Wuthering Moors 47

welcomingWalshaw Moor Estate has had its planning application refused.

The reasons are quite interesting given the history of the site.

I see that the Bronte Society and the RSPB objected – clearly successfully – good for them in my opinion! in fact there were 41 objections and one letter of support. Where were Natural England in this case? I can’t see any comment from them – have I missed it?  Given that the application was refused partly on nature conservation grounds where were NE?

Read the Officer’s report for yourself and you may be struck by this passage: ‘Walshaw Moor Estate (the applicant) has disregarded the recommendations/conditions on a previous application 05/08861/FUL. The Estate has continued to make changes to a very precious and unique margin of the moors. The character of the unique landscapes of this upper valley are being harmed.


7 Replies to “Wuthering Moors 47”

  1. I enjoyed the statement in the Environmental Appraisal…

    “4.1.1 All breeding birds, other than pest species, are protected under the Wildlife and Countryside Act of 1981 when building a nest, rearing young or sitting on eggs. Some bird species, such as Barn Owl, are protected when near an active nest site.”

    Where do they get these ideas?

    And more to the point; some BF is paying for this drivel.

  2. Mark, if you read the officer’s report there are lots of references to comments from Natural England, including in the Conclusion. It would have been helpful if the local authority website had had the representations from the 42 people and organisations who commented, then we would have been able to see exactly what Natural England said.

    1. Guscollie – thank you. I did read the officer’s report but obviously not quite carefully enough. I’ve spotted one now. They are quite well hidden.

  3. You should be able to get the NE planning response under FOI if they don’t give it freely. I’d be tempted to ask for all the internal e-mails and supporting reports as well…

  4. Reading the report, these comments caught my eye…. “Granting of permission for the sheep barn and new access track will likely lead to further intensification, habitat degradation and disturbance which, in combination with the breaches of the conditions of the previous planning permission, is damaging to the qualifying features of the SPA/SAC. ”
    I wonder what the previous damaging breaches of conditions are…and what the council is doing to rectify this breach of the directive?

  5. How will something ever be favourable if you ignore the reason?




    Have these operations got planning permission from Calderdale and is Natural England going to admit they have written a SSSI 3 or 4 times the size of Lodge Hill off?

    1. Interesting that they mention enforcement action being undertaken. Are they [NE] not obliged to update documentation?

      I’m sure their PR/Media Dept. could construct some mealy mouthed waffle which could at least record the truth of ‘enforcement’ debacle?

      As an organisation one has to wonder what they are fit for (that’s not to say there aren’t good staff doing the best they can in difficult circumstances) – would a cull not be kinder, although I recognise that it is unlikely that they would be replaced. Maybe an independent review of SSSI ccondition status is in order?

      Perhaps also undertake independent assessment and monitoring of SSSI grouse moors in receipt of public funding?

      There are too many conflicts in Defra, time for a overhaul?

Comments are closed.