Overview

Object

Representation ID: 2920

Received: 21/03/2021

Respondent: Mr Bernard Poulter

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 ascertsined that it will not adversley 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).

Object

Representation ID: 3173

Received: 22/03/2021

Respondent: Mr Bernard Poulter

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 affectd.
If the Developer carries this out, they use tyheir 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.

Object

Representation ID: 5192

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Miss Teresa McDonell

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.

Object

Representation ID: 5297

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Mr Robin McDonell

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.

Object

Representation ID: 5758

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Mr Nick Jones

In the absence of certainty, the plan/project should not normally proceed (subject to the further exceptional tests set out in legislation).
There should 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.

Object

Representation ID: 5835

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Mr Roger Wilson

Why are you talking about mitigation again straightaway? The Sun Lane development is too close (within 2.5Km) and no amount of mitigation can reduce the damage to zero. In chapter 1, it states that an Authority can only approve a plan if it won't affect the integrity of the European site. Also in the absence of certainty, a plan / project should not normally proceed. Applying these criteria, the Sun Lane development should not proceed.

Object

Representation ID: 27711

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Persimmon Homes (West Yorkshire)

Agent: Lichfields

Para 3.1 - There is no justification for the exclusion of
development within 400m of the SPA/SAC. Neither the SPD nor the HRA presents any evidence of either ‘urban edge effects’ or ‘cat predation’. As suggested above this part of the policy should be removed and such reference to the policy in paragraph 3.1 of the SPD.

Paragraph 3.1 of the SPD provides an overview of the protection for the South Pennine Moors SPA/SAC and mitigation for impacts from development. The second bullet point is incorrect as if fails to make clear that in order to be supporting habitat for the SPA any land must actually support SPA birds (also see comments above on policy SP11). Given that there is now increased evidence regarding the absence of use of land surrounding the SPA by SPA birds this part of the SPD should be deleted entirely.

Support

Representation ID: 27912

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: CEG Land Promotions Ltd

Agent: Lichfields

The SPD sets out a means of mitigating recreational impacts under policy SP11, C, 3b. It should make clear in its introduction that this is the case. We have made comments above regarding the need for policy SP11 D to explicitly state to which part of the policy it applies. Within the SPD, there is brief reference (section 3.1 third bullet point) to the calculation of the financial contribution being the alternative (as per the policy) to the provision of a bespoke mitigation scheme provided pursuant to SP11 C 3 a. This should also be made clearer in the introduction to the document by way of clarification.