Redeveloping long abandoned brownfield sites in the Green Belt (NPPF para 8 - Public forum - Planning Advisory Service (PAS)

Cutting to your Q3. - I would have thought that if a building was demolished some years ago then it has gone and can't now be described as "existing". The act of demolition was a deliberate act to remove the building and probably wiped out any lawful use rights that went with the building as well. Any planning decision now should be based on what the site looks like today - if there are just a few bits of wall standing then those are the features that - as a matter of fact and degree - may have an existing effect on openness (or they may not). If they fall down then they will probably have less of an effect on openness. If there are any existing planning permissions for rebuilding the building that was demolished (or any other lawful rebuilding rights - but unlikely) then again, they might be relevant as other matters that could potentially affect openness if there was a real possibility that they would be acted upon (a "fall-back" position). If the proposed development would result in a significant improvement (perhaps to landscape quality, the living conditions of neighbours, highway safety or biodiversity etc) but would have a more harmful effect on openness than the existing situation then it's possible that might amount to the "very special circumstances" neccessary to counter the strong presumption against inappropriate development in the Green Belt - but that will be a judgment call from the decision-maker.

David I have 4 appeal cases at my disposal (LPA`s 0 Applicants 4 ) It does seem to me to be an area which LPA`s are slow to move to a post NPPF approach. The Inspectors are quite clear in their judgments if you have ``x` volume and replace it with `y` volume which is smaller than x then the impact on the greenbelt is no greater ( somewhat logical i guess) How do you define redundant? No longer required for its original use is my interpretation.One of the cases has the buildings only partially there. My take on the last one is what IS there- never demolish a building is my take!

Suppose the site is within an existing housing estate with houses surrounding it. Obviously the estate is in continuing use so the infilling should be appropriate. Comments please.

JK - Infilling is not always appropriate development in Green Belt - even if "common-sense" suggests it should be and it's within an existing housing estate and/or surrounded by other houses. This is a different issue to the redevelopment of abandoned brownfield sites though. If the housing estate has an open character that contributes to the openness of the Green Belt and it has not been excluded from Green Belt then it might still be inappropriate development. Look at what the National Planning Policy Framework says about this (paras. 79 - 92 especially paras. 86 & 89) and you will see the circumstances where such a proposal might (or might not) be considered to be appropriate development. Also look at the Council's development plan policies for the area.

Thank you everyone for your comments. That answers my questions - I think! David

Chris do you have references for the appeal cases? Would be useful to read the inspectors reports.....

Appeals 2181904 (para 6 is particularly enlightening) 2168774 2169811 2178517