Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) - Initial Screening

Showing comments and forms 1 to 3 of 3

Object

Supporting Documents for the Draft South Pennine Moors SPA/SAC SPD

Representation ID: 3365

Received: 22/03/2021

Respondent: Mr Bernard Poulter

Representation:

I fundamentaly disagree with item 5 and its conclusions.
The screening process should have accepted that the SPD is NOT an addition to the current policy SC8, it is designed as a complete replacement for it, and this is referred to in the SPD itself numerous times. The new policy is designated as SD11, according to the SPD.
As the entire focus of the SPD is one of mitigation on the effects of Recreation on the SPA/SAC, it does not do anything to continue to protect from Urban effects.
Other than brief mentions in the appendices of legislative requirements , it does nothing to reassure the reader that it will be an effective tool in protecting the SPA/SAC from further deterioration.
Item (d): Is there likely to be a significant effect? : if the answer isn't "YES", then the entire focus of the SPD is wasted!
E)Allnew developments?Sun Lane?

Full text:

I fundamentaly disagree with item 5 and its conclusions.
The screening process should have accepted that the SPD is NOT an addition to the current policy SC8, it is designed as a complete replacement for it, and this is referred to in the SPD itself numerous times. The new policy is designated as SD11, according to the SPD.
As the entire focus of the SPD is one of mitigation on the effects of Recreation on the SPA/SAC, it does not do anything to continue to protect from Urban effects.
Other than brief mentions in the appendices of legislative requirements , it does nothing to reassure the reader that it will be an effective tool in protecting the SPA/SAC from further deterioration.
Item (d): Is there likely to be a significant effect? : if the answer isn't "YES", then the entire focus of the SPD is wasted!
E)Allnew developments?Sun Lane?

Object

Supporting Documents for the Draft South Pennine Moors SPA/SAC SPD

Representation ID: 5277

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Miss Teresa McDonell

Representation:

I fundamentally disagree with item 5 and its conclusions.
The screening process should have accepted that the SPD is not an addition to the current policy SC8, it is designed as a complete replacement for it, and this is referred to in the SPD itself numerous times. The new policy is designated as SD11, according to the SPD.
As the entire focus of the SPD is one of mitigation on the effects of Recreation on the SPA/SAC, it doesn't do anything to continue to protect from Urban effects.
Other than brief mentions in the appendices of legislative requirements, it does nothing to reassure the reader that it will be an effective tool in protecting the SPA/SAC from further deterioration.
Item (d): Is there likely to be a significant effect? : if the answer isn't "YES", then the entire focus of the SPD is wasted.
E) All new developments? Sun Lane?

Full text:

I fundamentally disagree with item 5 and its conclusions.
The screening process should have accepted that the SPD is not an addition to the current policy SC8, it is designed as a complete replacement for it, and this is referred to in the SPD itself numerous times. The new policy is designated as SD11, according to the SPD.
As the entire focus of the SPD is one of mitigation on the effects of Recreation on the SPA/SAC, it doesn't do anything to continue to protect from Urban effects.
Other than brief mentions in the appendices of legislative requirements, it does nothing to reassure the reader that it will be an effective tool in protecting the SPA/SAC from further deterioration.
Item (d): Is there likely to be a significant effect? : if the answer isn't "YES", then the entire focus of the SPD is wasted.
E) All new developments? Sun Lane?

Object

Supporting Documents for the Draft South Pennine Moors SPA/SAC SPD

Representation ID: 5341

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Mr Robin McDonell

Representation:

I fundamentally disagree with item 5 and its conclusions.
The screening process should have accepted that the SPD isn't an addition to the current policy SC8, it is designed as a complete replacement for it, and this is referred to in the SPD itself numerous times. The new policy is designated as SD11, according to the SPD.
As the entire focus of the SPD is one of mitigation on the effects of Recreation on the SPA/SAC, it doesn't do anything to continue to protect from Urban effects.
Other than brief mentions in the appendices of legislative requirements , it does nothing to reassure the reader that it will be an effective tool in protecting the SPA/SAC from further deterioration.
Item (d): Is there likely to be a significant effect? : if the answer isn't "YES", then the entire focus of the SPD is wasted!
E) All new developments? Sun Lane?

Full text:

I fundamentally disagree with item 5 and its conclusions.
The screening process should have accepted that the SPD isn't an addition to the current policy SC8, it is designed as a complete replacement for it, and this is referred to in the SPD itself numerous times. The new policy is designated as SD11, according to the SPD.
As the entire focus of the SPD is one of mitigation on the effects of Recreation on the SPA/SAC, it doesn't do anything to continue to protect from Urban effects.
Other than brief mentions in the appendices of legislative requirements , it does nothing to reassure the reader that it will be an effective tool in protecting the SPA/SAC from further deterioration.
Item (d): Is there likely to be a significant effect? : if the answer isn't "YES", then the entire focus of the SPD is wasted!
E) All new developments? Sun Lane?