The proposed Definition of "Brownfield Site/Previously Developed Land(PDL)" in the Glossary to the Submission Draft is defective and leads to absurd, arbitrary and undesirable results

The proposed definition is as follows:

"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;...."

This contrasts with the long-standing definition in national planning policy guidance, which is as follows:

"Land which is or was occupied by a permanent structure (excluding agricultural or forestry buildings), including the curtilage of the land attached to the permanent structure (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 in use for agricultural or forestry purposes;...."

The definition proposed in the Submission Draft leads to absurd and undesirable results.

Imagine a fenced field with a grain store on it, with tarmac laid to and beyond the field gate to the highway. Under the existing definition, no part of the fenced field nor any of the associated fixed surface infrastructure would be a brownfield site (as one would expect). Under the definition proposed in the Submission Draft however, the whole of the field, except for the land on which the grain store actually stands, and all of the associated fixed surface infrastructure outside the curtilage would be a brownfield site. This is an absurd and wholly undesirable result, making the Plan as respects this definition both not legally compliant and unsound.