North Yorkshire Council

Community Development Services

Thirsk and Malton Area Planning Committee

16 October 2025

ZE25/00523/FUL - Change of use of land to site for 6 no. caravans with associated foul drainage (retrospective) at Willow Farm Upper Helmsley YO41 1JX for Mr David O’Meara (David O’Meara Racing)

Report of the Head of Development Management – Community Development Services

1.0 Purpose of the Report and Background

1.1

To determine a retrospective planning application for the change of use of land to allow the siting of 6no. static caravans with associated foul drainage at Willow Farm, Upper Helmsley.

1.2

The application has been referred to Committee for determination owing to the range of issues raised.

2.0 Summary

RECOMMENDATION: That planning permission be REFUSED for the reasons listed below.

2.1 This application seeks full retrospective planning permission for the siting of 6 static caravans for use as staff accommodation, with associated foul drainage. The supporting documentation details that the caravans are to house stable staff on site in connection with the running of the applicant’s racehorse training business.

2.2 Based on the information submitted, the essential functional need for a further six units of residential accommodation on the site has not been demonstrated and as such, the proposal is not considered to represent a ‘Very Special Circumstance’ that would allow for the development to be acceptable in this location, nor is it considered that the application demonstrates an essential functional need required by Policy SP9 and SP21 of the Ryedale Plan – Local Plan Strategy.

2.3 The application site is located in the York Green Belt where inappropriate development is, by definition, harmful to the Green Belt. Given the principle of the development is considered to conflict with the requirements of the Ryedale Plan – Local Plan Strategy and the NPPF, the development is therefore also considered to result in harm to the Green Belt.

2.4 Given the close proximity of the static caravans to the manure storage and active site workings, together with the lack of defined amenity space, it is considered that the residential occupants of the caravans would likely experience unacceptable harm to amenity in relation to noise, odour and disturbance, contrary to the requirements of Policy SP20 of the Ryedale Plan – Local Plan Strategy.

3.0 Preliminary matters

3.1 Access to the case file on Public Access can be found here:

Ryedale DC - Planning Documents

3.2 The following relevant planning history has been identified for the application site:

3/141/4/PA Outline application for the construction of a detached bungalow and garage at Common Farm, Upper Helmsley – Refused 08.01.1979

3/141/8/PA Change of use of disused farm buildings to 9 self contained holiday cottages at Common Farm, Upper Helmsley – Approved 02.11.1982

3/141/8A/FA Erection of two storey accommodation block to form six family dwellings and a 10 bedroom stablemans dwelling together with parking for 20 cars – Approved 16.12.1996

01/00965/73A - Renewal of approval 3/141/8A/FA dated 16.12.96 for erection of two storey accommodation block to form six dwellings and a 10 bedroom stablemans' dwelling with parking for 20 cars – Approved 01.07.2003

16/00238/MFUL - Erection of replacement horse barn, block of 24no. loose boxes, 3no.horse walkers, roofing over of existing horse walker, provision of a horse wash down area and a horse warm up area, resurfacing of tracks and yard area, provision of an all weather gallop, horse walks, gallops access lay-by, widening of access road and siting of temporary office/rest room building (part retrospective application) – Approved 11.05.2016

16/01950/MFUL - Erection of an equestrian building to include 40no. stables and indoor exercise track – Approved 15.02.2017

17/00087/FUL - Change of use and alteration of part two storey/part single storey barn to form office and staff facilities, erection of 3no. two bedroom self contained single storey staff accommodation units and rebuilding and extension of existing storm damaged building to form equestrian facilities and double garage and formation of visitor parking/turning area following demolition of existing stable blocks (part retrospective application) – Approved 28.03.2017

19/00608/FUL - Erection of a building with a mixed use of agricultural and equine related storage to include straw for bedding, feed and associated equipment for the racehorse training yard – Approved 25.07.2019

4.0 Site and surroundings

4.1 The application site contains an existing farm with associated buildings, in use for the training of racehorses. The site is located 0.9 miles south of Sand Hutton, 1.3 miles north of Gate Helmsley and 2.2 miles north east of Stamford Bridge.

4.2 In relation to residential accommodation, it is understood that the site benefits from a farmhouse occupied by the applicant, a converted building providing 2 dwellings, a three bedroom unit occupied by a family with both adults employed in the business and a further unit occupied by three employees.

4.3 The application site is located outside of any defined development limits, within the wider open countryside and is also located within the York Greenbelt.

5.0 Description of Proposal

5.1 This application seeks full retrospective planning permission for the siting of 6 static caravans for use as staff accommodation, with associated foul drainage.

5.2 Caravans were first brought onto the site in 2016 when the business first moved to the site, with a number removed in 2020/21. The caravans were introduced, into their current location, in summer 2023.

5.3 The application states that there is an essential functional need for the accommodation on site and that this need cannot be met by other dwellings or accommodation due to availability and cost.

6.0 Planning Policy and Guidance

6.1 Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 requires that all planning authorities must determine each application under the Planning Acts in accordance with the Development Plan so far as material to the application unless material considerations indicate otherwise.

Adopted Development Plan

6.2 The Adopted Development Plan for this site is:

Ryedale Plan – Local Plan Strategy (2013)

Policy SP1 General Location of Development and Settlement Hierarchy

Policy SP2 Delivery and Distribution of New Housing

Policy SP9 The Land Based and Rural Economy

Policy SP16 Design

Policy SP17 Managing Air Quality, Land and Water Resources

Policy SP19 Presumption in Favour of Sustainable Development

Policy SP20 Generic Development Management Issues

Policy SP21 Occupancy Restrictions

Emerging Development Plan – Material Consideration

6.3 The North Yorkshire Local Plan is the emerging development plan for this site though no weight can be applied in respect of this document at the current time as it is at an early stage of preparation.

Guidance – Material Considerations

6.4 Relevant guidance for this application is:

- National Planning Policy Framework 2024

- National Planning Practice Guidance

- National Design Guide 2021

7.0 Consultation responses

7.1 The following consultation responses have been received and have been summarised below. Full comments are available to view on the Council’s website.

7.2 Parish Council – No Objection

7.3 Internal Drainage Board – No Comments

7.4 Local Highway Authority – No Objections

7.5 No local representations have been received.

8.0 Environment Impact Assessment (EIA)

8.1 The development proposed does not fall within Schedule 1 or 2 of the Environmental Impact Assessment Regulations 2017 (as amended). No Environmental Statement is therefore required.

9.0 Main issues

9.1 The key considerations in the assessment of this application are:

- Principle of Development

- Landscape and Green Belt Impact

- Impact on residential amenity

- Drainage

- Other matters

10.0 Assessment

Principle of Development

10.1 Policy SP1 (General Location of Development and Settlement Hierarchy) limits development in the open countryside to that which is necessary to support a sustainable, vibrant and healthy rural economy and communities.

10.2 Policy SP2 (Delivery and Distribution of New Housing) states that within the wider open countryside, new housing will be limited to:

· New build dwellings necessary to support the land-based economy where an essential need for residential development in that location can be justified

· Conversion of redundant or disused traditional rural buildings and where this would lead to an enhancement to the immediate setting for Local Needs Occupancy

· Change of use of tourist accommodation (not including caravans, cabins or chalets) where appropriate and restricted to Local Needs Occupancy

· Replacement dwellings

10.3 Policy SP21(c) states that:

“(i) Proposals for new residential development in the open countryside (outside Development Limits) to support land-based activity, will be required to demonstrate an essential need for the dwelling that cannot be met elsewhere.

A condition will be applied requiring that the dwelling remains available in perpetuity for use by a person/s employed full-time in agriculture/forestry or other enterprise for which a dwelling in the particular location is considered essential.

(ii) Time restricted conditions and occupancy conditions will be applied to temporary residential accommodation to support a new farming/forestry/rural enterprise activity where the need for the accommodation can be justified. Such accommodation will take the form of a caravan or wooden structure which would be supported, normally for a period of three years.

10.4 At the national level, paragraph 84 of the NPPF states that:

“Planning policies and decision should avoid the development of isolated homes in the countryside unless one or more of the following circumstances apply:

a) there is an essential need for a rural worker, including those taking majority control of a farm business, to live permanently at or near their place of work in the countryside;

b) the development would represent the optimal viable use of a heritage asset or would be appropriate enabling development to secure the future of heritage assets;

c) the development would re-use redundant or disused buildings and enhance its immediate setting;

d) the development would involve the subdivision of an existing residential buildings; or

e) the design is of an exceptional quality, in that it: - is truly outstanding, reflecting the highest standards in architecture and would help to raise standards of design more generally in rural areas; and – would significantly enhance its immediate setting, and be sensitive to the defining characteristics of the local area.”

10.5 Further guidance is set out in the National Planning Practice Guidance (NPPG) which reads:

“Considerations that may be relevant to take into account when applying paragraph 84a of the NPPF could include:

- evidence of the necessity for a rural worker to live at, or in close proximity to, their place of work to ensure the effective operation of an agricultural, forestry or similar land-based rural enterprise (for instance, where farm animals or agricultural processes require on-site attention 24-hours a day and where otherwise there would be a risk to human or animal health or from crime, or to deal quickly with emergencies that could cause serious loss of crops or products);

- the degree to which there is confidence that the enterprise will remain viable for the foreseeable future;

- whether the provision of an additional dwelling on site is essential for the continued viability of a farming business through the farm succession process; - whether the need could be met through improvements to existing accommodation on the site, providing such improvements are appropriate taking into account their scale, appearance and the local context; and

- in the case of new enterprises, whether it is appropriate to consider granting permission for a temporary dwelling for a trial period.

Employment on an assembly or food packing line, or the need to accommodate seasonal workers, will generally not be sufficient to justify building isolated rural dwellings.”

10.6 Policy SP9 (The Land Based and Rural Economy) states that “Ryedale’s land based economy will be sustained and diversified with support for: new buildings that are necessary to support land-based activity and a working countryside, including for farming and forestry and equine purposes.” The supporting text of Policy SP9 at paragraph 5.35 states “this strategy is intended to support and be flexible to the needs of those who rely on the land-based economy.”

10.7 As noted, the application site is located within the York Green Belt. Policy SP1 of the Ryedale Plan – Local Plan Strategy states that proposals for development within the Green Belt will be considered against national planning policy. Chapter 13 of the NPPF relates to the protection of Green Belt land.

10.8 Paragraph 142 states that “the fundamental aim of the Green Belt policy is to prevent urban sprawl by keeping land permanently open; the essential characteristics of Green Belts are their openness and their permanence.”

10.9 Paragraph 153 of the NPPF states that:

“When considering any planning application, local planning authorities should ensure that substantial weight is given to any harm to the Green Belt, including harm to its openness. Inappropriate development is, by definition, harmful to the Green Belt and should not be approved except in very special circumstances. ‘Very special circumstances’ will not exist unless the potential harm to the Green Belt by reason of inappropriateness, and any other harm resulting from the proposal, is clearly outweighed by other considerations.”

10.10 Paragraph 154 of the NPPF states that:

“Development in the Green Belt is inappropriate unless one of the following exceptions apply:

a) buildings for agriculture and forestry;

b) the provision of appropriate facilities (in connection with the existing use of land or a change of use, including buildings, for outdoor sport, outdoor recreation, cemeteries and burial grounds and allotments; as long as the facilities preserve the openness of the Green Belt and do not conflict with the purposes of including land within it;

c) the extension or alteration of a building provided that it does not result in disproportionate additions over and above the size of the original building;

d) the replacement of a building, provided the new building is in the same use and not materially larger than the one it replaces;

e) limited infilling in villages;

f) limited affordable housing for local community needs under policies set out in the development plan (including policies for rural exception sites); and

g) limited infilling or the partial or complete redevelopment of previously developed land (including a material change of use to residential or mixed use including residential), whether redundant or in continuing use (excluding temporary buildings), which would not cause substantial harm to the openness of the Green Belt.

h) other forms of development provided they preserve its openness and do not conflict with the purposes of including land within it. These are:

i. Mineral extraction;

ii. engineering operations;

iii. local transport infrastructure which can demonstrate a requirement for a Green Belt location;

iv. the re-use of buildings provided that the buildings are of permanent and substantial construction;

v. material changes in the use of land (such as changes of use for outdoor sport or recreation, or for cemeteries and burial grounds); and

vi. development, including buildings, brought forward under a Community Right to Build Order or Neighbourhood Development Order.

10.11 Paragraph 155 of the NPPF states that:

The development of homes, commercial and other development in the Green Belt should also not be regarded as inappropriate where all the following apply:

a. The development would utilise grey belt land and would not fundamentally undermine the purposes (taken together) of the remaining Green Belt across the area of the plan;

b. There is a demonstrable unmet need for the type of development proposed;

c. The development would be in a sustainable location, with particular reference to paragraphs 110 and 115 of this Framework; and

d. Where applicable the development proposed meets the ‘Golden Rules’ requirements set out in paragraphs 156-157 below.”

10.12 The NPPF defines Grey Belt land as:

“For the purposes of plan-making and decision-making, ‘grey belt’ is defined as land in the Green Belt comprising previously developed land and/or any other land that, in either case, does not strongly contribute to any of the purposes (a), (b) or (d) in paragraph 143. ‘Grey belt’ excludes land where the application of the policies relating to the areas or assets in footnote 7 (other than Green Belt) would provide a strong reason for refusing or restricting development.”

10.13 The NPPF definition is Previously Developed Land is:

“Land which has been lawfully developed and is or was occupied by a permanent structure and any fixed surface infrastructure associated with it, including the curtilage of the developed land (although it should not be assumed that the whole of the curtilage should be developed). It also includes land comprising large areas of fixed surface infrastructure such as large areas of hardstanding which have been lawfully developed. Previously developed land excludes: land that is or was last occupied by agricultural or forestry buildings; land that has been developed for minerals extraction or waste disposal by landfill, where provision for restoration has been made through development management procedures; land in built-up areas such as residential gardens, parks, recreation grounds and allotments; and land that was previously developed but where the remains of the permanent structure or fixed surface structure have blended into the landscape.”

10.13 Paragraph 143 of the NPPF states that:

“Green Belt serves five purposes:

a) To check the unrestricted sprawl of large built-up areas;

b) To prevent neighbouring towns merging into one another;

c) To assist in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment;

d) To preserve the setting and special character of historic towns; and

e) To assist in urban regeneration, by encouraging the recycling of derelict and other urban land.”

10.14 Footnote 7 states that:

“The policies referred to are those in this Framework (rather than those in development plans) relating to: habitats sites (and those listed in paragraph 194) and/or designated as Sites of Special Scientific Interest; land designated as Green Belt, Local Green Space, a National Landscape, a National Park (or within the Broads Authority) or defined as Heritage Coast; irreplaceable habitats; designated heritage assets (and other heritage assets of archaeological interest referred to in footnote 75); and areas at risk of flooding or coastal change.”

10.15 Prior to the siting of the static caravans (which was carried out without the benefit of planning permission and was therefore not lawfully developed), the land was laid to grass and appears to have formed part of the paddock to the east. It is therefore considered that the site does not represent previously developed land.

10.16 The application site does not strongly contribute to purposes (a), (b) or (d) of paragraph 143 and the site is therefore considered to constitute Grey Belt land.

10.17 The supporting documentation details that the caravans are to house stable staff on site in connection with the running of the applicant’s racehorse training business. It is understood that there are around 140 racehorses on site at any one time, with the applicant employing around 40 people. It is understood that accommodation is provided on site in permanent buildings for at least eight employees in the business, with the six static caravans providing additional staff accommodation.

10.18 The documentation states that the caravans were brought onto the site in 2016. However, following a meeting between the applicant and the LPA during the consideration of this application, it is understood that the caravans have not been on site continuously since 2016 and were removed from the site when they ceased to be required in 2021/22 before being reintroduced in the summer of 2023.

10.19 The Supporting Statement provides the following assertions as justification for the six units on the site:

- Accommodation for stable staff is an ongoing issue in the horse racing industry, with the Immigration Salary List updated in March 2024 to include racing grooms, work riders, stallion handlers, stud grooms, stud hands and stud handlers.

- Many race yards now employ overseas workers who are unable to drive in the UK and are unable to afford accommodation.

- Local housing is extremely expensive and disproportionate to a rural workers wage in the industry.

- A local search of housing available to rent found only room shares available, mostly in York in excess of 5 miles from the site.

- The employees living in the caravans take care of the early morning and late night feeding of the horses, as well as regular checking around during the night to ensure the horses are safe and well. The staff living on site also provide a good source of security.

- The accommodation on site, including the farmhouse, is all occupied by members of staff employed in the business. It is grossly inadequate to meet the need for accommodation on site to meet the needs of the business and to ensure adequate welfare of the horses.

- There is a clear functional need on the site for additional workers to meet the significant early morning and night time demands of the business, as well as to enable it to attract and retain staff with specific challenges and needs.

- The need cannot be met by other available housing in the area, not least because it is scarce, but it is also unaffordable. In order to ensure the continuity of this business which contributes significantly to the economy and to the sport, this represents an essential need and very special circumstances.

10.20 There are a number of employees living on the site in approved accommodation and it is not clear why the early morning and night-time demands of the business cannot be met by these employees. Whilst the information provided may demonstrate that there is sufficient work on site for the number of employees, this does not in itself demonstrate that permanent accommodation is required for these employees.

10.21 The Statement refers to site security, however it is not evident how the presence of the six caravans could form a deterrent beyond the existing residential accommodation.

10.22 Based on discussions between the applicant and LPA, it is understood that the racehorse training industry is generally expected to provide accommodation as part of employment and that without this offering, recruiting would prove difficult. A review of the Careers in Racing website does indicate that many jobs offer free accommodation as part of the job, however it does not indicate if this is on site or in the locality. Officers consider that the functional requirements in terms of the need for staffing on site can be reasonably catered for through the on-site accommodation in combination with off-site accommodation. This does not take into account the wider issues of accommodation need within the industry, nor the expectation of accommodation provision based on provision for foreign workers.

10.23 It is understood that the existing units on site are fully accommodated and that there are no other buildings on the site that could be converted to form additional residential accommodation.

10.24 The application is not accompanied by a sequential test with details of other accommodation that may be available. Gate Helmsley is located around a 1.3 mile drive from the application site, Stamford Bridge around a 2.2 mile drive and Stockton on the Forest a 3.9 mile drive.

10.25 A review of Rightmove at the time of writing the report indicates that there are 135 properties for sale and 11 properties for rent within a 3 mile radius of the site. Whilst the application states accommodation is unaffordable for employees, there is limited information as to whether the applicant could purchase or rent a property in the locality to provide shared/HMO accommodation for employees. This is considered to remain an alternative option for the applicant.

10.26 Based on the information submitted, the essential functional need for a further six units of residential accommodation on the site has not been demonstrated and as such, the proposal does not satisfy the tests under Paragraph 155 of the NPPF and is therefore inappropriate development. Furthermore, it is not considered to represent a ‘Very Special Circumstance’ that would allow for the development to be acceptable in this location, nor is it considered that the application demonstrates an essential functional need required by Policy SP9 and SP21 of the Ryedale Plan – Local Plan Strategy.

10.27 As noted, the application site is located within the wider open countryside, outside of any settlement. It is considered that the siting of six caravans does not represent a form of development supported by Policy SP1 of the Ryedale Plan – Local Plan Strategy, nor would it represent development in a sustainable location or make effective use of land.

10.28 It is therefore considered that the principle of development conflicts with the requirements of Policies SP1, SP2, SP9 and SP21 of the Ryedale Plan – Local Plan Strategy and the NPPF.

Landscape and Green Belt Impact

10.29 The application site is located within the wider open countryside, as defined in the Local Plan. Policy SP16 (Design) requires that:

“Development proposals will be expected to create high quality durable places that are accessible, well integrated with their surroundings and which:

· Reinforce local distinctiveness

· Provide a well-connected public realm which is accessible and useable by all, safe and easily navigated

· Protect amenity and promote well-being”

10.30 To accord with Policy SP16 and reinforce local distinctiveness, the location, siting, form, layout, scale and detailed design of new development should respect the context provided by its surroundings. Attention should be paid to the grain of settlements, influenced by street blocks, plot sizes, the orientation of buildings, boundaries, spaces between buildings and the density, size and scale of buildings.

10.31 Policy SP20 (Generic Development Management Issues) also requires that: “New development will respect the character and context of the immediate locality and the wider landscape/townscape character in terms of physical features and the type and variety of existing uses.”

10.32 In this instance, it is considered that the six static caravans are unacceptable in terms of planning policy and therefore the proposal remains fundamentally inappropriate.

10.33 The position of the caravans relates well to the existing built form of the site, located to the east of the existing buildings and on an area of existing hardstanding. Albeit visible from public vantage points, the caravans have not resulted in significant encroachment into the open countryside.

10.34 The caravans are functional in appearance, of a finish expected of a static caravan and are not considered to be a high quality installation. Additional planting within the site would minimise views of the caravans from public vantage points and the application does state that the applicant would be agreeable to a condition requiring a landscaping scheme to be implemented.

10.35 However, the application site is located in the York Green Belt where inappropriate development is, by definition, harmful to the Green Belt. Given the principle of the development is considered to conflict with the requirements of the Ryedale Plan – Local Plan Strategy and the NPPF, the development is therefore also considered to result in harm to the Green Belt.

10.36 As noted, the site is considered to constitute Grey Belt land. However, the development would not meet all of the criteria listed within paragraph 155 and is therefore considered inappropriate development within Grey Belt land.

Impact on residential amenity

10.37 Policy SP20 (Generic Development Management Issues) states:

“New development will not have a material adverse impact on the amenity of present or future occupants, the users or occupants of neighbouring land and buildings or the wider community by virtue of its design, use, location and proximity to neighbouring land uses. Impacts on amenity can include, for example, noise, dust, odour, light flicker, loss of privacy or natural daylight or be an overbearing presence.”

10.38 The caravans would not give rise to a material adverse impact on the amenity of the existing residential units on the site in relation to overlooking or noise and disturbance.

10.39 There are concerns with the level of outdoor space provided to the units, together with their positioning on site. The units are located to the north of the manure heap, with no evidence of any allocated private amenity space.

10.40 Given the close proximity of the static caravans to the manure storage and active site workings, together with the lack of amenity space, it is considered that the residential occupants of the caravans would likely experience unacceptable harm to amenity in relation to noise, odour and disturbance.

10.41 Whilst the units would be occupied by employees of the business, it should still be expected that they can benefit from an acceptable level of residential amenity. On this basis, the development is considered to be contrary to the requirements of Policy SP20 of the Ryedale Plan – Local Plan Strategy.

Other matters

10.42 The scheme includes the provision of a water treatment plant and surface water to a soakaway sited to the north of the caravans. The installation of a package treatment plant is governed by the Environment Agency. The principle of the installation is considered appropriate, subject to the site having the appropriate permits from the EA.

10.43 The siting of six residential caravans is considered acceptable in highway terms and it is not anticipated that this would result in a significant increase in vehicle movements, over and above what is experienced as a result of the equestrian use of the site.

10.44 Planning permissions in England are deemed to be granted subject to the general Biodiversity Gain Condition as set out by Schedule 7A, paragraph 13 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (TCPA) as amended by Schedule 14, Part 2, paragraphs 13, 14 and 15 of the Environment Act 2021. This application is considered to be exempt from this condition due to being retrospective and on an area of existing hardstanding.

11.0 Planning balance and conclusion

11.1 The site is in the open countryside, where applications for new residential units need to satisfy the policy tests set out in the NPPF and the corresponding requirements set out in Local Policies SP1, SP2 and SP21(c).

11.2 The application is made on the basis of an essential functional need for employees to reside on the site and that without the provision of free accommodation, recruiting staff would be difficult and could impact the long-term viability of the business.

11.3 Officers are of the view that an essential functional need has not been demonstrated that aligns with the requirements of Policies SP1, SP2 or SP9 of the Ryedale Plan - Local Plan Strategy. The proposal is also not considered to represent a ‘Very Special Circumstance’ that would allow for the development in this Green Belt location. In light of the essential need not being demonstrated, the proposal is considered to constitute inappropriate development which is harmful to the openness of the Green Belt.

11.4 Furthermore, the siting of the caravans, adjacent to the manure store and with no amenity space, would result in an unacceptable impact on the amenities of the occupiers in relation to noise, odour and disturbance. On this basis the proposed development is considered to be contrary to the requirements of Policy SP20 of the Ryedale Plan – Local Plan Strategy.

11.5 It is therefore considered that the development conflicts with the requirements of Policies SP1, SP2, SP9, SP16, SP19, SP20 and SP21 of the Ryedale Plan – Local Plan Strategy and the National Planning Policy Framework. Consequently, the scheme is recommended for refusal.

12.0 Recommendation

12.1 That planning permission be REFUSED for the reasons listed below.

It has not been demonstrated that the racehorse training yard gives rise to an essential functional need for a further six residential units within the open countryside to accommodate workers at the site. It has also not been demonstrated that there are no available properties in the locality that would be suitable to fulfil the functional needs of the enterprise contrary to the NPPF and Policies SP1, SP2 and SP21(c) of the Ryedale Plan – Local Plan Strategy. There are considered to be no other exceptional factors or material considerations of sufficient weight to justify a departure from the adopted Development Plan.

In light of the first reason for refusal, the siting of six static caravans is considered to constitute inappropriate development which would detract from the character and protected openness of the York Green Belt. There are no material considerations that would outweigh the harm by reason of inappropriateness and/or any other harm identified. The application is therefore contrary to the requirements of Section 13 (Protecting Green Belt Land) of the National Planning Policy Framework.

The static caravans are located adjacent to land used for the storage of manure. Furthermore, the unit’s benefit have no private amenity space and are sited in close proximity to active site workings. It is considered that the siting of the caravans would be detrimental to the amenities of the occupiers of the caravans. The proposal is therefore considered to be contrary to the requirements of Policy SP20 of the Ryedale Plan – Local Plan Strategy.

Target Determination Date: 24.10.2025

Case Officer: Ellie Hardie – eleanor.hardie@northyorks.gov.uk