The Habitats Regulations
Support
Draft South Pennine Moors SPA/SAC Planning Framework Supplementary Planning Document
Representation ID: 273
Received: 18/02/2021
Respondent: Mr Paul Godwin
Maintaining the habitat for wildlife should be a key objective. I am concerned that it seems based on the vagaries or developer contributions
Maintaining the habitat for wildlife should be a key objective. I am concerned that it seems based on the vagaries or developer contributions
Support
Draft South Pennine Moors SPA/SAC Planning Framework Supplementary Planning Document
Representation ID: 2844
Received: 21/03/2021
Respondent: Mr Bernard Poulter
In 2.5 You identify that an HRA should assess any "possible harm", yet the work continues to immediatley 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?
In 2.5 You identify that an HRA should assess any "possible harm", yet the work continues to immediatley 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?
Object
Draft South Pennine Moors SPA/SAC Planning Framework Supplementary Planning Document
Representation ID: 5182
Received: 24/03/2021
Respondent: Miss Teresa McDonell
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?
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?
Object
Draft South Pennine Moors SPA/SAC Planning Framework Supplementary Planning Document
Representation ID: 5288
Received: 24/03/2021
Respondent: Mr Robin McDonell
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?
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?
Support
Draft South Pennine Moors SPA/SAC Planning Framework Supplementary Planning Document
Representation ID: 5736
Received: 24/03/2021
Respondent: SHMS
Protection of habits also links into climate change and pollution, activities experienced by farmers during the pandemic highlight more work is needed both with the Conservation of Habitats and species Amendment (EU exit) Regulations 2019 which should also link in with the Environment Bill and flood prevention measures (natural wetlands). A pro active approach rather than re-active when ecologically important species have been lost Which is particular important to rural areas in the Bradford District.
Protection of habits also links into climate change and pollution, activities experienced by farmers during the pandemic highlight more work is needed both with the Conservation of Habitats and species Amendment (EU exit) Regulations 2019 which should also link in with the Environment Bill and flood prevention measures (natural wetlands). A pro active approach rather than re-active when ecologically important species have been lost Which is particular important to rural areas in the Bradford District.
Object
Draft South Pennine Moors SPA/SAC Planning Framework Supplementary Planning Document
Representation ID: 5743
Received: 24/03/2021
Respondent: Mr Nick Jones
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?
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?
Object
Draft South Pennine Moors SPA/SAC Planning Framework Supplementary Planning Document
Representation ID: 5806
Received: 24/03/2021
Respondent: Mr Roger Wilson
2.8 mentions net gains for biodiversity. How is this measured? How can there be a net gain if the habitat of the deer, curlews, red kites, pheasant, barn owls is set to be destroyed? There might be a numerical gain but that ignores the unique status of the Sun Lane site for supporting rare wildlife.
2.8 mentions net gains for biodiversity. How is this measured? How can there be a net gain if the habitat of the deer, curlews, red kites, pheasant, barn owls is set to be destroyed? There might be a numerical gain but that ignores the unique status of the Sun Lane site for supporting rare wildlife.