Draft South Pennine Moors SPA/SAC Planning Framework Supplementary Planning Document
Search representations
Results for SHMS search
New searchSupport
Draft South Pennine Moors SPA/SAC Planning Framework Supplementary Planning Document
2. Legislation and Policy
Representation ID: 5701
Received: 24/03/2021
Respondent: SHMS
Support but policy should be further enhanced in hindsight should have been much stronger. Damage done by fires, vehicles and ramblers during Covid from urban area unfamiliar with need to protect habitats and ecology of the area.
Support but policy should be further enhanced in hindsight should have been much stronger. Damage done by fires, vehicles and ramblers during Covid from urban area unfamiliar with need to protect habitats and ecology of the area.
Support
Draft South Pennine Moors SPA/SAC Planning Framework Supplementary Planning Document
The Habitats Regulations
Representation ID: 5736
Received: 24/03/2021
Respondent: SHMS
Protection of habits also links into climate change and pollution, activities experienced by farmers during the pandemic highlight more work is needed both with the Conservation of Habitats and species Amendment (EU exit) Regulations 2019 which should also link in with the Environment Bill and flood prevention measures (natural wetlands). A pro active approach rather than re-active when ecologically important species have been lost Which is particular important to rural areas in the Bradford District.
Protection of habits also links into climate change and pollution, activities experienced by farmers during the pandemic highlight more work is needed both with the Conservation of Habitats and species Amendment (EU exit) Regulations 2019 which should also link in with the Environment Bill and flood prevention measures (natural wetlands). A pro active approach rather than re-active when ecologically important species have been lost Which is particular important to rural areas in the Bradford District.
Support
Draft South Pennine Moors SPA/SAC Planning Framework Supplementary Planning Document
The zone approach
Representation ID: 5795
Received: 24/03/2021
Respondent: SHMS
Support but question whether this is working in practice, any mitigation appears to come along after development. Also have noticed issues with some ecology reports not being comprehensive enough, being picked up by council officers. Would question the practicality of not providing car parking identified in table 1 below. In addition several uncontrolled parking areas (rough ground) are common throughout the district This causes problems for enforcement and waste issues.
Support but question whether this is working in practice, any mitigation appears to come along after development. Also have noticed issues with some ecology reports not being comprehensive enough, being picked up by council officers. Would question the practicality of not providing car parking identified in table 1 below. In addition several uncontrolled parking areas (rough ground) are common throughout the district This causes problems for enforcement and waste issues.
Support
Draft South Pennine Moors SPA/SAC Planning Framework Supplementary Planning Document
The legal mechanism to secure developer contributions
Representation ID: 5826
Received: 24/03/2021
Respondent: SHMS
Support. CIL is not delivering the funding forecasted. However consider any development in the 0-7km zone should be a last resort after development in towns and city on pdl sites. Concern that the headroom(profit margin) identified in the CIL viability appraisal and consultation, will allow for an additional S106 cost and developers could seek to overide this in a site specific viability appraisal. Any needed funding for mitigation should be provided up front or in early stages of development to ensure mitigation measures are delivered in a timely manner (e.g. before specific site occupations) Also suggests developers are encouraged to contribute by incorporation of defensive hedgerows in preference to close boarding fencing, protect and supplement existing trees ( 1 fruit per garden minimum)
Support. CIL is not delivering the funding forecasted. However consider any development in the 0-7km zone should be a last resort after development in towns and city on pdl sites. Concern that the headroom(profit margin) identified in the CIL viability appraisal and consultation, will allow for an additional S106 cost and developers could seek to overide this in a site specific viability appraisal. Any needed funding for mitigation should be provided up front or in early stages of development to ensure mitigation measures are delivered in a timely manner (e.g. before specific site occupations) Also suggests developers are encouraged to contribute by incorporation of defensive hedgerows in preference to close boarding fencing, protect and supplement existing trees ( 1 fruit per garden minimum)
Object
Draft South Pennine Moors SPA/SAC Planning Framework Supplementary Planning Document
Appendix 3: Housing totals
Representation ID: 5848
Received: 24/03/2021
Respondent: SHMS
Not really an objection (do not support the previous higher housing numbers) However taking into account the reduced housing need (numbers) now identified, should this chart be updated and pro rata a higher rate per dwelling applied to ensure the same level of funding?. to be able to deliver the SPA improvements required
Not really an objection (do not support the previous higher housing numbers) However taking into account the reduced housing need (numbers) now identified, should this chart be updated and pro rata a higher rate per dwelling applied to ensure the same level of funding?. to be able to deliver the SPA improvements required
Object
Draft South Pennine Moors SPA/SAC Planning Framework Supplementary Planning Document
Appendix 5: Summary of tariff calculations
Representation ID: 5858
Received: 24/03/2021
Respondent: SHMS
Concern not objection. See comment earlier Appendix 3 regarding housing numbers
Concern not objection. See comment earlier Appendix 3 regarding housing numbers
