NPPF - Green Belt - Public forum - Planning Advisory Service (PAS)
NPPF - Green Belt
Andrew Chalmers, Addaswyd 12 Years yn ôl.
Re: NPPF - Green Belt
Advocate Postiadau: 169 Dyddiad Ymuno: 20/10/2011 Bostiadau diweddarJenny Pierce:Related but new question. A DC officer asked me if there should be a comma between "infilling or the partial or complete redevelopment of previously developed sites" in para 89, last bullet point. It may have implications in the understanding of the intention of this point. Is it limited infilling ',' (anywhere in the green belt) or the partial or complete redevelopment of previously developed sites in the green belt? Or is it limited infilling, or the partial or complete redevelopment only within pdl? I'm assuming it doesn't really matter. Apart from being a badly worded bullet point I guess the main intention is that whatever or wherever development occurs, it should not have a greater impact on the openness and its purpose. Has anyone had any other issues with the intention of this policy?
Searching for some discussion around a question I have, I came across this thread..and thought it the best place to raise the question I have. Specifically, I have an issue with the interpretation of exception 6 of paragrapgh 89.
I'm relatively comfortable with the concept of being able to consider positively 'the limited infilling or partial or complete redevelopment of previoulsy developed sites in the Green Belt on the basis that they would not have a greater impact on the openness of the Green Belt. So far so good, the arguments around what constitutes an impact on openness are fairly well rehearsed.
The bit I find less than clear is the caveat which 'excludes temporary buildings'. What specifically constitues a temporary building? By way of some context I have a scheme where the applicant is looking to redevelop a brown field site in the Green Belt containing a fair bit of hard standing and a relatively large Nissen Hut (last used as a waste transfer station and the lawfuless of which is not in question) with a couple of dwellings. They argue that 'volume for volume' there would be no greater impact on openess and consequently the development is not inappopropriate. I follow the logic and to a degree accept it. However, I would define the building very much as a 'temporary one' given its materials of construction, allbeit a temporary one that has stood for the last 30 years or so. If it is held to be temporary then the provisions of para 89, exception 6 do not apply. The development becomes inappropriate. Or have i misinterpreted what amounts to a temporary building?
Thinking about why exception 6 might have been drafted to exclude temporary buildings, my thoughts lean towards the prevention of the replacement of buildings which were originally 'thrown up' to serve an appropriate green belt use, (I'm thinking mainly agricultural sheds here). Indeed, it would seem somewhat perverse to allow the replacement of such portal framed buildings when their conversion is prohibited by NPPF para 90 (Class MB of the GPDO notwisthstandig). There seems a logic to this. That said, if the building is there (temporary or otherwise) then it's already having an impact on openness. Replacing it with something of the same size (and discounting related issues regarding domestication of land etc) would appear no more or less harmful from a pure openness point of view?
I'd be interested in your thoughts on this.
Many thanks
Paul