92 caravan pitches at Skirlington Market, Skipsea Road, Atwick

What officers recommended

Officers recommended approval because the proposal was considered appropriate for tourism and economic development, with acceptable effects subject to conditions.

“The application site lies outside defined development limits in the countryside though is easily accessible via Skipsea Road. Relevant policies of the development plan support economic development and tourism proposals and identify tourism development including accommodation as an appropriate form of development within the countryside.”

“Subject to suitable conditions, the development is also considered acceptable in terms of its impact on the character and appearance of the surrounding area, the amenities of neighbouring properties, highway safety, flood risk and the surrounding environment, and nature conservation interests, and suitable biodiversity enhancement would be achievable. The application is therefore considered to accord with requirements within relevant policies within the ERLP SDU and NPPF.”

Officer report

Concerns about the market

Objections focused on economic losses, the loss of a valued market, traffic, infrastructure, flooding, environmental effects, amenity and the need for the development.

“- Loss of livelihoods for hundreds of traders and small businesses reliant on the market - Significant financial hardship for individuals and families (including loss of income, investments, and stock) - Negative knock‑on impact on the wider local economy (shops, cafés, accommodation, tourism businesses) - Potential loss of large numbers of jobs linked directly and indirectly to the market - Reduced visitor spending in nearby towns such as Hornsea and Bridlington - Suggested…”

“- Development located outside defined development limits - Concern that applications have been split (market vs car park) to secure approval - Lack of consideration of cumulative impacts between applications - Limited assessment of economic harm, job losses, or alternatives - Potential precedent for further similar development - Suggested conflict with: o Policy S3 – Development Limits o Wider Local Plan policies (S3, EC1, EC2, EC3, ENV1, ENV2, ENV6, S8)”

Officer report

Who spoke

An objector and the applicant’s agent spoke about the application under the agreed protocols.

What members debated

Members considered approval, refusal for urbanisation and overdevelopment, and deferral for further discussions about accommodation with market traders.

“Moved by Councillor Robson and seconded by Councillor Denise Howard - That the application be refused because of the harm that will arise through the urbanisation of the area because of the resulting overdevelopment of the site and its negative impact on a rural area in terms of its visual impact, which will result in harm to the amenity of the area.”

“Moved as an amendment by Councillor G McMaster and seconded by Councillor Nolan - That the application be deferred for further discussions with the applicant regarding potential accommodation with the market traders and then be resubmitted to the Committee for determination.”

Minutes

The committee’s decision

The committee rejected the approval motion and resolved to defer the application for further discussions before returning it for determination.

“Resolved - That the application be deferred for further discussions with the applicant regarding potential accommodation with the market traders and then be resubmitted to the Committee for determination.”

Minutes