Planning Services Ltd Townend Directors: A W Newby B.Sc DMS Waterfall Waterhouses Registered in England N* 2458413 Staffs ST10 3HZ
web: www.pmeplanning.co.uk
Design Access and Heritage Statement, Conversion of Barn for Holiday Use Lane House Farm, Butterton, PP-09198175, PP-09198182
1. Site & Applicant Details: E Verwey, M Beckett Lane House Farm, Wetton Road, Butterton, Staffs, ST13 7ST
OS Grid Ref SK 081 565 Northing 356495 Easting 408123
Fig. 1. The Barn 2. Introduction: 2.1 Lane House Farm lies on the north side of Wetton Road, half a mile to the east of the village centre.
2.2 The site comprises a listed Georgian farmhouse with adjoining outbuildings, a corrugated ‘Nissen' shed, a further wood and corrugated iron shed, a ruined sectional concrete garage and a listed detached stone and tile combination barn.
2.3 The applicant is seeking to convert the barn for holiday use.
3. Planning History 3.1 NP/SM/1215/1197, NP/SM/1215/1198, Planning and Listed Building Consent for the conversion of redundant agricultural land and buildings to holiday barn conversions, domestic garage and ancillary outbuilding, withdrawn 20/01/2016. 1
3.2 These applications included several significant elements. Officers supported the conversion of the listed barn which forms the subject of this application. There was also support for the principle of a replacement garage but felt that it should not encroach into open countryside to the north of the farmstead. The proposal for a further ancillary outbuilding was not supported. The applications were withdrawn pending preparation of a revised scheme.
3.3 There are a number of successful applications relating to replacement windows and front door. There are also successful applications relating to the erection of a Georgian style summerhouse: NP/SM/0415/0329, NP/SM/1214/1294, NP/SM/1214/1295, NP/SM/1214/1297, NP/SM/ 0619/0670 2,3,4,5
3.4 The current planning application and application for listed building consent seeks to simplify the proposal by focussing on the conversion of the listed combination barn.
3.5 A separate planning application for a replacement outbuilding has been submitted in parallel, ref PP-09198225.
4. Historical Overview. 4.1 The barn is a combination barn comprising a cartshed and shippon on the ground floor with a hayloft (tallet) above. The building is listed separately from the farmhouse. The English Heritage Building Listing Reference number is 274419 and is described as follows: 6
Cartshed, stable and granary approximately 10 yards West of Lanehouse Farmhouse.
Cartshed, stable and granary. Dated "W.H. 1854". Coursed squared and dressed rubble; dressed ashlar quoins and dressings with chisel draughted edges; clay tile roof with coped verges. 2 storeys. Tallet steps up to granary door to left hand side; wide (blocked) segmental archway to right hand side with ashlar voissoirs (sic) and dated keystone. Stable door between with small paned window above.
4.2 The initials W.H refer to William Hambleton. The Hambletons were landowners in Butterton and Alstonefield and held numerous public offices over the years. 7
4.3 Notwithstanding the aforementioned description, the south western end of the ground floor, has standing for six cows with boskins, drinking troughs and hayracks and it is unlikely that the building would have accommodated a horse. The ‘stable’ door is too low and narrow for a typical 16h draught horse.
4.4 The building was listed in 1985. A brick and block lean to with fibre- cement corrugated roofing adjoins the north east gable. The lean-to would appear to have been built long before the listing, but is not described by the listing.
4.5 In 2017, a character statement for traditional farmsteads in the Peak District was compiled, part-funded by Historic England and written by national farm buildings experts Jeremy Lake and Bob Edwards. The document describes the main types of farmstead in the national park, and how the buildings relate to factors such as traditional farming practices, geology and location. The study also relates farmsteads to the different landscape character areas. Butterton is in the South West Peak.8
4.6 Map regressions reveal the original form of the farmstead and show that Lane House Farm developed as dispersed driftway plan.
Fig. 2. Extract from 1-25 inch OS map of 1880 11 4.7 The Character Statement records that dispersed driftway plans account for 2% of recorded farmsteads and are concentrated in the south west peak. The buildings and yards are typically arranged around one or more driftways which provide access to the surrounding pasture.
4.8 The building is a combination barn. The Character Statement records that these are general purpose buildings that fulfilled several roles including cow housing, stabling, threshing and storage of forage and implements.
Cartographic Records 4.4 Henry Steven’s OS survey draft of 1836 and the Tithe map of 1847 show Wallacre, which lies to the east and Fenns House which lies to the north west, but Lane House Farm is not shown. 9,10
4.5 Lane House Farm first appears on the 1st epoch OS map of 1880. It was originally named Lane Farm. The map shows the farmhouse with the adjoining shippon to the north west and pigsty and privy to the rear. The combination barn lies a short way to the east with a further outbuilding with fold yard on the southern side of Wetton Road - and now part of New Lane House Farm. 11
Fig. 3. Extract from 1-25 inch OS map of 1899 12
4.6 The arrangement is little changed in the 2nd edition published in 1899. The driftway leading north has been incorporated into the field system and the name has changed to Lane House Farm. 12
4.7 A new farmhouse at Ferns Farm appears on the 3rd edition published in 1922, but the arrangement at Lane House Farm is unchanged.
4.8 The 1-2500 OS map of 1969 shows several post war additions including the lean-to at the back of the combination barn, the wooden shed, Nissen Shed and a lean-to adjoining the north west side of the pig sty. The map also shows the new farmhouse at New Lane House Farm.
Fig. 4. Extract from 1-25 inch OS map of 1922 13
Fig. 5. Extract from 1-2500 inch OS map of 1969 14
4.8 Subsequent changes include the addition of a sectional concrete garage and summerhouse. The sectional concrete garage was removed this year although it’s base remains in-situ. 4.9 Lane House Farm and the listed barn are not included in the Staffordshire Historic Environment Record.
4.10 It is understood that that the barn is included on the local list of buildings at risk.
5. Description of the building and its setting. 5.1 Lane House Farm is situated on the north side of Wetton Road about 0.7km to the east of Butterton.
5.2 The site lies within the South West Peak. The landscape character is classified as “Upland Pasture”, an upland pastoral landscape with a traditional dispersed pattern of gritstone farmsteads of probable ancient origins. There are also localised village settlements. Permanent pasture is enclosed by drystone walls and some hedgerows. Trees are scattered along incised cloughs and around dispersed gritstone farmsteads. This is a very peaceful rural landscape with open views to surrounding higher ground.
5.3 The farmstead comprises a Georgian stone and tile listed farmhouse and outbuildings, a separately listed detached stone barn and a range of decrepit post war outbuildings.
5.4 The site extends to about an acre with a further three acres of pasture lying immediately to the north.
5.5 Vehicular access to the site is via Wetton Road.
5.6 There are no public footpaths within the site. The nearest footpath, designated FP Butterton 15 runs from New Lane House Farm, opposite, towards Back Lane.
5.7 The barn is a combination barn comprising a cartshed and shippon on the ground floor with a hayloft (tallet) above.
5.8 The walls of the main stone and tile barn are 450 mm thick coursed and dressed limestone with sandstone heads and cills. The walls of the lean- to are 230 mm thick brick and block.
5.9 The ground floor of the barn is divided into two unequal bays by a short 305 mm thick stone wall. The smaller north eastern part would have provided storage for a cart and the larger south western part, standing for six cows.
5.10 The ground floors are concrete with a wide shallow drainage channel and step onto the raised stalls. The concrete floor, concrete stall partitions and waterers are C20 alterations.
5.11 The loft floor is also not original and is supported by bressummer beams with longitudinal beams and transverse floor joists over. 5.12 The floor area measures 39.6 sq. m on each floor. The floor area of the lean-to measures 20.0 sq. m.
5.13 The roof of the main stone and tile barn is supported by the original king post truss and purlins and is clad in blue clay tiles and ridge with a coped verge and kneelers and a sandstone eaves course.
5.14 The hopper window at the rear of the building is badly damaged but was originally a six pane hopper. The lean-to has softwood windows, originally white, but badly weathered and with broken panes. Other windows are missing.
5.15 The loft and shippon have inward opening, vertically boarded doors. These were once painted a dark reddish brown, now badly weathered. The cart shed doors and the pitching hole shutters are missing.
5.16 Rainwater goods comprise grey half round uPVC gutters and down pipes fixed with rise and fall pipes - at the front. Rainwater goods are missing at the back of the building.
5.17 Exterior ground levels fall gently down towards the road with a difference in height of 400mm from one end of the building to the other.
5.18 Boundaries are mainly formed by drystone walls, the exceptions being an overgrown hedge on the boundary with Fenns Farm to the west, sheep fencing on the field boundary to the north east and supplementary hedging supporting the boundary wall to the east.
5.19 The access and parking areas are unmade, surfaced with limestone aggregate.
5.20 Domestic refuse and recycling wheelie bins are stored at the back of the farmhouse.
6. Description of the proposed development 6.1 The proposal seeks to convert the building to form a two bedroom holiday let.
6.2 Works to stabilise the building are advised: i). Underpinning It is likely that the north east gable and part of the return walls will need to be underpinned. However, the full extent of underpinning will not be known until the the floor has been removed and the stone footings exposed.*
ii). Partial reconstruction of the gables. The gables will need to be partially reconstructed. Although the gables have bulged in the centre, the corners to eaves level are reasonably square. The upper part of the gable above eaves level and the central bulging part above loft floor should be rebuilt. The contractor should use a lime mortar and should take particular care to match the coursing depths and to limit the thickness of the mortar joints so that they are as tight as at present.
iii). Partial reconstruction of the Arch. The centre part of the arch and the courses above should be reconstructed. A former will be required to support the arch during reconstruction. As above, the contractor should use a lime mortar and should take particular care to match the coursing depths and to limit the thickness of the mortar joints.
iv). The areas to be reconstructed are shown in the Structural Report at Annex B.
* Since there is a risk of collapse, it is advised that the roof a n d t h e upper part of the unstable gables are taken down carefully prior to underpinning.
6.3 The lean-to attached to the north east gable will be demolished.
6.4 The building will be repointed. A hydraulic lime mortar will be used since it is breathable and less likely to result in frost damage.
6.5 Internal timber lintels should be checked for infestation and treated with a permethrin based insecticide from the NE approved list*
* https://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20150902172031/http:// publications.naturalengland.org.uk/file/5029140
6.6 Calculations show that the existing purlins and rafters are undersized. It is therefore proposed that the roof be supported by a concealed steel truss with concealed steel purlins. The existing truss and purlins should be retained for their intrinsic historic merit. The truss should be repaired by fitting new wind braces and the timbers treated with a permethrin based insecticide from the NE approved list. New rafters, insulation, breather membrane and galvanised restraints to BS EN 845-1 should be be fitted.
6.7 A new loft floor to Eurocode 5/TRADA standards will be required.
6.8 The ground floor will need to be replaced, fitted with a damp proof membrane and insulated to current building regulations.
6.9 Internal stairs to Building Regs. Part K will be need to be provided. Otherwise, the internal plan form will be retained.
Windows and Doors 6.10 The windows will be wood framed and painted in a dark recessive colour, e.g. BS 4800 18-C-39, fathom blue: i). The ground floor window on the rear elevation will be an agricultural hopper type with robust glazing bars. ii). The loft window on the NE gable will feature a plain pitching light with a vertically boarded shutter with strap hinges set on pintles and pinned back. In contrast… iii). The loft window on the front elevation is a casement type with small lights and narrow glazing bars. This window has rebated stone jambs with bevelled reveals and no external pintles. Refer to EH listing for description. iv). To admit light to the bathroom and stairwell, two small CR01 roof light company conservation roof lights are proposed.
6.11 The doors will be wood, painted in a dark recessive colour, e.g. BS 4800 18-C-39, fathom blue: i). The unused loft door and the entrance door are a split stable design with plain lights in the upper part and vertically boarded below. The openings have rebated stone jambs without external pintles so the doors are set relatively deep (~ 150mm from the front face), and the entrance door opens inwards. ii). The cart shed doors are vertically boarded with strap hinges set on pintles. The left hand door will be permanently closed and the right hand door pinned back when occupied to reveal a fully glazed window with twin vertical lights.
Services 6.12 Rainwater goods will comprise black 1/2 round cast iron gutters fixed with rise and fall brackets and round down pipes. These shall discharge to the existing storm drain.
6.13 There will be no external soil and vent pipes, no plastic louvred vents and no external meter boxes.
6.14 A new electricity supply via a below ground service connection will be required.
6.15 The site does not have the benefit of mains sewage. The nearest connection is in the village about 700m to the west and slightly uphill.
5.16 Although the holiday cottage could use the existing septic tank, it is proposed that use of the septic tank will be discontinued. Foul drainage will be by means of a package treatment plant serving the farmhouse and holiday unit.
5.17 The outflow from the package plant shall discharge to ground. The total discharge to surface water arising from the package plant is less than 2 cubic meters per day and is therefore license exempt. (Environment Agency regulatory position statement 116 v4.0)
Residential Load = 150 Litres/Person/Day (British Water Code of Practice) Population, P1 for a house with five bedrooms = 7 Population, P2 for barn with two bedrooms = 5 Total Population = 12 Total Discharge = 150 x 12 = 1800 Litres/Day OK
Vortex P15 Design Capacity = 15 persons. OK In practice current building regulations require water saving measures resulting in a lower limit of 125 litres per person day. The total discharge to ground is therefore expected to be no greater than 1500 Litres/Day.
6.18 Surface water shall discharge to the existing storm drain located close to the entrance of the site. The site is not within a flood risk area and the proposal does not increase the risk of flooding elsewhere.
Boundary and Surface Treatments 6.19 The hedge on the boundary with Fenns Farm to the west to be relaid and supplemented with native species. Additional planting is contingent on the approval for a replacement outbuilding - application ref PP-09198225.
6.20 To prevent loose material entering the highway, the first 2m from the highway boundary will be surfaced in gritstone setts.
6.21 A parking area will be formed using Bodpave cellular pavers. The holiday unit will have two bedrooms and is suitable for a single family so a parking space for a single car is considered sufficient. On occasions when additional guest parking is required, the overspill and dwell parking area associated with the replacement outbuilding can be used - application ref PP-09198225.
External Lighting 6.22 No external lighting is proposed.
Climate Change 6.23 It is proposed that the building be heated using a ground source heat pump. The collectors will be buried below ground in the field to the north east of the building. The heat pump and accumulators will be housed in the replacement outbuilding - application ref PP-09198225.
6.23 An EV charging point will be provided.
Protected Species 6.24 A protected species survey has been carried out and found that the bats were foraging around the trees on the opposite site of Wetton Road and commuting across the site but where not using the target building.
6.25 4 old swallow nests and a 3 old owl pellets were found
6.26 The ecologist recommended reasonable avoidance measures during construction and the avoidance of external lighting during construction.
6.27 To enhance the habitat for bats and nesting birds, the ecologist recommended the installation of a bat box on the north east gable, 4 swallow cups on the north west elevation and an owl box on a mature ash on the eastern side of the site.
6.28 The ecologists advice notwithstanding, the impact on the listed building could be minimised by installing bat ridge tiles (NE detail 4A) and by fitting the swallow cups either within the unconverted store at the rear of the farmhouse or within the replacement outbuilding - application ref PP-09198225.
7. The Concept of Significance 7.1 Assessing significance is a key principle for managing change to heritage assets, and is embedded within current government policy. The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF revised 2019) defines significance as the ‘the value of a heritage asset to this and future generations because of its heritage interest (NPPF, p71). Heritage assets include listed and unlisted buildings, conservation areas and archaeology.
7.2 Historic England issued Conservation Principles in 2008 to explain the theoretical framework for understanding significance to inform conservation and change. The 2008 document identified four heritage values or interests: evidential, historical, aesthetic and communal. The NPPF defines four heritage interests: archaeological, architectural, artistic or historic (NPPF p71). Within these different heritage values or interests, significance can be measured in levels: 15
• Highest – an asset important at national to international levels, including scheduled ancient monuments, Grade I and II* listed buildings and World Heritage Sites. The NPPF advises that substantial harm or loss should be wholly exceptional.
• High – a designated asset important at a national and regional level, including Grade II listed buildings and some conservation areas. The NPPF advises that substantial harm should be exceptional.
• Medium – an undesignated asset important at a local to regional level, including local (non-statutory) listed buildings. May include less significant parts of listed buildings. Buildings and parts of structures in this category should be retained where possible, although there is usually scope for adaptation.
• Low – structure or feature of very limited heritage or other cultural value and not defined as a heritage asset. The removal or adaptation of structures in this category is usually acceptable where the work will enhance a related heritage asset.
• Negative – structure or feature that harms the value of a heritage asset. Wherever practicable, removal of negative features should be considered, taking account of setting and opportunities for enhancement.
7.3 The initialled date stone together with mapping evidence show that the building was constructed in 1854. 7.4 Although dispersed driftway plans are unusual, combinations barns are commonplace.
7.5 R W Brunskill’s definition of vernacular architecture is thus:
Vernacular Architecture: ...a building designed by an amateur without any training in design; the individual will have been guided by a series of conventions built up in his locality, paying little attention to what may be fashionable. The function of the building would be the dominant factor, aesthetic considerations, though present to some small degree, being quite minimal. - Dr RW Brunskill 16
7.6 Although the some of the detailing, especially the stones forming the arch (voussoirs) are artful, the construction is comparable with many vernacular buildings in the Peak District where the function of the building was the primary consideration.
7.7 The addition of the lean-to and internal alterations have eroded the significance of the building. However, these alterations were made prior to Grade II listing and the building is therefore assessed as a heritage asset of high significance.
8. The Concept of Harm & Decision Making 8.1 Paragraph 193 of the NPPF identifies three levels of harm to the significance of a heritage asset: • total loss • substantial harm • less than substantial harm
8.2 Paragraph 194 considers harm or loss of significance of designated heritage assets:
Any harm to, or loss of, the significance of a designated heritage asset (from its alteration or destruction, or from development within its setting), should require clear and convincing justification. Substantial harm to or loss of:
a) grade II listed buildings, or grade II registered parks or gardens, should be exceptional,
8.3 Paragraph 196 concerns less than substantial harm:
Where a development proposal will lead to less than substantial harm to the significance of a designated heritage asset, this harm should be weighed against the public benefits of the proposal including, where appropriate, securing its optimum viable use.
8.4 Paragraph 192 concerns decision taking. In determining applications, local planning authorities should take account of: a) The desirability of sustaining and enhancing the significance of heritage assets and putting them to viable uses consistent with their conservation;
b) the positive contribution that conservation of heritage assets can make to sustainable communities including their economic vitality; and
c) the desirability of new development making a positive contribution to local character and distinctiveness.
8.5 Paragraph 200 considers the setting of heritage assets:
Local planning authorities should look for opportunities for new development within Conservation Areas and World Heritage Sites, and within the setting of heritage assets, to enhance or better reveal their significance. Proposals that preserve those elements of the setting that make a positive contribution to the asset (or which better reveal its significance) should be treated favourably.
8.6 Paragraph 202 considers situations where approval may conflict with policies in the development plan:
Local planning authorities should assess whether the benefits of a proposal for enabling development, which would otherwise conflict with planning policies but which would secure the future conservation of a heritage asset, outweigh the disbenefits of departing from those policies.
9. Impact Assessment 9.1 The aforementioned paragraphs in the NPPF set out a proportionate approach to the conservation of heritage assets, with greater weight applied to the conservation of heritage assets of higher significance.
9.2 This proportionate approach means that where a heritage asset have lower significance, there is more scope for change. The NPPF is not intended to prevent change to heritage assets, but to manage change appropriately.
Assessment of Potential Loss 9.3 Historic England has recently published revised guidelines on converting and adapting traditional farm buildings (2017), to provide advice to local authorities, owners and applicants. The guidance explains why farm buildings are important to landscape character and local distinctiveness and recognises that: 17
‘without appropriate uses to fund their long-term maintenance and repair, they will disappear from the landscape’
9.4 The 2017 guide to the adaptive re-use of traditional farm buildings notes that once farm buildings are redundant the options include total loss through demolition or eventual collapse; it is also recognised that: ‘in the majority of cases adaptation, or an appropriate use within a sympathetic development scheme, will be the only means of funding maintenance and repair’
9.5 The building is a designated heritage assets and the level of harm arising from demolition or eventual collapse is assessed as substantial - NPPF Paragraph 197.
9.6 The building also makes a positive contribution to the setting of the listed farmhouse - a separately designated heritage asset and the level of harm to the setting arising from demolition or eventual collapse amounts to substantial - NPPF Paragraph 195, Planning Practice Guidance Paragraph 18 Reference ID: 18a-018-20140306
9.7 In summary, every attempt should be made to find viable re-use to secure the future conservation of the building and the contribution it makes to the setting of the farmhouse, even if there is a degree of policy conflict - NPPF Paragraph 202.
Assessment of Proposed Development 9.8 The building is on the local local list of buildings at risk. The structural appraisal accompanying the application confirms that the building is at risk of collapse if remedial work is not carried out. The main problems are gable rotation, arch settlement arising from foundation heave and the condition of the roof. Remedial work includes localised underpinning and localised reconstruction. The roof structure can be retained using concealed steelwork.
9.9 This work is advised to prevent further foundation movement and to stabilise the building. A do-nothing approach will result in eventual collapse. A minimal approach, e.g. replacing the floors and roof to make the building serviceable, for domestic storage for example, will disturb the fragile shell and also risks collapse.
9.10 The extent of the works is considered to be appropriate given the historic, architectural and vernacular merit of the building and its setting.
9.11 It is therefore considered essential that a viable alternative use be found. The buildings are redundant in agricultural terms and given the need to conserve the setting of the barn, other uses such as market residential, community or business use are considered inappropriate.
9.12 The building can be converted to holiday use without enlargement and without the need for new openings or other overly domestic features. The proposed use also minimises the domesticating impact on the setting.
9.13 The open planform at ground floor level will be largely retained. Other internal alterations, such as the provision of building services, and internal stud walls will be interpreted as modern features, are reversible and do not entail loss of fabric. The effect of subdivision within the loft can be mitigated by leaving the original purlins and truss exposed. The alterations to planform will therefore have a minor negative impact on the open internal character of the building. 9.14 The installation of glazing and new joinery will have a minor negative impact on the character of the building. Restoring the vertically boarded cart doors and the small paned loft window will have a positive impact. Overall, the effect is neutral.
9.15 The introduction of a pair of small true conservation roof lights will have a minor negative impact on the character of the building. If placed in the rear of the building, they will not impact on the setting of the listed farmhouse.
9.16 The original trusses and purlins are to be preserved - a positive impact.
9.17 Removing the 1960’s lean-to will have a positive impact.
9.18 Associated landscaping including hedge laying conserves and enhances the existing boundaries. Hedging, supplementary planting and the cellular grass parking area, (sited within the footprint of the lean-to) will have a positive impact on the setting of the listed buildings.
9.19 The level of harm to the significance of the building is therefore assessed as less than substantial and securing its conservation is a public benefit and outweighs the harm.
10. Conclusion 10.1 The buildings is a designated heritage asset with historic and vernacular merit and it is clear that the buildings are at risk of collapse if a viable alternative use cannot be found.
10.2 Holiday use, ancillary to Lane House Farm use is considered to be best viable option for re-use.
10.3 The harm to the building and its setting is less than substantial and the benefits in securing the conservation of the building setting outweigh the harm.
10.4 The development constitutes a sympathetic conversion which respects the character of the building and its setting. The proposal is considered to an acceptable reuse of traditional farm buildings with no adverse impact upon the amenity of neighbours.
10.5 Given that the building is likely to collapse if a viable new use is not found, then it is considered that the proposals accord with conservation and design policies in the National Park’s Development Plan including Core Strategy policies DS1, GSP1, GSP2, GSP3, L1, L3, CC1, DMP policies DM1, DMC3, DMC5, DMC10, DMT3 and DMT8 and Section 16 of the National Planning Policy Framework.
A W Newby, B.Sc (Eng). DMS. PME Planning Services Monday, 26 October 2020
1). NP/SM/1215/1197, NP/SM/1215/1198, Planning and Listed Building Consent for the conversion of redundant agricultural land and buildings to holiday barn conversions, domestic garage and ancillary outbuilding, withdrawn 20/01/2016.
2). NP/SM/0415/0329, Application for Listed building Consent for Replacement Front Door, approved, 2/6/2015
3). NP/SM/1214/1294, Application for Listed building Consent for Replacement Windows, approved, 19/2/2015
4). NP/SM/1214/1295, NP/SM/1214/1297, Planning and Listed Building Consent for the erection of a Georgian style summerhouse, approved, 19/2/2015
5). NP/SM/0619/0670 Application for Listed building Consent for Replacement Front Door, (amended scheme) approved, 19/8/2019
6). Historic England List Entry 1294802, 15/3/1985.
7). Hambleton family history. National Archive Record D5131, held at the Staffordshire Record Office.
8). Peak District National Park Farmsteads Character Statement, Jeremy Lake, Bob Edwards, pub PDNPA & Historic England, 2017
9). Henry Stephen’s map of Ashbourne, pub. 1836. British Library, ref OSD 348, retrieved 23/10/2020
10). 1847 Tithe apportionment map, National Archive, Record No IR 30/32/49.
11). 1:25 inch OS map, Staffordshire IX.10, pub 1880.
12). 1:25 inch OS map, Staffordshire IX.10, pub 1899.
13). 1:25 inch OS map, Staffordshire IX.10, pub 1922.
14). 1-2500 OS map, Staffordshire IX.10, pub 1969.
15). Historic England, Conservation Principles, Policies and Guidance, 2008
16). Traditional Buildings of Britain: An Introduction to Vernacular Architecture, RW Brunskill, Yale University Press. 3rd edition, 2004
17). Adapting Traditional Farm Buildings – best practice guidelines for adaptive reuse, 2017.