The picturesque Yorkshire coast, renowned for its stunning beauty, recently became the focal point of a contentious proposal. Local councilors declined a plan to establish a new caravan park on the farmland of Barns Farm, located in Saltburn Road, near Brotton, Cleveland, a village in the United Kingdom.
This proposal wasn’t just about setting up a few caravans. It entailed the creation of nine hardstanding pitches, complete with new vehicular access and ten parking spaces. On paper, it seemed like a promising venture, potentially boosting the local economy.
However, the Redcar and Cleveland Council officers had reservations. They believed that this development would fundamentally alter the landscape, contradicting several planning policies. Highway safety was another significant concern, especially given the proposed site’s location.
The local community wasn’t entirely on board either. Anne and Robert Roberts, who own land adjacent to the proposed site, described the area as a “peaceful haven.” They raised concerns about potential noise, litter, and the precedent that could be set for similar developments.
Brotton resident David Kidd voiced concerns about the local wildlife. The proximity to Saltburn Gill, a woodland nature reserve managed by the Tees Valley Wildlife Trust, meant that caravans could potentially disturb birds and deer, according to a report by The Yorkshire Post.
Caroline Marshall, another local farm owner, emphasized the beauty of the Cleveland Heritage Coast. She questioned the logic behind introducing a caravan site to such a pristine location, potentially detracting from its natural allure.
While the proposal had its merits, being a “small scale” leisure development, the designs did not address the location’s sensitive nature. The plans extended into open fields, potentially altering the region’s character.
In response to the concerns raised, amended plans were provided. These included additional planting on the site’s boundaries. However, the council did not believe these changes would sufficiently screen the caravans from public view.
The council’s development engineers raised another point of contention. They believed that the site’s entrance might not have enough space for two vehicles with caravans to pass each other simultaneously.
The Ramblers Association, a prominent group in the area, also weighed in on the matter. They expressed concerns about the access road leading to the site, which was a public right of way. The potential increase in traffic could compromise this.
The refusal of the caravan park plan serves as a reminder of the delicate balance between economic development and environmental preservation. While the proposal promised economic benefits, the potential environmental and aesthetic costs were deemed too high.
