Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) - Initial Screening
Support
Supporting Documents for the Draft South Pennine Moors SPA/SAC SPD
Representation ID: 2981
Received: 21/03/2021
Respondent: BANDAG - Keighley
This is difficult so please add to the appropriate consultations!
The SPD is applicable to developments across a large portion of Bradford District (within 7km of the SPA), and includes a large amount of HERITAGE including many conservation areas and listed buildings and natural environment designations (i.e. water mills on waterways that were engineered to speed up water flow (dams/weirs/fords etc - many still exists on the North Beck but are NOT FORMALLY PROTECTED even though they should protected by separate policies in the Core Strategy and new draft Local Plan which should have been subject to assessment through a full Sustainability Appraisal.
Keighley is older than Bradford and it heritage has as much right to be protected - particularly along the blue-green corridors!
This is difficult so please add to the appropriate consultations!
The SPD is applicable to developments across a large portion of Bradford District (within 7km of the SPA), and includes a large amount of HERITAGE including many conservation areas and listed buildings and natural environment designations (i.e. water mills on waterways that were engineered to speed up water flow (dams/weirs/fords etc - many still exists on the North Beck but are NOT FORMALLY PROTECTED even though they should protected by separate policies in the Core Strategy and new draft Local Plan which should have been subject to assessment through a full Sustainability Appraisal.
Keighley is older than Bradford and it heritage has as much right to be protected - particularly along the blue-green corridors!
Object
Supporting Documents for the Draft South Pennine Moors SPA/SAC SPD
Representation ID: 3365
Received: 22/03/2021
Respondent: Mr Bernard Poulter
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?
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
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?
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
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?
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?