The Proposed National Planning Policy Framework and the Green Belt

P

PeterNatt

Well-Known Member
Joined
15 July 2003
Messages
4,712
Location
London and Hertfordshire
s68.photobucket.com
A petition has been launched calling on the government to change its ‘Grey Belt’ definition in the newly proposed National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) within the proposed ‘Planning and Infrastructure Bill’.

There is an inconsistency between the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) paragraphs on the Green Belt and the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) glossary of ‘Grey Belt’.

This inconsistency could result in the loss of our Green Belt Countryside forever, as well as habitat loss for wildlife.

The petition asks that the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) ‘Grey Belt’ definition be amended so that this inconsistency is removed, and Green Belt protection remains in place.

Please can you sign the online petition at: petition.parliament.uk/petitions/725558

Many thanks
 
PeterNatt said:
A petition has been launched calling on the government to change its ‘Grey Belt’ definition in the newly proposed National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) within the proposed ‘Planning and Infrastructure Bill’.

There is an inconsistency between the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) paragraphs on the Green Belt and the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) glossary of ‘Grey Belt’.

This inconsistency could result in the loss of our Green Belt Countryside forever, as well as habitat loss for wildlife.

The petition asks that the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) ‘Grey Belt’ definition be amended so that this inconsistency is removed, and Green Belt protection remains in place.

Please can you sign the online petition at: petition.parliament.uk/petitions/725558

Many thanks
Click to expand...
Thanks for the heads up, will ask to get it passed on too.
 
A bigger current risk is Part 3 of the the Planning and Infrastructure Bill which will mean protected sites can be built on and protected species ignored if a developer pays some money (but not too much as it can't impact too much on their profits - that's actually written in the Bill text!!).

More information here https://www.surreywildlifetrust.org...y-part-3-planning-and-infrastructure-bill-big. Basically it means that a site or species being designated/protected will mean less (or nothing) if a developer wants to pay some money to get around it. The Guardian wrote an article listing some of the places which are likely to be at risk https://www.theguardian.com/environ...ours-planning-bill?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Other

Really not good and somehow it's not really been picked up by much of the media so it's likely to get royal assent in the autumn
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top