INCONSISTANCY WITH PLANNING POLICY
We quote from ‘THE PLANNING SERVICE’ Planning Policy Statement 2 (PPS2) Planning and Nature Conservation.
“Development proposals within sites of national importance or outside, but likely to affect them, will be subject to special scrutiny. Where it is considered that such development will have significant adverse effect, directly or indirectly, on the site, it will not be permitted unless the reasons for the development clearly outweigh the value of the site itself. In considering proposals for development affecting such sites, the following matters will be taken into account:
• The potential damage to habitat species
• Opportunities for alternative siting or potential mitigating measures
• The possibility for replacement sites
• Opportunities to enhance nature conservation
• The importance of the proposed development to Northern Ireland”.
We quote from the Newry & Mourne District Area Plan 1986 -1999:
“Development proposals within hamlets will be considered on their merits including especially their ability to be satisfactorily integrated into the existing fabric. The development envisaged in such settlements will be on a very minor scale and is unlikely to more than in-filling and rounding off”.
The Planning Policy Statement 2 (PPS2) Planning and Nature Conservation contains many guidelines illustrating that the Ferry Project is contrary to its guidelines. We quote:
“Conservation of nature is of particular significance in NI, given its rich natural heritage and wildlife habitats, geological features . . . . . . It is important that this
natural heritage be conserved for future generations”.
CONSERVATION (Natural Habitats …) Regulations (NI) 1995
We quote: “Where a site hosts a priority habitat or species, approval may only be given if activities are for human health or public safety; have beneficial consequences of primary importance to the environment …”
PUBLIC BODIES ARE BOUND BY THE SAME REGULATIONS AS OTHER DEVELOPERS.