Draft South Pennine Moors SPA/SAC Planning Framework Supplementary Planning Document

Support

Representation ID: 27645

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Persimmon Homes (West Yorkshire)

Agent: Lichfields

POLICY CO1 D - The proposed amendments to Policy SP11 that are described separately will ensure that reference to the provision of new recreational greenspace, or improved open space as having the potential to mitigate recreational pressure on the SPA/SAC is consistent with the provision of Policy SP11 and the accompanying SPD.

Zone C - Local Plan Policy SP11 Section D referenced the ‘roof tax’ approach to mitigation of recreational effects that the Council is proposing to introduce through the SPD as such the policy should be clearly linked to policy SP11, C 3 b which it addresses. We suggest the following update to the wording of the text.
The South Pennine Moors SPD sets out a strategic mitigation scheme and a mechanism for the calculation of the financial contributions under INS<policy SP11, C, 3b> to mitigate recreational impacts on the SPA and SAC as a consequence of housing growth and subsequent population increases.

Object

Representation ID: 27710

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Persimmon Homes (West Yorkshire)

Agent: Lichfields

The SPD perpetuates the errors that have been incorporated into policy as set out in our detailed comments above. The SPD needs to be substantially rewritten to reflect the required changes to the polices that are needed in order the make the policies legally compliant.

Object

Representation ID: 27711

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Persimmon Homes (West Yorkshire)

Agent: Lichfields

Para 3.1 - There is no justification for the exclusion of
development within 400m of the SPA/SAC. Neither the SPD nor the HRA presents any evidence of either ‘urban edge effects’ or ‘cat predation’. As suggested above this part of the policy should be removed and such reference to the policy in paragraph 3.1 of the SPD.

Paragraph 3.1 of the SPD provides an overview of the protection for the South Pennine Moors SPA/SAC and mitigation for impacts from development. The second bullet point is incorrect as if fails to make clear that in order to be supporting habitat for the SPA any land must actually support SPA birds (also see comments above on policy SP11). Given that there is now increased evidence regarding the absence of use of land surrounding the SPA by SPA birds this part of the SPD should be deleted entirely.

Object

Representation ID: 27744

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Persimmon Homes (West Yorkshire)

Agent: Lichfields

The flow chart (Figure 2) in paragraph 3.3 is not correct with reference to supporting habitat. For the reasons set out above there can be no a Likely Significant Effect if it can be demonstrated through empirical evidence that SPA birds are not present on a development site.

Paragraph 3.4: This needs to be substantially rewritten should the draft Local Plan policies be updated.

Paragraphs 3.5 and 3.6: As with the HRA for the draft Local Plan, the SPD also entirely relies on evidence from Lowland Heathlands to justify the inclusion of a 400m development exclusion zone around the SPA. This approach is unsound as there is no empirical evidence for such effects upon upland and upland fringe areas. The HRA for the draft Local Plan is also providing generic impacts arising from the activities of domestic pets. The impact of domestic pets, particularly cats is not scientifically justified.

The SPD has provided a list of what is considered to be supporting habitat. The SPD gives no guidance regarding Improved grasslands that have been neglected. Will CBMDC consider such grassland as rough grazing?

Paragraphs 3.7 and 3.9: As with the HRA of the draft Local Plan, the approach to identifying supporting habitat for the SPA is fundamentally flawed. The approach adopted is to protect any habitat outside the SPA which could support SPA birds whereas the correct approach is to establish whether or not SPA birds are in fact using land adjacent to the SPA. Given that there is increasing evidence that birds do not move between the SPA and surrounding land it is evident that this approach is flawed and not required to protect the SPA.

Paragraph 3.10: As set out above the basic premise of how functionally linked land is identified is incorrect. If this policy is to be retained reference to the 1% ‘rule of thumb’ should state that the breeding bird assemblage which is the interest feature of the site much be considered as a whole. The population is therefore, the number of SPA birds in the assemblage NOT the numbers of the individual species.

Paragraph 3.11: The premise is incorrect, modelling will not establish if land is or is not supporting habitat for the SPA, only the confirmed presence of SPA birds will determine where land is functionally linked or not. Evidence is now amassing to show that movements to and from the SPA are not frequent or regular.

Object

Representation ID: 27746

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Persimmon Homes (West Yorkshire)

Agent: Lichfields

The justification for a dedicated ranger service is reasonable given the need to stop unwanted behaviour and manage visitor pressure, however the justification is argued to be to prevent bird disturbance and/or displacement? There is no evidence that the visitor levels to the South Pennine Moors SPA are having adverse effects upon the bird species that are the interest features of the site. The authors have relied upon experience of lowland heath habitats which are much more accessible as the terrain is generally flat and the ground underfoot is dry. Use of upland habitat is generally confined to established paths, because access to areas such as blanket bog (a habitat which covers a considerable proportion of the South Pennine Moors) is very difficult given the wet nature of this habitat type. Again, the authors reliance on evidence from lowland heaths exposes the flaws in the approach.

Object

Representation ID: 27748

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Persimmon Homes (West Yorkshire)

Agent: Lichfields

Appendix 4: £510,000 is allocated to SANGs (Suitably Accessible Natural Greenspace) and included in the levy on households. While SANGs are widely used to divert walkers away from lowland heaths the authors have presented no evidence to show that SANGs would work to divert recreation pressure away from upland moors. The cost of SANG provision through the ‘roof tax’ is considerable however there is no evidence provided to demonstrate that it is necessary or that SANG will work.