Please describe your concerns with this comment. If you simply wish to respond to the comment please use the Comment Box on the story itself:
Ed I'm somewhat confused by your response. Nobody is suggesting that the area be built on or tarmaced over so that it is incapable of reverting to agricultural use. Perhaps I didn't make myself clear enough. My view is that conditional change of use should be allowed, but not by carrying out any development which would affect a return to agricultural usage if and when that land is required for that purpose. In other words, let fields be used for equestrian or playing rugby or football or cricket or any other sport, for example, if the modification required is negligible. For example, if the owner of the land was capable of removing whatever was used there (horse fences, goalposts etc) so that the land could be usable for agricultural use within 3 months of being required to do so, then what's the problem? Call it temporary change of use (renewable for say 2 years at a time) or conditional change of use, or whatever, but it surely cannot beyond us to legislate for that. I would say to the BSJA yes, you can clear the land, you can grass it over, you can put temporary structures on it (horse fences)', and you can have temporary change of use for recreational purposes for two years at a time, but at BSJA's own cost if permission is not renewed in the future then BSJA must remove the temporary structures and ensure that that the land is usable for agriculture within 3 months, with no compensation due. Job done.