4. Developer contributions for recreation mitigation

Object

Representation ID: 19929

Received: 01/04/2021

Respondent: Natural England

While we are broadly in agreement with the three mitigation streams for recreational pressures we recommend that SPD acknowledges that the monitoring may identify the need for onsite (within the designated site) management and mitigation measures, such as footpath repair or remedial habitat management, which should play a role in the overall approach.

Notwithstanding this we consider the document to be clear and detailed and to provide an appropriate and robust approach to the mitigation of impacts from planning proposals on the South Pennine Moors SAC/ Phase 2 SPA. We recommend that it is adopted with the plan.

Object

Representation ID: 27746

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Persimmon Homes (West Yorkshire)

Agent: Lichfields

The justification for a dedicated ranger service is reasonable given the need to stop unwanted behaviour and manage visitor pressure, however the justification is argued to be to prevent bird disturbance and/or displacement? There is no evidence that the visitor levels to the South Pennine Moors SPA are having adverse effects upon the bird species that are the interest features of the site. The authors have relied upon experience of lowland heath habitats which are much more accessible as the terrain is generally flat and the ground underfoot is dry. Use of upland habitat is generally confined to established paths, because access to areas such as blanket bog (a habitat which covers a considerable proportion of the South Pennine Moors) is very difficult given the wet nature of this habitat type. Again, the authors reliance on evidence from lowland heaths exposes the flaws in the approach.