Change the ‘grey belt’ definition in the National Planning Policy Framework
We want an urgent change to the ‘grey belt’ definition in the NPPF. We think the grey belt glossary definition [which] could result in the loss of our countryside forever - vital for health and wellbeing, combatting climate change and supporting wildlife - needs revising.
Signatures
42,142
signatures
Government response threshold (10,000) · 10,000/10,000 · reached
Debate threshold (100,000) · 42,142/100,000
- 14 NOV 2025Petition closedFinal total: 42,142 signatures
- 01 SEPT 2025Government respondedMinistry of Housing, Communities & Local GovernmentGovernment reply
The government has no plans to change the definition of grey belt in the National Planning Policy Framework, the targeted release of which is essential to deliver the development our country needs.
Read full response - 09 AUG 202510,000 signatures reachedEligible for a government response
- 14 MAY 2025Petition opened for signatures
Background
‘Grey belt’ was initially described as poor-quality Green Belt land like disused car parks. We believe the new definition in the NPPF is so broad it could include almost any Green Belt land. The Green Belt prevents urban sprawl, protects nature & supports our health. We urge the Government to restore protections by ensuring that ‘grey belt’ proposals are judged against all 5 Green Belt purposes consistently throughout the NPPF to balance development needs against the many benefits of conservation.