From the Chair December

We spent much of our twelfth and final meeting of 2025 discussing our final response to the National Park’s consultation on its preferred approach to a new Local Plan for the area.

As a Council, we have quite strong views on this. We believe that the current approach is too hostile to housing development in the National Park. It would lead to an undersupply of housing through the 2030s, and an inadequate supply in particular of the type of housing needed to attract and retain families to the area.

Indeed, we believe that the National Park is not properly squaring up to its responsibilities to put in place a Plan that is realistic. The current proposals are that only “affordable” housing could be brought forward, and that there should be no open market commercial housing. But the Park’s analysis shows, convincingly, that developers will not be able to deliver affordable housing without cross-subsidy from commercial development. So the Park has brought forward proposals which are not only misguided (in our view) but are undeliverable (not just in our view, but as a matter of cold hard fact). I think that’s pretty poor.

The population of the Peak District is declining, and its median age is rising. The longer this continues, the more communities will be hollowed out, and the less sustainable shops, public transport, and schools will be; and so the downward spiral becomes steeper. Of course, the character of the landscape needs to be protected, and we are conscious that the Peak District is an asset for people in Sheffield and toke-on-Trent as much as for its residents. But we believe that the current stance from the National Park underestimates the potential for development within existing villages, or on village fringes without eating into valuable countryside. A mid-century Peak District that’s a cross between a museum and a well-heeled retirement community is not in anyone’s interest.

So we’re making strong representations about this – as, I believe, are a number of our neighbouring parish councils. And I think we’ll need to keep making the case for our views, not just within the formal planning process but politically. You could see this as suggesting a tilt in priority from landscape protection to sustaining communities, but I’m not sure it’s as strong as that. Rather, it’s a view that current policy significantly understates the potential for sensitive and well-placed development which doesn’t damage environmental and natural objectives.

Best wishes from your Parish Councillors for a Merry Christmas and a good 2026.