









For some time the Peak District National Park Authority (PDNPA) has been frantically seeking an organisation to take over the day-to-day management of the North Lees Estate. Originally at the behest of central government, they have been conducting a review of their various holdings hoping to make cost savings by entering into partnerships with other bodies who can honour the National Parks statutory purposes. This has so far resulted in the long term lease of the Eastern Moors to the National Trust (NT) and the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds (RSPB) and the disposal of the Roaches to the Staffordshire Wildlife Trust. Speculation has been rife within the outdoor community that a similar fate lies in store for North Lees and Stanage. Now, at the eleventh hour, there seems to have been a change of heart.
The agenda for a forthcoming meeting of the clumsily titled Audit Performance and Resources committee (APR) includes a report outlining potential methods for disposing of the North Lees Estate. Amongst a welter of impenetrable management-speak, certain phrases stick out like a sore thumb including much talk of “business case scenarios”, “entrepreneurial solutions” and a telling reference to a “review of commercial options available for the PDNPA to run the estate.”
Commercial options? What exactly is the PDNPA up to? Do they intend to continue managing the estate themselves and if so, why? There is precious little mention in the document of conservation and recreation, the PDNPA’s statutory purposes, which begs the question does the authority see North Lees as some kind of cash cow? Will we see compulsory payment for parking shortly? Will the campsite that has been a basic but welcome home to generations of walkers and climbers move upmarket in a bid to generate more income? It’s worth bearing in mind that the authority recently reneged on an agreement to pass management of Miller’s Dale Station to the Derbyshire Wildlife Trust. It is perfectly plausible that they did so because the extension of the Monsal Trail has seen parking receipts rise considerably. Have they come to the conclusion that a similar opportunity for income generation exists at North Lees? If I’ve misconstrued the authority’s intentions, then it is purely because the report to the APR is a masterpiece of management claptrap, guaranteed to generate suspicion. It’s worth remebering that the authority failed to publish a summary of the bids to run The Roaches and chose instead to make a decision behind closed doors.
Equally suspicious is the way the Stanage Forum has been sidelined. The forum is made up of representatives of all the user groups who throng Stanage and is a fine example of community involvement in the management of a popular yet fragile environment. A year ago the Stanage Forum agreed on fundamental principles that should guide the disposal of the estate. Are those now to be disregarded because the forum is largely ignored in this report?
Entering into long term agreement with another conservation body such as the NT, RSPB or Wildlife Trust will see investment in North Lees whereas, on the face of it, the PDNPA see the estate as a ‘nice little earner’. This is a flagrant reversal of the principles upon which the national park was founded. The authority should be seeking to protect North Lees not use it as a means of generating funds to bankroll a
comfortable bureaucracy. In 1975, Sir Hugh Beach sold the estate to the National Park at far below the market value in order to preserve it for future generations. There are clear signs the PDNPA has forgotten that they hold this cherished landscape in trust. However, to mangle the old saying, the price of the freedom to roam is eternal vigilance.
John, I have no argument with the passion with which you defend your view of what you consider a National Park should be all about but having read your piece I spent a pathetically short time trying to fill the yawning gaps in my own knowledge of the subject and I was amazed at the range of responsibilities which fall to the care of the park authority. Not just conservation and recreation by any means but also such things as the rural economy, affordable homes for local people and so on. None of this weakens your argument but it does suggest that the situation is more complex than you allow.
You’re probably right Baz! It is, indeed a complex issue, but the National Park Authority have form when it comes to trying to subvert the democratic process. My piece was, unashamedly, a rabble rouser. As long as they know we’re on their case, they at least have to make some pretence of listening to those who care about the national park.
This Blog was most helpful, your ideas are straight to the point, and the colors are cool too.