5. References
Object
Draft South Pennine Moors SPA/SAC Planning Framework Supplementary Planning Document
Representation ID: 3279
Received: 22/03/2021
Respondent: Mr Bernard Poulter
Baines, in 1988, & Robson, in 1998 are both essentially out of date as reference works to Curlew populations.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.
Baines, in 1988, & Robson, in 1998 are both essentially out of date as reference works to Curlew populations.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.
Object
Draft South Pennine Moors SPA/SAC Planning Framework Supplementary Planning Document
Representation ID: 5244
Received: 24/03/2021
Respondent: Miss Teresa McDonell
Baines, in 1988, & Robson, in 1998 are both well out of date as reference works to Curlew populations.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 not to reference the latest information and take current expert views into consideration.
To reference Hoskin, Panter & lilley, and the HRA - this was produced last year without it being published for the public to review its findings and see their appropriateness is not common practice.
Baines, in 1988, & Robson, in 1998 are both well out of date as reference works to Curlew populations.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 not to reference the latest information and take current expert views into consideration.
To reference Hoskin, Panter & lilley, and the HRA - this was produced last year without it being published for the public to review its findings and see their appropriateness is not common practice.
Object
Draft South Pennine Moors SPA/SAC Planning Framework Supplementary Planning Document
Representation ID: 5323
Received: 24/03/2021
Respondent: Mr Robin McDonell
Baines, in 1988, & Robson, in 1998 are both wildly 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. This review must take the latest information and current expert opinion into consideration, or its whole validity be called into question.
Hoskin, Panter & lilley, and the HRA - this was produced last year but was not published for the public to review its findings & see their appropriateness is not common practice.
Baines, in 1988, & Robson, in 1998 are both wildly 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. This review must take the latest information and current expert opinion into consideration, or its whole validity be called into question.
Hoskin, Panter & lilley, and the HRA - this was produced last year but was not published for the public to review its findings & see their appropriateness is not common practice.
Object
Draft South Pennine Moors SPA/SAC Planning Framework Supplementary Planning Document
Representation ID: 5713
Received: 24/03/2021
Respondent: Mr Nick Jones
The references, Baines, in 1988, & Robson, in 1998 are both out of date and do not cover the recent situation regarding the Curlew. The Curlew Recovery Partnership should be approached to update yourselves and to provide input.
The references, Baines, in 1988, & Robson, in 1998 are both out of date and do not cover the recent situation regarding the Curlew. The Curlew Recovery Partnership should be approached to update yourselves and to provide input.
Object
Draft South Pennine Moors SPA/SAC Planning Framework Supplementary Planning Document
Representation ID: 5900
Received: 24/03/2021
Respondent: Mr Roger Wilson
Why isn't the Curlew Recovery Partnership involved as the definitive authority on Curlew populations. The Sun Lane site has a Curlew population.
Why isn't the Curlew Recovery Partnership involved as the definitive authority on Curlew populations. The Sun Lane site has a Curlew population.