The zone approach

Object

Representation ID: 3182

Received: 22/03/2021

Respondent: Mr Bernard Poulter

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", aftyer 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?

Object

Representation ID: 5196

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Miss Teresa 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?

Object

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?

Object

Representation ID: 5759

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Mr Nick Jones

The original work done on behalf of BMDC 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. This is worrying!

Support

Representation ID: 5795

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: SHMS

Support but question whether this is working in practice, any mitigation appears to come along after development. Also have noticed issues with some ecology reports not being comprehensive enough, being picked up by council officers. Would question the practicality of not providing car parking identified in table 1 below. In addition several uncontrolled parking areas (rough ground) are common throughout the district This causes problems for enforcement and waste issues.

Object

Representation ID: 5844

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Mr Roger Wilson

These maps are out of date. CEG re-wrote the original council funded work to provide a secure wildlife area.

Support

Representation ID: 11588

Received: 17/03/2021

Respondent: Yorkshire Wildlife Trust

As mentioned above, we would welcome the expansion of Zone A to provide greater security over the retention and avoidance of indirect and cumulative impacts upon the SPA.

Inclusion of night-time surveys for potential supporting habitat surrounding the SPA should be considered given emerging work using thermal scopes identifying different land usages by waders between night and day.
We would support the inclusion for any development within close proximity to the SPA to enhance supporting habitat in the locality.

Support

Representation ID: 27645

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Persimmon Homes (West Yorkshire)

Agent: Lichfields

POLICY CO1 D - The proposed amendments to Policy SP11 that are described separately will ensure that reference to the provision of new recreational greenspace, or improved open space as having the potential to mitigate recreational pressure on the SPA/SAC is consistent with the provision of Policy SP11 and the accompanying SPD.

Zone C - Local Plan Policy SP11 Section D referenced the ‘roof tax’ approach to mitigation of recreational effects that the Council is proposing to introduce through the SPD as such the policy should be clearly linked to policy SP11, C 3 b which it addresses. We suggest the following update to the wording of the text.
The South Pennine Moors SPD sets out a strategic mitigation scheme and a mechanism for the calculation of the financial contributions under INS<policy SP11, C, 3b> to mitigate recreational impacts on the SPA and SAC as a consequence of housing growth and subsequent population increases.

Object

Representation ID: 27744

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Persimmon Homes (West Yorkshire)

Agent: Lichfields

The flow chart (Figure 2) in paragraph 3.3 is not correct with reference to supporting habitat. For the reasons set out above there can be no a Likely Significant Effect if it can be demonstrated through empirical evidence that SPA birds are not present on a development site.

Paragraph 3.4: This needs to be substantially rewritten should the draft Local Plan policies be updated.

Paragraphs 3.5 and 3.6: As with the HRA for the draft Local Plan, the SPD also entirely relies on evidence from Lowland Heathlands to justify the inclusion of a 400m development exclusion zone around the SPA. This approach is unsound as there is no empirical evidence for such effects upon upland and upland fringe areas. The HRA for the draft Local Plan is also providing generic impacts arising from the activities of domestic pets. The impact of domestic pets, particularly cats is not scientifically justified.

The SPD has provided a list of what is considered to be supporting habitat. The SPD gives no guidance regarding Improved grasslands that have been neglected. Will CBMDC consider such grassland as rough grazing?

Paragraphs 3.7 and 3.9: As with the HRA of the draft Local Plan, the approach to identifying supporting habitat for the SPA is fundamentally flawed. The approach adopted is to protect any habitat outside the SPA which could support SPA birds whereas the correct approach is to establish whether or not SPA birds are in fact using land adjacent to the SPA. Given that there is increasing evidence that birds do not move between the SPA and surrounding land it is evident that this approach is flawed and not required to protect the SPA.

Paragraph 3.10: As set out above the basic premise of how functionally linked land is identified is incorrect. If this policy is to be retained reference to the 1% ‘rule of thumb’ should state that the breeding bird assemblage which is the interest feature of the site much be considered as a whole. The population is therefore, the number of SPA birds in the assemblage NOT the numbers of the individual species.

Paragraph 3.11: The premise is incorrect, modelling will not establish if land is or is not supporting habitat for the SPA, only the confirmed presence of SPA birds will determine where land is functionally linked or not. Evidence is now amassing to show that movements to and from the SPA are not frequent or regular.

Support

Representation ID: 27913

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: CEG Land Promotions Ltd

Agent: Lichfields

It should be noted that the flow chart (Figure 2) in paragraph 3.3 is not correct where it references supporting habitat. For the reasons set out above there can be no a Likely Significant Effect if it can be demonstrated through empirical evidence that SPA birds are not present on a development site (see above). The flow chart does not allow for this possibility. It should also be made clear that the LSE test is not whether there are effect upon supporting habitat but rather whether there are effects on the interest features of the SPA birds as a result of effects on supporting habitat.