benhurr
5th Apr 2006, 17:20
Hi Gang,
I have received a response from my local MP with an attachment from Yvette Cooper who would appear to be responsible.
I am only going to quote a couple of sections, but I was led to believe that the footnote removal seemed to be the important factor. I will quote Ms Cooper's response here.
Draft PPS3 was published for consultation on 5 December last year. It set out a new policy framework for planning for housing in England, and will replace existing planning policy guidance note 3 when it is finalised later in the year.
Annex A of draft PPS3 proposes some clarificatory amendments to the definition of previously-developed land currently set out in Annex C of PPG3 and the footnotes to that Annex. I can assure you and your constituent that it was not part of our intention in proposing these amendments to change the application of the definition of previously-developed land to current or former airfields, or to change policy in relation to the prospective development of airfields for housing.
Whether a site, or part of a site, is classed as previously-developed land turns on whether there are or have been structures on it. Those structures and associated fixed surface infrastructure, together with their curtilage, make up the previously-developed land. In practice, the extent of the previously-developed land will depend on the particular circumstances of the site. For example, in the case of a large site with few structures, some parts of the site might be classed as previously-developed, and others as greenfield. It is for the Courts to determine, in cases of doubt, whether land is previously-developed or not.
What appears to have confused people is the fact that we have proposed the removal of a footnote to the definition of PPG3. This is because this particular footnote is in practice rather inappropriately placed in an annex concerned with definitions. In fact it does not elaborate the definition at all, but offers guidance to local authorities about how to manage the devlopment of previously-developed sites in cases where the curtilage of the previous development includes open land. Essentially it emphasises the need for local authorities to take care in the development of such sites. The footnote makes reference to redundant hospital and airfield sites as examples of sites which may include open land. As I have explained, this does not in any way affect the status of an airfield or hospital site in terms of the PPG3 or draft PPS3 resolution.
In the light of responses to the consultation on draft PPS3, which ended on 27 February, we will consider whether to reinstate the guidance in draft PPS3.
I should also make it clear that, while we have a clear policy to prioritise the use of all previously-developed land in preference to greenfield, in the interests of making the most efficient use of land, this is not the only relevant factor when deciding whether to grant planning permission for housing. Paragraph 1 of draft PPS3 sets out our objectives for planning for housing, which include that development should be located in areas with good access to jobs, key services and infrastructure. So the status of a site as previously-developed or greenfield is only one factor to weigh in the planning balance.
I thought that the whole arguement was over a typo in a government document. Judging by this response there is a bit more to it. I will leave it to greater minds than mine to discuss what this response actually means.
I have received a response from my local MP with an attachment from Yvette Cooper who would appear to be responsible.
I am only going to quote a couple of sections, but I was led to believe that the footnote removal seemed to be the important factor. I will quote Ms Cooper's response here.
Draft PPS3 was published for consultation on 5 December last year. It set out a new policy framework for planning for housing in England, and will replace existing planning policy guidance note 3 when it is finalised later in the year.
Annex A of draft PPS3 proposes some clarificatory amendments to the definition of previously-developed land currently set out in Annex C of PPG3 and the footnotes to that Annex. I can assure you and your constituent that it was not part of our intention in proposing these amendments to change the application of the definition of previously-developed land to current or former airfields, or to change policy in relation to the prospective development of airfields for housing.
Whether a site, or part of a site, is classed as previously-developed land turns on whether there are or have been structures on it. Those structures and associated fixed surface infrastructure, together with their curtilage, make up the previously-developed land. In practice, the extent of the previously-developed land will depend on the particular circumstances of the site. For example, in the case of a large site with few structures, some parts of the site might be classed as previously-developed, and others as greenfield. It is for the Courts to determine, in cases of doubt, whether land is previously-developed or not.
What appears to have confused people is the fact that we have proposed the removal of a footnote to the definition of PPG3. This is because this particular footnote is in practice rather inappropriately placed in an annex concerned with definitions. In fact it does not elaborate the definition at all, but offers guidance to local authorities about how to manage the devlopment of previously-developed sites in cases where the curtilage of the previous development includes open land. Essentially it emphasises the need for local authorities to take care in the development of such sites. The footnote makes reference to redundant hospital and airfield sites as examples of sites which may include open land. As I have explained, this does not in any way affect the status of an airfield or hospital site in terms of the PPG3 or draft PPS3 resolution.
In the light of responses to the consultation on draft PPS3, which ended on 27 February, we will consider whether to reinstate the guidance in draft PPS3.
I should also make it clear that, while we have a clear policy to prioritise the use of all previously-developed land in preference to greenfield, in the interests of making the most efficient use of land, this is not the only relevant factor when deciding whether to grant planning permission for housing. Paragraph 1 of draft PPS3 sets out our objectives for planning for housing, which include that development should be located in areas with good access to jobs, key services and infrastructure. So the status of a site as previously-developed or greenfield is only one factor to weigh in the planning balance.
I thought that the whole arguement was over a typo in a government document. Judging by this response there is a bit more to it. I will leave it to greater minds than mine to discuss what this response actually means.