Object
Draft South Pennine Moors SPA/SAC Planning Framework Supplementary Planning Document
Representation ID: 5299
Received: 24/03/2021
Respondent: Mr Robin McDonell
The original work done on behalf of the council provided a secure area for wildlife recognised as threatened to feed & nest.
The actions of the developer, CEG, then ended with the entire policy and its zones being re-written, and the protection that your maps so ably demonstrate as being needed, removed in favour of a developer funded mitigation.
Even when Natural England agreed to the "final Draft", after expressing numerous concerns, this was challenged further.... all with the specific aim of brining the site BU/01 into play for CEG. As the schematic shows, there exists the narrowest of corridors between the Moor and the river, allowing for wildlife corridors.
The mitigation proposed has all sides of the moor to defend, as well as the moorland above the Aire Valley.
Too few resources are being proposed to competently deal with the potential damage. A sticking plaster on a crevasse ,perhaps?
The original work done on behalf of the council provided a secure area for wildlife recognised as threatened to feed & nest.
The actions of the developer, CEG, then ended with the entire policy and its zones being re-written, and the protection that your maps so ably demonstrate as being needed, removed in favour of a developer funded mitigation.
Even when Natural England agreed to the "final Draft", after expressing numerous concerns, this was challenged further.... all with the specific aim of brining the site BU/01 into play for CEG. As the schematic shows, there exists the narrowest of corridors between the Moor and the river, allowing for wildlife corridors.
The mitigation proposed has all sides of the moor to defend, as well as the moorland above the Aire Valley.
Too few resources are being proposed to competently deal with the potential damage. A sticking plaster on a crevasse ,perhaps?