The DTLR posted the wrong email address for responses - the right one is:
Email to:
[email protected]
--------------------------
Re abuse by car boot sales etc. on adjacent bits of land, there is already
protection available in law for that. The 28 day rule can be applied to a
"planning unit" which is the land (not necessarily contiguous) under
ownership or control of any one person or company. If the same car boot
person uses lots of bits of land, even rented from different farmers, they
become under his control so are one planning unit.
In extreme cases, there are powers to impose an Article 4 Direction
prohibiting such a use - though compensation for loss of profit may be
payable (my gliding club owns land which has such a direction on part of it
re "markets" which I think stemmed, before our time, from just such an
intention).
Airfields using the 28 day rule do not, in general, move about - the only exception being perhaps a few helicopter pads, and some hang-glider/paraglider spots on hills.
I realise that the DTLR have put the rationale for their proposals, as being the car boot sals on adjacent bits of land etc., but
they appear to be in ignorance of how the law can be and sometimes has been applied.
I plan to make that point to them in my response, and to point out two entirely different interpretations of the 28 day rule by 2 different planning inspectors.
The fundamental problem is that "Parliament" passed (and the civil servants had drafted) legislation without sufficiently well defining it or how it should be enforced. Subsequent case law has clarified, or redefined, it to some extent. I don't suppose civil servants, or politicians, read up all the cases.