Your report on Bushfield (“Wraps come off Bushfield plan”, Chronicle, June 22) referred to the area for planned development as ‘previously built-up land’. This term was repeated in a second article on the same page (“Hundreds in ‘no’ camp”).

The Bushfield area was requisitioned by the War Office during WWII from the landowner for use in the war effort. Under the Defence of the Realm (Acquisition of Land) and other later legislation, including the Requisitioned Land and War Works Act (1945), the War Office, which became the Ministry of Defence in 1967, set compensation for requisitioned land, as well as the derequisitioning, and settlement processes.

Where agricultural land was requisitioned, it was normally expected that it would be returned to its previous use. In the case of Bushfield that meant the area should have been returned to farming use and not left to degrade, untouched, for almost 70 years. I suspect a search in the National Archive at Kew would show that the landowners even received payment in the compensation agreement to do the work required to return it to its original use.

So, it is incorrect to refer to the land proposed for development at Bushfield as ‘previously built-up land’.  It is a greenfield site. This should be taken into account when the proposal is reviewed by the Council.


Charles Jennings,

Stanmore Lane,