A COUNCIL’S decision to prevent holiday accommodation from being turned into permanent homes has been upheld by the Government’s Planning Inspectorate.

Hambleton District Council refused permission for planning conditions to be amended to enable holiday chalets at Cleveland Hills View near Stokesley to be used as year-round residences.

Permission was originally granted for 14 holiday units on the site in 2002 which was subsequently increased to 24 units in 2011.

However, there are currently only six units on site, two of which are display units used for marketing, and the developer sought to remove a condition restricting their use to holiday accommodation.

When this permission was refused, an appeal was lodged but Government Planning Inspector Caroline Mulloy upheld the council’s decision.

The application had been opposed by Rudby Parish Council who pointed out that a questionnaire for their Neighbourhood Plan showed that 82 per cent of local residents were opposed or strongly opposed to caravan homes or lodges.

In reaching her conclusion to uphold the refusal, Ms Mulloy stated in her report: “The proposal would have some benefits in terms of a contribution to housing land supply and accommodation for older people.

“It would also make a contribution to the local economy in the short term during the construction phase and in the longer term as residents would use local services.

“However, the proposal would result in the loss of tourist accommodation which would be detrimental to the local economy.”

Ms Mulloy said that the isolated nature of the site meant that permanent residents would be reliant on a car to access the closest amenities.

She said: “Due to the nature and length of the route, walking and cycling would not be a convenient option for future occupiers of the proposed dwellings particularly in the evenings and winter months. “Furthermore, whilst there may be public rights of way, these are also unlit and would not, therefore, be an attractive option in the evening or in winter.”

And although the appellant put forward an argument that the development would provide housing for the over 55s who were downsizing, thus releasing houses onto the open market, Ms Mulloy said there was “no substantive evidence” to support that there is a need for such accommodation in the area.

She added that the development would unsustainable and dismissed the appeal.