Forbidden driveway gives “inferior status” to Thornbridge Hall - Peak District inquiry hears

The comment came during an appeal by entrepreneurial tycoon Emma Harrison against orders to remove it - along with a car park, a cafe, fencing and gates.

Mrs Harrison claims the unauthorised works went ahead without permission because the Peak District National Park Authority (PDNP) “barricaded” its offices during the pandemic.

This week Kate Olley, a barrister representing PDNP, told an inquiry into its enforcement notice the quarter-of-a-mile driveway was “exceptionally poorly-constructed”.

The lawyer said the “crude” road strongly-contrasted with the “narrower, smoother historic driveway” realised by owner George Marples in the late-1800s.

She said: “Regular vehicle movements have been introduced into an area of the park - diminishing the quality of the landscape.

“Crude in its design and execution, the new unauthorised driveway strongly-contracts with the narrower, smoother historic drive.

“It also infers inferior status, being used by general visitors and servicing rather than the higher income-generating clients who will continue to use the historic driveway.”

Several members of the public, including Kath Bishell, reacted with outrage at the comment.

Speaking in support of Emma and husband Jim Harrison’s appeal, Kath said: “To say Thornbride would be obtaining enough financial gain from the wealthy patrons at weddings and so forth…are you saying Thornbridge can’t be open to people of more modest means?

“People who can afford a really expensive wedding are the only people who are going to be allowed? That’s what I understood, that you don’t want the hoi polloi.”

Another speaker, Rebecca Weller said she grew up on the estate when it was owned by Sheffield City Council when her mother worked as a cook and her father was a gardener.

She said: “When my parents retired the place was in considerable disrepair and much in need of investment.

“Now fountains are functioning again, greenhouses have been rebuilt, masonry and plaster have been repaired and so forth.

“The place has been absolutely transformed and without these steps it was really in danger of becoming a dilapidated wilderness.

“Another very positive step is that Thornbride is now accessible for the public to enjoy - it’s been transformed into a careful, informal environment which people of all ages can visit and enjoy.

“I like things like the ducks in the fountain - I think it offers something different to other places in the area.”

Mrs Harrison along with husband Jim - owner of successful Thornbridge Brewery - argue that the unsanctioned work has opened the park up to the public - ensuring its survival into the future.

Jonathan Easton, a barrister representing the couple at the inquiry, said: “The access road, car park and cafe facilitate and encourage public access to heritage assets.

“Such access was previously extremely limited.

“Not only does it allow more people to enjoy the building and grounds, it creates a revenue stream to fund restoration and ongoing repairs as well as providing educational and cultural opportunities for people from disadvantaged backgrounds.

“The development provides a secure future for the hall and the estate when in recent memory they were unloved and falling into disrepair.”

Mr Easton said the Harrisons had promised revenue from the cafe and access to the grounds would be “recycled” and a trust would be established to protect Thornbridge assets.

He added: “Mr and Mrs Harrison want to secure the future of Thornbridge Hall.”

However PDNP says the benefits claimed by the Harrisons could be provided without the unauthorised development and “do not, in any event, outweigh the harm caused to those assets”.

The authority’s barrister Ms Olley told the hearing: “This is considered to be a particularly sensitive location.

“The settings of the listed buildings are fundamental to their significance and are considered to have been harmed by the unauthorised developments.”

Speaking about a conservation management plan submitted by the Harrisons retrospectively, Ms Olley said it “could have been undertaken at any time, rather than in an attempt to justify the unauthorised development”.

“All of the community benefits relied on could be provided or achieved regardless of the unauthorised development and so, should not be afforded any significant weight,” she added.

The barrister said the groundworks had also “most likely” damaged the roots of up to 40 mature trees.

She added: “As the site now presents, with a car park and large cafe, there is evidence of commercialism and a blatant disregard for local planning approval.

“This should not be allowed to stand - if this violation is not stopped and reversed Thornbridge Hall can take its place among so many important places of English heritage that are in danger of degradation and loss.”

The inquiry heard a crucial legal point regarding the legality of the Harrison’s building work was whether fences and gates had been erected on land considered part of the hall.

PDNP’s position, confirmed by barrister Ms Olley, remains that the hall’s garden and parkland all form part of the building.

The authority says if the appeal is dismissed and the enforcement notice is upheld without any variations then the unauthorised developments must be removed and the land restored to its former condition within six months.

However, the inspector who determines the appeal may vary the notice requirements, including the periods for compliance.

The Harrisons, present during the opening arguments for and against the appeal, were asked to comment by the Derbyshire Times however they declined.

The inquiry, set to run until October 18, continues.