What is Brownfield Land

The definition of 'previously developed land'AKA brownfield (and which is shown in full under FAQ's) is a wide definition and specifically says that it excludes certain things. These include land that is or has been occupied for agricultural purposes. It therefore follows that agricultural land is NOT generally to be regarded as brownfield land. This makes perfect sense as otherwise every field in the land with a few old buildings on would be developed by developers. Ergo,site 27 cannot be brown

Posted by: Peter Boros | 06/02/2018 7:31 pm

Mr Wright, I have arranged for a letter received today and providing Governmental Guidance on the nature of Brownfield designations related to former quarries to be posted up. This is accessible both under FAQ's and under NP Documentation. I hope this is of assistance. Peter

Posted by: Peter Boros | 26/02/2018 6:22 pm

Mr Wright, As part of governance and due process the SG and PC intend to have an independent review/health check of the plan and evidence base, and as I said yesterday the PC may also choose to seek clarification on the definition. I am not sure there is anything further I can really add until the draft plan is ready to undergo it's next steps in the process of preparation and review.

Posted by: Peter Boros | 07/02/2018 11:38 am

Ray, I refer to the letter which attached a copy of Mrs Stones views about an FAQ on this website that was sent to the Parish Council, seeking the PCs intervention and withdrawal of site 6 from the list of recommended sites, and which was discussed at the PC meeting on Monday night. The PC declined quite properly and said it will review all sites put forwards carefully when it reviews the whole plan proposals

Posted by: Peter Boros | 07/02/2018 11:19 am

Peter. Explanation - you misunderstand. I believe you are referring to a communication dated Jan 17th. It was not sent to you. It was not sent to the NP. It does not refer to Site 27. It does not make any reference to broŵnfield sites. I have nothing more to add.

Posted by: Ray Wild | 07/02/2018 9:48 am

Mr Wright your contention that brownfield sites can only be sites that have had a building on cannot possibly be correct or plausible. The words are clear and for all to see and the reference to gardens allotments and the like obviously do not refer to sites with buildings. We must therefore agree to disagree on the matter I am afraid. I will ask the PC if they wish to obtain a formal legal opinion but personally I believe the point is undoubted if you study the words and structure of the clause

Posted by: Peter Boros | 06/02/2018 10:05 pm

Ray, A group of 42 residents were all said to support the contention that brown field development was the over riding consideration to be considered.
Suddenly we now find that having demonstrated that site 27 is definitely NOT brown you seem to be recoiling and distancing yourself from your previous position on the matter. Surely if you felt so strongly about brown fields then you would hardly change that view simply because I have demonstrated your error? What is the explanation please?

Posted by: Peter Boros | 06/02/2018 9:57 pm

I think this is quite straightforward. An area of 5200 sq m occupied by derelict farm buildings is a preferable building site to cultivated open farmland.

Posted by: Ray Wild | 06/02/2018 8:52 pm