ON ONE of our recent sunny winter days I walked up a Dales slope and stopped a while to look down on the valley below, which was bathed in a particularly clear light.

Another walker whom I know came along, and we happened to start discussing the news that the Yorkshire Dales National Park was considering taking a more permissive or flexible approach to what can and cannot be done with some of the thousands of barns that are so important to the character of the local landscape.

These structures were in the headlines a few months ago because the national park persuaded the Government that it should be excluded from new rules which would allow agricultural buildings to be converted to a variety of uses without needing planning permission at all - a change which would potentially have affected all Dales barns, including those stuck in the middle of fields, had Eric Pickles not been persuaded that the park was a special case.

However, the change we were debating was one the national park itself is working on to deal with the fact that of the estimated 4,250 barns in the Dales that are outside farmsteads more than 2,000 are in ‘poor’ or ‘very bad’ condition - which can mean they are literally falling down.

The new policy is intended to safeguard the future of these traditional buildings by deciding which ones can reasonably be converted to a new use, which should be preserved as they are and which should probably be allowed to go by the wayside, with the materials from the crumbling building perhaps given new life in a conversion project for a more viable barn.

The idea is that ‘roadside’ barns, ones in farmsteads and existing settlements could be converted to alternative residential or commercial uses, subject to the usual planning considerations.

Any converted to housing would normally be subject to existing ‘local occupancy’ rules for new homes in the Dales, though there is a possibility that could be waived in exchange for a ‘barns levy’, which the park would use to help conserve the most historic barns.

Others which are actually in the middle of fields might be considered for ‘low-intensity’ uses such as bunk barns or for adaptation to make them more useful for modern agricultural purposes.

The most significant change here, arguably, is the inclusion of ‘roadside’ barns, because it would potentially mean a fairly large number of buildings outside village boundaries could be considered for conversion.

Assuming the national park authority may indeed start making decisions on such buildings some time relatively soon, my fellow walker and I looked over the valley and tried to assess whether we thought the barns we could see below us would be suitable for redevelopment.

Our admittedly brief and fairly superficial deliberations suggested the national park members may have their work cut out.

The most magnificent specimen and most worthy of conservation (in my view) was sitting in splendid isolation smack in the middle of a field, and so presumably not a very suitable candidate for conversion; unless, perhaps, one found a rather eccentric occupant who was prepared to go to and from the building on foot and required no mod cons whatsoever.

For one of the problems with converting barns is that you generally need to provide a proper access to the nearest road, and in many cases you would also have to put in new utilities, such as electricity wires. In the case of our splendid field barn that would mean inserting a fairly lengthy piece of road plus the power wires right into the middle of what is now a green space, visible from many vantage points - which partly explains why ‘low-intensity’ is the watchword for such buildings.

However, even a couple of barns we saw closer to the road might require new access points and cabling which could be considered intrusive in the landscape.

My fellow walker said he also had concerns about turning barns over to new uses which involved several cars being parked outside.

One group of agricultural buildings was actually right on the roadside, with a wide existing access and plenty of built-up space to play with. It seemed ideal - except the road it fronted onto was narrow even by local standards, with few passing places.

In short, there didn’t seem to be any candidates for conversion in the landscape below that would be absolutely free from objections.

So it will be very interesting to see how the consultation turns out and, if the park goes ahead with the new policy, how authority members tackle what is likely to be a pretty tricky decision-making process.

I have long felt that barns within existing settlements, many of which were once actually houses, are prime candidates for conversion. Indeed, I think we have sometimes been too restrictive in the past.

In principle it must surely be right to try to take positive steps to protect barns outside settlements as well, when you consider what an integral part they are of Craven’s very special landscape.

Yet I have a funny feeling that I might not feel quite so sanguine if I was asked to make decisions on actual conversions well outside village boundaries. After all, in the Dales we’ve got used to the idea that this shouldn’t really happen.

Also, if residents don’t feel park authority members are being consistent in the decisions they make they are likely to start getting disgruntled.

I wish the park authority well in its deliberations, because the new policy idea does seem a potentially positive approach to safeguarding a vital component of the Dales landscape's rich tapestry; I just don’t much envy those who have to decide which buildings get converted and to what new use.

Then we just have to think of a way to preserve all those magnificent barns in the middle of fields as well.