Report by Local Democracy Reporter – Eddie Bisknell
Plans to not earmark any new housing sites in the Peak District over the next 20 years could turn it into a “museum” and “suffocate” its communities, a councillor has claimed.
In a Derbyshire Dales District Council meeting, councillors scrutinised the future housing blueprint from the Peak District National Park Authority – which oversees homes planning in half of the Dales.
The Peak Park, which has now finished its public consultation on its development plans for the next 20 years, has said allocating new housing sites would “not be appropriate”.
Meanwhile, the national park authority encouraged people to subdivide larger homes to create more housing and to build houses in gardens.
In a Dales council meeting, Councillor Steve Wain questioned: “Is it a normal practice that you would promote the subdivision of housing and building housing on other land in preference to looking at the advantages to enhance and make your communities thrive by building new properties?”
Matt Bowers, a planning consultant hired by the council, said: “It isn’t that common, but then this is a national park area, so I understand the principles that sit behind that, in terms of them wanting to limit newbuilds and looking for opportunities that would mean they can increase the number of homes without the need for newbuilds.
“That is unusual and that is reflected in our comments (in the consultation).”
Meanwhile councillors also questioned the number of homes the national park was aiming to provide over the next 20 years.
The Peak Park aims to provide 1,740 new homes by 2045, at 87 per year – below the identified need for 96 per year.
Of the 96 homes per year needed, 63 per year is the need within the part of the Dales that sits in the Peak Park, it says, but it is instead seeking to provide 57 homes per year.
The district council has calculated that the actual need for the part of the Peak Park within the Dales per year is 158 homes.
It has its own national housing target of 518 homes per year, of which it was hoping to offload 158 per year to the Peak Park portion of the Dales, instead of having to accommodate a district’s worth of homes in half the landmass.
The Dales is also assessing its own Local Plan, which adds up to 6,000 homes by 2042, listing 28 new housing sites to help meet that aim.
Paul Wilson, district council chief executive, said: “We did make pretty extensive efforts to try and influence the direction of thought regarding the allocation of housing proportions between ourselves and the National Park.”
He said talks began in 2022 and since then additional national policies have added more protection to national parks.
Mr Wilson said: “The argument is the same, in that there should be greater equity of distribution of housing between the Peak Park and the Derbyshire Dales but the policy direction has actually moved against us even further than it was at the time.”
Councillor Matt Buckler said: “I am not advocating for masses of house-building in the national park, because it is a national asset, but the number of houses that we have to find within our plan area is twice as much as you would expect because half of our district is within the national park.
“It is not about saying we want the split to be more even, but it is the consideration to say the numbers…are not appropriate.
“I want more sustainable communities in the national park. More housing falls to the dc because of the national park.”
Councillor Peter O’Brien said: “The refusal to allocate any new sites for housing I find extraordinary. The whole purpose of planning the Local Plan is to identify land for development and if housing is a key issue in the national park, which everyone accepts, and we know the difficulties in bringing forward affordable housing, surely one way around that is to identify land for housing.
“There is no justification for that. I found it really, really strange and an unjustifiable approach.”
He said a “blanket refusal” and “ban” on new housing not being allowed to include market homes, only affordable housing, would stop the development of affordable homes.
Meanwhile, he said the restriction to limit affordable homes to people who had lived there for 10 years, was “archaic”.
He said: “Times have moved on, that policy is archaic and not fit for purpose.”
Cllr O’Brien said the proposal to encourage housing in back gardens, as seen via an article written by the Local Democracy Reporting Service, was “very strange” and appeared to be a “policy based on desperation”.
He said: “Our National Park is not a museum or a playground for the better-off from Sheffield and Manchester, it is a living breathing set of communities which I think are in danger of being suffocated by well-intentioned but poorly thought-out planning policies.
“Our communities don’t deserve to become fossilised and preserved in aspic by a national park plan.”
Councillor Gareth Gee queried: “In terms of being able to build houses in your back garden, does this mean the Duke of Devonshire can build houses in his back garden? I am not sure about that. I am sure there will be some unintended consequences from that policy.”
