New holiday park near Roseberry Topping in North Yorkshire given green light

The park, on the outskirts of Guisborough, will consist of 21 chalets, with parking, an area for up to 50 touring caravans, associated toilet blocks and a managers’ office.

All buildings and structures will be single storey and consist of timber materials. Existing access off the A171 dual carriageway will also be upgraded as part of the plans put forward by Wyke Lodges.

Thirty eight objections had been received by Redcar and Cleveland Council. These included criticism that there would be a negative impact on the views and setting of nearby Roseberry Topping.

The development was also described as “unnecessary and inappropriate”, while concerns were raised about highway safety. Guisborough Town Council had also urged the planning authority to turn down the application.

It said: “This location of beautiful open countryside with clear views of Roseberry Topping needs to be looked after for future heritage. Caravans, chalets, toilet blocks etc would be a blot on the landscape, especially when viewed from the [North York] Moors and Roseberry Topping.

“If change of use is granted on this land adjacent to the busy A171 then it would open the door for other applications and the open countryside [would be] spoilt.”

However 35 representations were received in support of the application.

One said the development would be a “great addition”, while others pointed out how it would bring investment and jobs and allow people to visit and stay. Eight full-time jobs will be created.

Council engineers said from a highway point of view the network was capable of accommodating the extra vehicle movements the proposal would generate.

This would be approximately 21 two-way movements in the morning peak and 17 at evening rush hour.

They said parking provision was considered satisfactory, while pedestrians and cyclists would be catered for with the creation of a footpath from the north-east corner of the site, which would link to an existing footpath into the centre of Guisborough.

A report provided for members of Redcar and Cleveland Council’s regulatory committee said the proposed development, despite being outside of designated limits, was acceptable as it was a recreation or tourism proposal requiring a countryside location.

It said it would support policies contained within the council’s Local Plan which sought to promote Guisborough as a tourist destination at the gateway to the North York Moors National Park.

The application was said to respect the character of Middlesbrough Road and would not result in a significant change in the character of the wider landscape. There was also an existing mature hedgerow along the boundaries of the site which would screen the development.

The report said: “Several comments have been made through the public consultation in relation to the loss of a view. Members are aware that there is no right to a view in planning and therefore this is not a material consideration in the determination of the application.”

It added: “The application would bring significant economic and tourism benefits to the borough.”

Councillors were worried about the potential for pedestrians crossing the dual carriageway to reach the Cross Keys pub or to access a bus stop for services into Guisborough.

A condition was added requiring the developer to reach an agreement with the council’s highways team to come up with a solution to make the road safer to cross. This could include a refuge-type structure with barriers preventing direct access to the carriageway.

Councillor Stuart Smith, chairman of the committee, said it was acknowledged there was a shortage of overnight accommodation in the borough which the park would help counter.

He also said the application was “totally different” to a proposed camping and caravan park in Saltburn, which previously caused controversy.

This, he said, was turned down because of conservation and ecological conflicts and it was also sited on a heritage coastline. The Guisborough plans, which had been recommended for approval, were passed by eight votes to three.