 and 3.6: As with the HRA for the draft Local Plan, the SPD also entirely relies on evidence from Lowland Heathlands to justify the inclusion of a 400m development exclusion zone around the SPA. This approach is unsound as there is no empirical evidence for such effects upon upland and upland fringe areas. The HRA for the draft Local Plan is also providing generic impacts arising from the activities of domestic pets. The impact of domestic pets, particularly cats is not scientifically justified.
The SPD has provided a list of what is considered to be supporting habitat. The SPD gives no guidance regarding Improved grasslands that have been neglected. Will CBMDC consider such grassland as rough grazing?
Paragraphs 3.7 and 3.9: As with the HRA of the draft Local Plan, the approach to identifying supporting habitat for the SPA is fundamentally flawed. The approach adopted is to protect any habitat outside the SPA which could support SPA birds whereas the correct approach is to establish whether or not SPA birds are in fact using land adjacent to the SPA. Given that there is increasing evidence that birds do not move between the SPA and surrounding land it is evident that this approach is flawed and not required to protect the SPA.
Paragraph 3.10: As set out above the basic premise of how functionally linked land is identified is incorrect. If this policy is to be retained reference to the 1% ‘rule of thumb’ should state that the breeding bird assemblage which is the interest feature of the site much be considered as a whole. The population is therefore, the number of SPA birds in the assemblage NOT the numbers of the individual species.
Paragraph 3.11: The premise is incorrect, modelling will not establish if land is or is not supporting habitat for the SPA, only the confirmed presence of SPA birds will determine where land is functionally linked or not. Evidence is now amassing to show that movements to and from the SPA are not frequent or regular.
These representations have been prepared by Lichfields on behalf of Persimmon Homes (West Yorkshire) (“Persimmon”) to the public consultation on the Draft Bradford District Local Plan – Preferred Options (regulation 18) consultation draft (February 2021).
The representation is made specifically in relation to land at Bolton Road, Silsden where Persimmon have an option agreement to purchase land for development, and where preapplication discussions are ongoing regarding the site’s development for housing.
PLEASE REFER TO THE SUBMISISON FILES IN THE ATTACHMENTS