Object
Draft South Pennine Moors SPA/SAC Planning Framework Supplementary Planning Document
Representation ID: 5328
Received: 24/03/2021
Respondent: Mr Robin McDonell
In 5.2 & 5.4 you recognise recreation and Urban effects as separate 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 isn’t given the same weight in decision making - it is simply handed over to the developer to carry out the survey to see if the land is functional. Surely this is always then going to be in favour of the developers?!
In 5.2 & 5.4 you recognise recreation and Urban effects as separate 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 isn’t given the same weight in decision making - it is simply handed over to the developer to carry out the survey to see if the land is functional. Surely this is always then going to be in favour of the developers?!