I expect many of you are familiar with the definition of PDL in the glossary of the NPPF and how significant the weight attached to PDL in the overall planning balance of Inspector and SofS decisions.
Just as a reminder the NPPF defintion is;
"Previously developed land: Land which is or was occupied by a permanent structure, including the curtilage of the developed land (although it should not be assumed that the whole of the curtilage should be developed) and any associated fixed surface infrastructure. This excludes: land that is or has been occupied by agricultural or forestry buildings; land that has been developed for minerals extraction or waste disposal by landfill purposes where provision for restoration has been made through development control procedures; land in built-up areas such as private residential gardens, parks, recreation grounds and allotments; and land that was previously-developed but where the remains of the permanent structure or fixed surface structure have blended into the landscape in the process of time.
Has anyone had a case where this has been really tested/considered for an landfill or quarry site where there appear to be no robust restoration or aftercare conditions?
Can you cite an appeal reference?
Are landfill/quarry sites really considered to be PDL (brownfield) if they don't have viable restoration conditions?
To my mind PDL definition is usually unhelpful and it seems better to employ a fact and degree test on a site by site basis - considering what the benefits are of keeping the existing use, what landscape impacts there might be, what reclaiming the site might require in terms of imported material etc etc etc....
