Object
Draft South Pennine Moors SPA/SAC Planning Framework Supplementary Planning Document
Representation ID: 3317
Received: 22/03/2021
Respondent: Mr Bernard Poulter
In 5.2 & 5.4 you recognise recreation and Urban effects as seperate issues, and yet the ENTIRETY of your strategy is aimed at mitigating Recreational use.In 5.6, you recognise that development has the potential to undermine the conservation objectives, and yet, despite 2 years of these exact concerns playing out across the Moors, you STILL do not give them a higher priority.
In 5.6, you recognise that the Supplementary conservation advice for the SPA refers directly to the importance of "Functional Land" to achieving the breeding objectives of the area, and yet this isnt given the same weight in decision making...its simply handed over to the deveolper to carry out the survey to see if the land is functional.
This is so obviously akin to asking Turkeys to vote for Christmas!
In 5.2 & 5.4 you recognise recreation and Urban effects as seperate issues, and yet the ENTIRETY of your strategy is aimed at mitigating Recreational use.In 5.6, you recognise that development has the potential to undermine the conservation objectives, and yet, despite 2 years of these exact concerns playing out across the Moors, you STILL do not give them a higher priority.
In 5.6, you recognise that the Supplementary conservation advice for the SPA refers directly to the importance of "Functional Land" to achieving the breeding objectives of the area, and yet this isnt given the same weight in decision making...its simply handed over to the deveolper to carry out the survey to see if the land is functional.
This is so obviously akin to asking Turkeys to vote for Christmas!