‘Intrusive’ expansion of Filey holiday park rejected over impacts

​Haven Leisure’s plan for 17 static caravan bases at its Reighton Sands Holiday Village near Filey has been refused after almost 80 objections were made by members of the public.

​North Yorkshire Council officers raised concerns about the character of the coastal area, while current caravan owners objected as they had “paid a premium for sea view pitches and were told nothing would ever be built in front of them”.

​The scheme at the holiday park, which is around five kilometres south of Filey, had proposed siting the caravan bases on land containing a derelict former residential building and garage and would have included decking, as well as associated access, landscaping and infrastructure works.

​Objections were made by 77 members of the public who had “concerns about loss of tranquillity, use of a valued green space and views enjoyed for decades”.

​They also raised concerns that the “development is greed over conservation and contrary to national climate priorities”.

​A new internal access road would have been created for the proposed static caravans.

​Reighton and Speeton Parish Council also objected, citing concerns about increased traffic through the village, particularly along the narrow St Helen’s Lane.

​The parish council also highlighted a “continued expansion of holiday parks along this stretch of coastline leading to cumulative visual impact, and additional pressure on local infrastructure and emergency services during peak seasons”.

​Council planners described the proposal as “an intrusive, skyline-breaking and urbanising form of development which would be readily visible from the beach and immediate coastal hinterland”.

​The authority’s principal landscape officer raised “significant concerns and considers the site highly sensitive due to its location within the coastal hinterland adjacent to open access land, the England Coast Path setting, and the strongly valued wild, open cliff top character”.

​According to a planning report, the site is close to the coastal fringe where the landscape is notably open, elevated and visually exposed, offering extensive long range intervisibility across the wider coastal corridor.

​Despite modifications made by the applicant, including a reduction in the scale of the proposal, officers decided that it “would erode the character and appearance of the undeveloped coastal buffer and would neither be visually unobtrusive nor capable of successful integration within the surrounding landscape given the exposed landform and absence of effective nature containment”.

​The council concluded: “The harm identified could not be acceptably mitigated by planting or minor layout changes given the site’s topography and exposure”

​The application was refused by North Yorkshire Council.