Evidence to underpin the zones
Object
Draft South Pennine Moors SPA/SAC Planning Framework Supplementary Planning Document
Representation ID: 3327
Received: 22/03/2021
Respondent: Mr Bernard Poulter
There is counless metadata'd photographic evidence available from local residents to the planning officers for them to see if there are species listed, using the proposed areas as functional land. This then should trigger the commisioning of an independent HRA .
5.11 Fails to identify the residents of areas within the 2.5km zone as active walking users of the SPC/SAC areas. It is not factual to only identify those resident within 400m in this group..at least 50% of the population of Burley-in-Wharfedale, for example, will have walked from home to the moors.
5.14 OutofDate references.
5.15,16,17,18,19: Visitor data is now 3years old and extremely unreflective of current usage.
5.21: Table 3 correctly identifies numerous impacts on the SPC/SAC areas, which should be divided into those that cannot be policed & those that can. If there is a high level of risk, development should not be given permission, regardless of mitigation.
There is counless metadata'd photographic evidence available from local residents to the planning officers for them to see if there are species listed, using the proposed areas as functional land. This then should trigger the commisioning of an independent HRA .
5.11 Fails to identify the residents of areas within the 2.5km zone as active walking users of the SPC/SAC areas. It is not factual to only identify those resident within 400m in this group..at least 50% of the population of Burley-in-Wharfedale, for example, will have walked from home to the moors.
5.14 OutofDate references.
5.15,16,17,18,19: Visitor data is now 3years old and extremely unreflective of current usage.
5.21: Table 3 correctly identifies numerous impacts on the SPC/SAC areas, which should be divided into those that cannot be policed & those that can. If there is a high level of risk, development should not be given permission, regardless of mitigation.
Object
Draft South Pennine Moors SPA/SAC Planning Framework Supplementary Planning Document
Representation ID: 5258
Received: 24/03/2021
Respondent: Miss Teresa McDonell
Incorrect and issues with data
There is countless metadata'd photographic evidence available from local residents to the planning officers for them to see if there are species listed, using the proposed areas as functional land. This then should trigger the commissioning of an independent HRA .
5.11 Fails to identify the residents of areas within the 2.5km zone as active walking users of the SPC/SAC areas. It is not factual to only identify those resident within 400m in this group. At least 50% of the population of Burley-in-Wharfedale, for example, will have walked from home to the moors.
5.14 Out-of-date references.
5.15,16,17,18,19: Visitor data is now 3years old and extremely unreflective of current usage.
5.21: Table 3 correctly identifies numerous impacts on the SPC/SAC areas, which should be divided into those that cannot be policed & those that can. If there is a high level of risk, development should not be given permission, regardless of mitigation.
Object
Draft South Pennine Moors SPA/SAC Planning Framework Supplementary Planning Document
Representation ID: 5331
Received: 24/03/2021
Respondent: Mr Robin McDonell
There is countless metadata'd photographic evidence available from local residents to the planning officers for them to see if there are species listed, using the proposed areas as functional land.This then should trigger the commissioning of an independent HRA .
5.11 Fails to identify the residents of areas within the 2.5km zone as active walking users of the SPC/SAC areas. It is not factual to only identify those resident within 400m in this group. At least 50% of the population of Burley-in-Wharfedale, for example, will have walked from home to the moors.
5.14 Out-of-date references.
5.15,16,17,18,19: Visitor data is now 3years old and extremely unreflective of current usage.
5.21: Table 3 correctly identifies numerous impacts on the SPC/SAC areas, which should be divided into those that cannot be policed & those that can. If there is a high level of risk, development should not be given permission, regardless of mitigation.
There is countless metadata'd photographic evidence available from local residents to the planning officers for them to see if there are species listed, using the proposed areas as functional land.This then should trigger the commissioning of an independent HRA .
5.11 Fails to identify the residents of areas within the 2.5km zone as active walking users of the SPC/SAC areas. It is not factual to only identify those resident within 400m in this group. At least 50% of the population of Burley-in-Wharfedale, for example, will have walked from home to the moors.
5.14 Out-of-date references.
5.15,16,17,18,19: Visitor data is now 3years old and extremely unreflective of current usage.
5.21: Table 3 correctly identifies numerous impacts on the SPC/SAC areas, which should be divided into those that cannot be policed & those that can. If there is a high level of risk, development should not be given permission, regardless of mitigation.
Object
Draft South Pennine Moors SPA/SAC Planning Framework Supplementary Planning Document
Representation ID: 5927
Received: 24/03/2021
Respondent: Mr Roger Wilson
An independent HRA should be commissioned as many of the listed species live in or sufficiently close to the proposed development area. Burley-in-Wharfedale residents have been photographing the resident wildlife to provide proof of which species are there.
The references in Table 2 are hugely out of date. They undermine the veracity of the document.
An independent HRA should be commissioned as many of the listed species live in or sufficiently close to the proposed development area. Burley-in-Wharfedale residents have been photographing the resident wildlife to provide proof of which species are there.
The references in Table 2 are hugely out of date. They undermine the veracity of the document.