Nine residential dwellings at Lees Hall Farm, Marjory Lane, Ashbourne
Summary of planning committee decision
Decided by South Derbyshire Development Management Committee on 22 Sept 2026.
What was proposed
The application sought consent to demolish two agricultural buildings, convert and extend barns, build five dwellings, and provide landscaping, access and infrastructure works.
“Proposal: Listed Building Consent and Full Planning consent for the demolition of 2 existing agricultural buildings (one of which benefits from prior approval for residential conversion for 5 dwellings ref.”
“This current application is seeking to obtain permission for the demolition of the modern barns throughout the application site and the erection of five new dwellings to the west and south of the existing farmstead. The scheme proposed seeks to retain much of the previously approved elements attached to DMPA/2024/1156 which had undergone a lot of work from the Council’s Conservation Officer to secure an appropriately designed scheme for the setting of the listed building.”
Officer report
The site and buildings
The site contains a Grade II listed farmhouse, traditional and modern barns, and a public footpath running through the farm complex.
“In this case, it is considered that whilst the proposal in principle would conflict with the development plan, great weight is afforded to the enhancement of the Grade II Listed Farmhouse. This combined with the other merits of the scheme would outweigh the conflict with the development plan. As such the proposal is recommended for approval subject to conditions. Site Description Lees Hall Farm is located off Marjory Lane, within the parish of Church Broughton.”
“One of the modern steel-framed buildings also has permission for conversion to five dwellings. The proposal The proposal is for the demolition of two agricultural barns which includes that which was granted approval for the change of use to five dwellings.”
Officer report
What residents said
Public representations supported reusing buildings but raised concerns about road conditions, traffic, access, footpaths, public transport, bats, overlooking and further development.
“Fifteen representations have been received from members of the public in relation to DMPA/2025/1591: a) It is good that the buildings are being used rather than left to ruin b) The condition of the roads in this area is generally poor c) There is concern that there would be access through the Wood Farm properties which is a private drive d) The existing right of way should be retained e) The surrounding roads are narrow and unsafe f) There is a lack of access to public…”
“Eight representations have been received from members of the public in relation to DMPA/2025/1704 : a) Wish to see a condition regarding disruption during construction b) The access arrangements need to be clearly looked at c) The submission needs to consider this and all future developments at Lees Hall Farm d) Four of the dwellings are outside of the original footprint of the farm courtyard e) There will be an increase in traffic within the area f) Access should be only…”
Officer report
Who spoke
The planning officer presented the application, and the applicant addressed the committee.
Members discussed access
Members noted the site improvements and sought clarification about the passing place and access for bin collections.
“Members considered the Application noting the significant improvements that would be made to the site and sought clarity regarding the passing point and access for bin collections.”
“The Planning Officer advised the Committee that condition nine covered the creation of a passing place and confirmed that the road would be wide enough for bin lorries.”
Minutes
The committee's decision
The committee approved planning permission in accordance with the recommendations in the officer report.
“RESOLVED: That planning permission be approved as per the recommendations in the report of the Head of Planning.”
Minutes
Councillors at the meeting
- Malc GeeVice-ChairLabourFor(no vote against recorded)
- Alan Mercer JonesLabourFor(no vote against recorded)
- Mick MulgrewLabourFor(no vote against recorded)
- David Geoffrey ShepherdLabourFor(no vote against recorded)
- Kalila Fiona StoreyLabourFor(no vote against recorded)
- Matthew John GotheridgeConservativeFor(no vote against recorded)
- Andrew William KirkeConservativeFor(no vote against recorded)
- David Colin MullerConservativeFor(no vote against recorded)
- Amy WheeltonIndependentFor(no vote against recorded)
- Sean Andrew BambrickSubstitute for I HudsonLabourFor(no vote against recorded)
- Daniel CorbinSubstitute for K HainesConservativeFor(no vote against recorded)
- Jayne Elizabeth DaviesSubstitute for G AndrewLib DemFor(no vote against recorded)
The minutes record this decision with no vote against, so each member present for this item is shown as voting for it.
Apologies Ian Mark Hudson Labour, Louise Ann Mulgrew Labour, Kerry Marie Haines Conservative, Grahame Warwick Andrew Lib Dem
Source: Plota analysis of the council's minutes; parties from Democracy Club.
Sources
- South Derbyshire Development Management Committee minutes, 22 September 2026
- Agenda and papers (council website)
Source: Plota analysis of South Derbyshire's committee minutes and officer report. Quotations are the council's own words; headings and summaries are Plota's.
Committee decisions and nationwide planning applications, in one API
The Plota API returns planning applications from every council we cover, each with its decision, whether a committee or officers decided it, and the committee date. Build it into your own tools.
See the API →At the meeting
- Council
- South Derbyshire
- Date
- Tuesday 22 September 2026
- Recommendation
- Officers recommended approval
- Committee decided
- Approved
- Councillors
- 12Labour 6Conservative 4Independent 1Lib Dem 1Show votes
- Minutes
- The council's minutes
- Meeting
- Agenda and papers (council website)
- Application
- View application →
- All decisions
- South Derbyshire committee decisions →
This committee's year
85 decisions in the 12 months to this meeting, 5 against officer advice.
Source: Plota analysis of the committee's minutes.