CPRE Outrage at Response to Save Our Green Belt Petition

CPRE Hertfordshire, the countryside charity, who have already gained over 16,000 signatures supporting their national petition to restore green belt protections in the National Planning Policy Framework, are outraged following the government’s response that they will not review the grey belt definition.

The revised National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) published in December 2024, contains inconsistencies between the NPPF paragraphs on the Green Belt and the NPPF glossary definition of ‘grey belt’.

Initially ‘grey belt’ was described as poor-quality Green Belt land like disused car parks. But the actual ‘grey belt’ definition in the recently revised NPPF removes two vital Green Belt protections meaning it could include almost any Green Belt land. This allows developers free reign to argue that any site is grey belt.

Abby Coften, Chief Executive of CPRE Hertfordshire, said: ‘We are disappointed that the Government will not provide clarity and consistency on the ‘grey belt’ definition in the NPPF. Our green spaces in every pocket of the countryside are currently under threat due to this ambiguity. We were originally told by the Government that grey belt meant land like derelict car parks but what we are seeing on the ground is a constant stream of planning applications on green fields and meadows in the Green Belt – a haven for nature and humans alike.’

CPRE Hertfordshire argues that the definition of grey belt must be amended for the Government to deliver on their promise to ‘further prioritise and fast-track building on previously used urban land’ as stated in their response.

According to CPRE Hertfordshire, in the year since the government first introduced the concept of grey belt there have been at least 45 planning applications for development on sites within the Green Belt, where the applicant has argued that the land is grey belt. None of these sites is a disused car park or derelict petrol station nor indeed any type of brownfield land. Instead, these 45 sites equate to over 570 hectares of Hertfordshire’s protected countryside.

As Chris Berry, Planning Manager at CPRE Hertfordshire said: ‘We are very clear that the grey belt is an existential threat to the Green Belt despite Government denials.  The facts on the ground speak for themselves. The grey belt definition needs changing urgently to prevent more protected countryside being lost forever.’

CPRE Hertfordshire will be continuing to promote their petition to Save the green belt aiming for the 100,000-signature target to get this matter debated in Parliament. Sign the petition here, live until 14 November, and help save our green spaces.Change the ‘grey belt’ definition in the National Planning Policy Framework – Petitions

Image: a part of the site west of Leighton Buzzard Road near Piccott’s End in the Green Belt which developers argued as ‘grey belt’ in their successful planning appeal