Barn dwelling conversion at Barn, Church Lane, Tideswell

The site and surroundings

The limestone barn stood within Tideswell Conservation Area on the settlement edge, near homes and allotments, within a protected-site catchment.

“The application relates to a barn formed of limestone with pitched roof, on the south west edge of Church Lane, on the edge of Tideswell and within Tideswell Conservation Area.”

“The sites is within the catchment of the Unit 70 and 71 of the Wye Valley Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI), a component of the Peak District Dales Special Area of Conservation (SAC), a European protected site which is in unfavourable condition.”

Officer report

Earlier permissions and enforcement

A 2015 conversion permission was followed by works beyond its limits, an enforcement case, a withdrawn application and a 2025 refusal.

“21/0051: An enforcement case was opened on the site as the works to the building had gone beyond what was permitted by the 2015 planning permission.”

“Following a meeting in July 2024, the view from the Authority was that the extent of works carried out went beyond the 2015 permission as they included substantial re-building and construction of extensions significantly larger than the approved dimensions.”

Officer report

Why officers recommended refusal

Officers considered the extensions, alterations and boundary changes harmful to the barn and Conservation Area, so the housing exception was not met.

“The proposed dwelling does not achieve the conservation and / or enhancement of a non-designated heritage asset, and it does not meet any other exception for new housing in the National Park, contrary to Core Strategy Policy HC1 and Development Management Policy DMC10.”

“The proposed development would have an unacceptable design and would result in harm to the character and appearance of the non-designated barn and Tideswell Conservation Area. The harm to the Conservation Area would be less than substantial but would not be outweighed by any public benefits, and harm to the non-designated barn is not outweighed as part of the planning balance.”

Officer report

What consultees said

Highways sought more information, ecology recommended safeguards, archaeology identified heritage harm, Natural England raised no likely significant effects, and the Parish Council supported the proposal.

“Natural England: The proposal can be considered under Natural England standing advice and flowcharts and likely significant effects can be ruled out. Comments regarding the mains network provided as general advice.”

“No heritage statement has been submitted. The extent of rebuilding has been clarified. When the conversion was approved in 2015 the building was a traditional farm building, and a non-designated heritage asset. The extent of rebuilding demonstrates how much of the building’s original external elevations are left and how the plan form has been altered.”

Officer report

What residents raised

One representation supported completing the dwelling but raised concerns about drainage, field access, a dew pond and the wider curtilage.

“One representation received. Support for conclusion of the project as a dwelling, but raises two factors which may affect the neighbouring property:”

“Potential impact on Cliffe House (with cellars, constructed on bedrock) downhill on Church Lane from drainage of the waste water / septic. Unclear what assessment has been made for path of liquids from the infiltration bed. • Closing 2 of 3 accesses to fields behind barn may increase use of remaining narrower access below retaining wall and adjacent Cliffe House, a new access on Church Lane or widening of remaining access. A dew pond would be affected.”

Officer report

Who spoke

The applicant spoke under the public participation scheme, and an agent had acted for the application.

What members debated

Members discussed highways information, affordability, practical barn conversions, increased floorspace, and the loss of the building’s field-barn character.

“Members discussed the following points: • Clarity sought on highways position given previous recommendation for refusal. Officers clarified that although Highways continued to require additional information to conclude on highway safety, previous planning decisions had accepted the scheme on highway grounds therefore based on material considerations, highways was not a recommended reason for refusal.”

Minutes