Relevant impacts of development
Object
Draft South Pennine Moors SPA/SAC Planning Framework Supplementary Planning Document
Representation ID: 3317
Received: 22/03/2021
Respondent: Mr Bernard Poulter
In 5.2 & 5.4 you recognise recreation and Urban effects as seperate issues, and yet the ENTIRETY of your strategy is aimed at mitigating Recreational use.In 5.6, you recognise that development has the potential to undermine the conservation objectives, and yet, despite 2 years of these exact concerns playing out across the Moors, you STILL do not give them a higher priority.
In 5.6, you recognise that the Supplementary conservation advice for the SPA refers directly to the importance of "Functional Land" to achieving the breeding objectives of the area, and yet this isnt given the same weight in decision making...its simply handed over to the deveolper to carry out the survey to see if the land is functional.
This is so obviously akin to asking Turkeys to vote for Christmas!
In 5.2 & 5.4 you recognise recreation and Urban effects as seperate issues, and yet the ENTIRETY of your strategy is aimed at mitigating Recreational use.In 5.6, you recognise that development has the potential to undermine the conservation objectives, and yet, despite 2 years of these exact concerns playing out across the Moors, you STILL do not give them a higher priority.
In 5.6, you recognise that the Supplementary conservation advice for the SPA refers directly to the importance of "Functional Land" to achieving the breeding objectives of the area, and yet this isnt given the same weight in decision making...its simply handed over to the deveolper to carry out the survey to see if the land is functional.
This is so obviously akin to asking Turkeys to vote for Christmas!
Object
Draft South Pennine Moors SPA/SAC Planning Framework Supplementary Planning Document
Representation ID: 5253
Received: 24/03/2021
Respondent: Miss Teresa McDonell
In 5.2 & 5.4 you recognise recreation and urban effects as separate issues, and yet the whole of your strategy is aimed at mitigating Recreational use. In 5.6, you recognise that development has the potential to undermine the conservation objectives, and yet, despite 2 years of these exact concerns playing out across the Moors, you still do not give them a higher priority.
In 5.6, you recognise that the Supplementary conservation advice for the SPA refers directly to the importance of "Functional Land" to achieving the breeding objectives of the area, and yet this isn’t given the same weight in decision making...its simply handed over to the developer to carry out the survey to see if the land is functional. This is only ever a one-sided argument!
In 5.2 & 5.4 you recognise recreation and urban effects as separate issues, and yet the whole of your strategy is aimed at mitigating Recreational use. In 5.6, you recognise that development has the potential to undermine the conservation objectives, and yet, despite 2 years of these exact concerns playing out across the Moors, you still do not give them a higher priority.
In 5.6, you recognise that the Supplementary conservation advice for the SPA refers directly to the importance of "Functional Land" to achieving the breeding objectives of the area, and yet this isn’t given the same weight in decision making...its simply handed over to the developer to carry out the survey to see if the land is functional. This is only ever a one-sided argument!
Object
Draft South Pennine Moors SPA/SAC Planning Framework Supplementary Planning Document
Representation ID: 5328
Received: 24/03/2021
Respondent: Mr Robin McDonell
In 5.2 & 5.4 you recognise recreation and Urban effects as separate issues, and yet the ENTIRETY of your strategy is aimed at mitigating Recreational use. In 5.6, you recognise that development has the potential to undermine the conservation objectives, and yet, despite 2 years of these exact concerns playing out across the Moors, you STILL do not give them a higher priority.
In 5.6, you recognise that the Supplementary conservation advice for the SPA refers directly to the importance of "Functional Land" to achieving the breeding objectives of the area, and yet this isn’t given the same weight in decision making - it is simply handed over to the developer to carry out the survey to see if the land is functional. Surely this is always then going to be in favour of the developers?!
In 5.2 & 5.4 you recognise recreation and Urban effects as separate issues, and yet the ENTIRETY of your strategy is aimed at mitigating Recreational use. In 5.6, you recognise that development has the potential to undermine the conservation objectives, and yet, despite 2 years of these exact concerns playing out across the Moors, you STILL do not give them a higher priority.
In 5.6, you recognise that the Supplementary conservation advice for the SPA refers directly to the importance of "Functional Land" to achieving the breeding objectives of the area, and yet this isn’t given the same weight in decision making - it is simply handed over to the developer to carry out the survey to see if the land is functional. Surely this is always then going to be in favour of the developers?!
Object
Draft South Pennine Moors SPA/SAC Planning Framework Supplementary Planning Document
Representation ID: 5913
Received: 24/03/2021
Respondent: Mr Roger Wilson
The Urban Effects are wide-ranging and yet they aren't given the weight they should be in this report. There seems to be a blinkered view solely of Recreational effects. What are you trying to hide? Why are these issues not covered?
Many of the references are out of date by many years, decades in some cases. This totally undermines the authority of the document.
The Urban Effects are wide-ranging and yet they aren't given the weight they should be in this report. There seems to be a blinkered view solely of Recreational effects. What are you trying to hide? Why are these issues not covered?
Many of the references are out of date by many years, decades in some cases. This totally undermines the authority of the document.