1. The Supplementary Planning Document

1. The document as drafted does not give enough emphasis or positive support for bespoke on or near site mitigation proposals for both recreation and habitat improvements/linkages etc ( see Dorset Heathlands SPD for a much more positive approach).
2. The title chosen for section 3 "Enabling Development" requires clarification and a distinction in the following text between enabling development to take place via proposed mitigation and the positive enabling contributions which can be made by proactive and co-operative landowners/developers where significant habitat and other environment enhancements can be achieved via the master planning and release of large areas of land associated with enabling residential development.
3. It is necessary to include recognition of the opportunities to create/enhance SANGS and the equivalent of HIPS alongside enabling development which in a number of cases will inevitably be located in tracts of Green Belt close to the urban area and in the 400m-2.5km zone of the SPA/SAC (see again section 4 of the Dorset Heathlands SPD March 2020).
4. In relation to comment 3 above we have already submitted master plan and written proposals to Bradford Council on large sites to the east and west of Ilkley which involve residential development proposals but where the majority of the landholdings are proposed for environmental enhancement, habitat improvements and associated recreation provision. We will also be submitting a major opportunity combining recreation and environmental enhancements in association with the two proposed residential allocations at Addingham (AD3/H & AD4/H). The provision for the delivery of such opportunities should not be excluded from this SPD. Text and clear policy guidance should be included which indicate the circumstances where such initiatives will be supported (see Dorset Heathlands SPD paras 4.18 to 4.21).
5. The document as drafted over-concentrates on the calculation of the recreation tariffs. Further guidance is required for landowners/developers on supporting habitat provision, habitat enhancement, linkages to biodiversity net gain, ecological networks.

Purpose of this SPD
1.3 "In the absence of certainty, the plan should not proceed", yet at
1.4 you move immediately to mitigation.
In 1.5 you identify additional recreation pressure, but fail to mention the other Urban effects on the SPA/SAC such as Dumping, wild fires, pollution through traffic increases, noise levels, volumes of particulates given off from vehicles, domestic chemical runoff, mountain biking, dog walking and fouling ,and , most dangerous of them all, Cat predation .
The deterioration and loss of supporting "Functional Habitats" is Key, especially after the devastating fires in 2019 & 2020
Section: The Habitats Regulations
In 2.5 You identify that an HRA should assess any "possible harm", yet the work continues to immediately support mitigation, rather than avoidance.
Under 2.8 you identify that the NPPF refers to "providing net gains for Biodiversity", yet you do not give any details throughout the SPD of just how that should be measured? Are you planning on using the DEFRA Biodiversity Metric 2.0 in your assessment?
Will the UK Biodiversity Indicators, produced by the JNCC be used, and how does the current work on indicator C1 'Protected Areas' tie in with your future plan?
Section: The Bradford Core Strategy and emerging Local Plan Review
In 2.11" latest standard method for assessing local housing need "This is not correct. The ONS and the National Statistics office are currently reviewing the way in which their work has been misinterpreted by several councils, in view of the migration away from certain cities within the last 4 years. This has not been accurately reflected in housing Predictions. The Aireborough case highlighted that the use of Greenbelt land was unnecessary.
You state that "With this scale of growth, their is likely to be a number of consequential risks to the moorland and other biodiversity features". All of Burley -in - Wharfedale is situated within 2.5km of the SPA/SAC, and therefore in the most delicate of zones of protection within the policy SC8.
To leap to mitigation strategy that cannot give certainty of protection, I refer to 1.3: "This means that in the absence of certainty, the project/plan should not normally proceed".
Section: Overview
Again, in para 2 , you state that " depending on these findings, ensure any impacts are addressed through mitigation..." and yet it is an accepted fact that mitigation cannot eliminate all the effects of development on the protected area when it is so close to the limit.
The statement at Chap.1. para 1.3 is preeminent at this point: " A competent Authority should only give effect to a plan.........after having ascertained that it will not adversely affect the integrity of the European Site. This means that in the absence of certainty, the plan/project should not normally proceed (subject to the further exceptional tests set out in legislation).
Section: Overview
There should also be a presumption against development within the 2.5 km zone unless it can clearly demonstrate through an independent HRA that there are no species affected.
If the Developer carries this out, they use their own retained ( and sometimes wholly owned) subsidiaries to carry out this work, primarily as a tick box, rather than as a true reflection of the species actually using a proposed site.
This results in Functional land being wrongly categorised as suitable with mitigation.
Section: The zone approach
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?

Section: Process for applications within different zones
In the flow chart: Define "Exceptional Circumstances (box 2)
2.5Km = YES, then crucial that Initial check of Habitat MUST be done by a truly independent specialist to evaluate "supporting Habitat"
AEOI ruled out alone or" in Combination" ...with what?
"LSE likely due to impacts from recreation: " What about ALL other LSE's from development. If its an elderly residential development, trampling is unlikely, but CAT predation is almost guaranteed.
"Developer devises suitable mitigation...." Why is this not a Duty of the Planning Officers? The developer has no interest in creating any scheme that may be costly and effective, but the BDMC officers can stipulate what must happen .
There is no overall firm policy that any development within 2.5km WILL provide substantial funding to your proposed mitigation strategy...and you even propose to allow them to pay in instalments.
Section: 3. Enabling development: the strategy
3.7: States "no credible risk" in following areas:
2nd bullet point should read Farm "BUILDINGS"
3rd,& 4th: within 25m of settlement boundary ( where you are trying in the Local Plan document, to tell us that B-i-W has no firm settlement boundaries) & within 25m of a main road. Where is the evidence to support this? Burley residents have ample metadata'd photographic evidence that this is very wrong.
5th Arable: note1:"...arable CAN be used by SPA species, but BDMC its considered of ltd importance beyond 400m"
Para 3.8: species stated. Curlew & lapwing are the two most seen types.
The citation on CURLEWS is 23yrs old, and not take account of the dramatic decline in species. Curlew now on the RED list, and subject to a massive national campaign to preserve them from extinction.
3.11 Must be an obligation to use.
3.12: NO WEBLINK to note 2
Table1:C: Sheltered etc: Visitors ?medical ?Transport ?Supplies ?Cats ?

Section: What is the developer contribution used for?
Whilst supporting the principle of developer contributions, there is no mention of use for minimising Fire Risks, and creating restricted access points/protected No-Go zones, banning of dogs off the lead, physical methods of disrupting and discouraging Cat Predation, and of creating new Bye-Laws to assist in the enforcement.
Para 3.15; BDMC is shying away from insisting that all developers create SANG's, and also missing the opportunity to apply this retrospectively, eiher to those developments with current PP but not yet brought to market, or to existing homes developed over the past 20 years to be funded with a unique precept charge annually to assist in funding the strategy.
The mitigation strategy needs a Governance Structure that allows Parish Councils & authorised bodies ( Emergency services, Natural England, RSPB, Curlew Recovery partnership etc)
Section: Level of growth to be mitigated
4.18: The single largest potential development in the Wharfe valley Area that is affected by this is the Sun Lane development of 500 homes, recently approved by the SoS for MHCLG. Although NO WORK has commenced, the CIL agreement is supposed to cover this HUGE impact on the moor, with the accepted reality that BDMC will use the funds in areas of deprivation in the city centre. This should be re-addressed.
4.19:The Figures printed in the local Plan Review you refer to are inaccurate. In Burley-in-Wharfedale they do not include the 92 Homes currently under initial construction works at the Greenholme Mill site.
4.20:Should be a greater weighting for properties within the 2.5km zone.
4.21The eventual number, after review & potential legal challenges, along with ONS reductions in forecast need, is likely to be more like 12,500. All funding formulae should utilise this figure to prevent having to repeat the exercise.
Section: Cost of mitigation and per dwelling tariff
4.23: Number should be based on 12500 rather than 17326 in light of reductions in targets. if no reductions, the scheme has more funding to use.
4.24: Using a base figure of 12500 units, the required contribution is around £520 per residential unit.
All of this is aimed at visitors, but they don't contribute..wheras locals will use the access etc outside warden employed hours.
Section: The legal mechanism to secure developer contributions
I completely agree with the use of S106 legal agreements to raise the funding.
4.28: Acknowledges that CIL was ineffective method of funding specific projects
4.29: Agree absolutely that "payment of the required funds on the commencement of the development" using the section 56 definition of the Town & country Planning Act 1990 .
4.31: Agree with the insistence on using a Council Prepared "standardised unilateral Form" pursuant to section 106 of the act. Developers throw all sorts of reasons why this is unfair, unworkable, impossible to finance etc, but on this ONE THING, BDMC must remain firm.
4.36: NO!! an instalments policy negates all the good done by the the above paragraph. Disturbance to the SPA/SAC starts as soon as the first bulldozer arrives on site. To allow developers to delay paying for this upfront puts the burden back on the Council Tax Payers . This is markedly unjust.
Section: Hosting of staff and delivery oversight
Whilst I applaud the Vision of this aspect of the strategy, I feel that by concentrating solely on wardening and education, those that permanently avoid obeying the rules will continue to fly Tip, Poach, illegally develop, destroy barriers, light fires and remove eggs.
there need to be a robust and enforceable suite of bye-laws, ready to be applied by the constabulary to provide an adequate deterrent to support the wardening programme.
4.41GOVERNANCE
This is a crucial aspect of the entire process, and requires the active cooperation of local councils, landowners, organisations such as the Ramblers, the conservation volunteers, RSPB, Curlew Recovery Partnership, Natural England, CPRE, and others, so that this becomes a combined effort to support the mitigation structure, as well as identify where it is inappropriately applied.
The recommendation of a "..small number of partners" is avoiding the reality of who actually uses the SPA/SAC areas.
Section: Monitoring
Monitoring IS essential to ensure the effectiveness of the strategy. To that end, in addition to the operational monitoring that the staff would be involved in as part of their role, I would suggest an outside Monitoring of the overall impact on populations and Biodiversity as a consequence of the strategy. This would need distinct Performance Indicators that had been agreed by the Governance function.
Its laudable to create something as positive as this proposed structure, but if it fails in its objectives of preserving the SPA/SAC from harm, then it must have a mechanism built in by which it can be then adjusted, & made suitable for purpose.
This should be done on a regular timescale...three monthly first year, 6 monthly second, then annually.
Section: 5. References
Baines, in 1988, & Robson, in 1998 are both essentially out of date as reference works to Curlew populations. The Curlew Recovery Partnership should be approached as a matter of urgency for their input into this work.
It is notable that DEFRA, MHCLG, and Natural England are actively involved , and funding this work. It would be a missed opportunity for this review to FAIL to take the latest information into consideration.
To reference Hoskin, Panter & lilley, and the HRA they produced this last year without it being published for the public to review its findings & see their appropriateness is not common practice.
Section: Appendix 2:
Appendix 2 effectively highlights all of the dangers from developments taking place in close proximity to the SPC/SAC, and yet it then seems to rely on impact data gathered before the dreadful Moor Fires, before the covid travel restrictions created an overwhelming volume of foot and vehicle traffic up onto the SPA/SAC, and ignores the devastating consequences for the wildlife populations and for the protected Flora species for which the area is listed.
This is the Information that should have been at the Front of this review. This is the crucial part that sets the framework, that then identifies the proposed mitigation strategy as actively encouraging the horse to bolt, & then shutting the door, partially, behind it!
Again, time and again, your authors refer to outdated reference works, undertaken 10years into the last century! For a document with potentially such a profound effect, this is simply not good enough.
Section: Relevant impacts of development
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...its simply handed over to the developer to carry out the survey to see if the land is functional.
This is so obviously akin to asking Turkeys to vote for Christmas!
Section: Evidence to underpin the zones
There is countless metadata'd photographic evidence available from local residents to the planning officers for them to see if there are species listed, using the proposed areas as functional land. This then should trigger the commissioning of an independent HRA .
5.11 Fails to identify the residents of areas within the 2.5km zone as active walking users of the SPC/SAC areas. It is not factual to only identify those resident within 400m in this group. At least 50% of the population of Burley-in-Wharfedale, for example, will have walked from home to the moors.
5.14 Out-of-date references.
5.15,16,17,18,19: Visitor data is now 3years old and extremely unreflective of current usage.
5.21: Table 3 correctly identifies numerous impacts on the SPC/SAC areas, which should be divided into those that cannot be policed & those that can. If there is a high level of risk, development should not be given permission, regardless of mitigation.

Section: Appendix 3: Housing totals
Under the heading of Burley-in-Wharfedale, you have inaccurate figures.
It shows 700 in the adopted Core Strategy, but then it shows 103 completions in the period 2013- 2020.
This figure is misleading.
You then identify a figure of 597 as the remaining requirement.
The Local Plan Review that is published in parallel with this SPD, and to which constant reference has been made throughout, shows Burley-in-Wharfedale as needing 610 houses, to be delivered via the notorious Sun Lane development, (500 units) and a site at Scalebor (110 units) [Table A para5.16.33] It wholly fails to include the 92 units commenced at Greenholme Mills.
None of the recent windfall sites within the Village are included, despite there being roughly 15 units under construction in various locations.
This shows that BDMC are not putting the protection of the Functional land within 2.5km of the SPC/SAC above EXTRA development over target, purely for profit.

Section: Appendix 4: Mitigation measures for recreation
Item "BBQ guidance & Leaflet for shops":- This should include details of the current Bye Laws restricting fire on the Moor, and penalties for abusing it.
Section: Appendix 5: Summary of tariff calculations
All the calculations are based on the predicted Housing numbers being accurate.
As I have shown earlier, both the overall total of demand, and the individual contributions outstanding from each area are subject to question.
If the total outstanding per location is as wrong across the board as it is in Burley in Wharfedale, then the figure is out by 16+%
If the final figure is adjusted as the ONS suggest it may be, then a further 20% reduction is likely.
As existing permissions and S106 agreements are in place already, no funding will be received from them, so the total number financing under this plan will be around 11,600.
That gives a per unit contribution of £561.00
Unless you identify this from the beginning, the whole plan, laudable though it is, is bound to fail.

Section: Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) - Initial Screening
I fundamentally disagree with item 5 and its conclusions.
The screening process should have accepted that the SPD is NOT an addition to the current policy SC8, it is designed as a complete replacement for it, and this is referred to in the SPD itself numerous times. The new policy is designated as SD11, according to the SPD.
As the entire focus of the SPD is one of mitigation on the effects of Recreation on the SPA/SAC, it does not do anything to continue to protect from Urban effects.
Other than brief mentions in the appendices of legislative requirements , it does nothing to reassure the reader that it will be an effective tool in protecting the SPA/SAC from further deterioration.
Item (d): Is there likely to be a significant effect? : if the answer isn't "YES", then the entire focus of the SPD is wasted!
E) All new developments? Sun Lane?

Draft Bradford District Local Plan (Regulation 18) consultation

I fully support Burley Parish Council response with regards to the above which is open for comments until 5pm today

Dawn Turner

Dear Local Plan Team

Thank you for consulting Natural England on the above. Please find attached our response to the Draft Bradford District Local Plan Preferred Options (Regulation 18) February 2021 including the Draft South Pennine Moors SPA/SAC Planning Framework Supplementary Planning Document, Habitats Regulations Assessment and Sustainability Appraisal.

If you have any further questions about this response please do not hesitate to contact me.

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