Barn conversion to dwelling at Barn Church Lane Tideswell

“This application seeks permission for the change of use and alterations and extension to an existing roadside barn on Church Lane, Tideswell, within the Tideswell Conservation Area. The barn is considered to be a non-designated heritage asset, albeit works have been carried out which are considered to have resulted in harm to its character.”

“The extensions and alteration of the barn and associated works are considered to harm to the character and appearance of the barn and Conservation Area. The development would not achieve the conservation or enhancement of a non-designated heritage asset, and would not meet one of the exceptions for new housing in the National Park.”

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

“Prior to works commencing, the barn had a natural gritstone roof, single lean-to on its north west elevation and single storey off-shot. The barn fronts the roadside. The nearest neighbouring properties are dwellings on Chantry Lane to the north side of Church Street. Further properties are north west on Church Lane with allotments to the north east.”

“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.”

“The proposed dwelling is not acceptable in principle as it 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.”

“Derbyshire County Council (Highways): NP/DDD/0915/0863 approved drawing 1517-02 Rev C shows visibility splays mentioned in the HA response, but the submitted information provided for has not provided any visibility splays for assessment, although the supporting statement mentions that a safer access with better visibility in the direction of Tideswell is proposed.”

“Peak District National Park Authority Archaeology: 1) No heritage statement has been submitted and there is not a sufficient understanding of what the heritage value and significance of the structure is. In my comments to the previous application (0820/0726) I did request sufficient supporting heritage information.”

“One letter has been received which does not object to the application, but raises a number of matters of consideration and / or concern:”

“The reconstruction quality looks good and will likely maintain building character. • It is understood the barn would be for open market use rather than locally tied. • If an owner is not interested or able to farm the land associated with the barn, then conversion of agricultural buildings is the best alternative where these have merit.”

“The Officer presented the report and outlined the reasons for refusal as detailed in the report. Some Members had visited the site the previous day. The following spoke under the public participation at meetings scheme: • Danny Hopkins- Applicant Members had concerns over the overall size of the proposed development and also queried the consultation response provided by the Highways Authority.”

“That the application be REFUSED for the following reasons:”