Substantially amend the policy to provide much greater clarity

There is no sound biodiversity basis for: (1) the designation of these corridors in principle and (2) their boundaries are ad hoc and not based on any precise ecological basis - for example they comprise a series of straight lines and pother cut through houses and gardens which clearly are not part fo a wildlife corridor

The wording is contradictory since the last para implies that the policy excludes householder applications but the policy is very wide ranging and would appear to apply to ALL development proposals.

The first 2 paras seem contradictory - para 1 allows development provided no adverse impact. Para 2 implies not development at all provided you can show not only there is no advisor impact but also there are no sequentlially preferable sites