Whitby charity boat skipper’s discrimination claim rejected after attempts to live in caravan

A meeting of the North York Moors National Park Authority’s planning committee heard it had dismissed claims by Peter Richardson that it was displaying prejudice towards people with a protected characteristic by not allowing him to site a touring caravan beside a listed barn off Hawsker Lane.

Mr Richardson had applied to be able to live in the caravan for five months, from April to September, for five years, to be close at hand to Whitby Harbour where the Wetwheels charity craft has a permanent mooring.

The charity provides an opportunity for people of all ages and disabilities toaccess and experience the open sea safely. Trips are run on a specially adapted catamaran based at the wharf.

He told the planning authority the caravan would not impact on the view from the road and that it would effectively be screened by the barn and trees around the site.

Mr Richardson added not having to do in excess of two hours commuting every day, would lessen his carbon footprint, free up more hours to take more people to sea and even facilitate extra trips utilising good conditions and meet growing demand.

He said having a seasonal base in close proximity to Whitby supported the ongoing viability of the charity and all the benefits the unique experience offered participants.

However, members were told officers had found properties on the market in Whitby for £80,000, which woud have immediately served Mr Richardson’s need to live near the harbour, while costing less than the applicant had paid for the land off Hawsker Lane.

Officers added Mr Richardson had spent the last five years commuting between York and Whitby, so the only link between the land and the disabled people who used Wetwheels was that Mr Richardson owned the boat and the land.

Officers added Mr Richardson was warned by the authority the proposal would not meet policies designed to protected the national park before he bought the land.

The committee was told both the parish council and North Yorkshire Council’s highways officers had objected to the proposal, saying the entrance to the site would not be safe, “creating danger at an already dangerous junction”.

Before voting to reject the proposal, members said they did not believe the proposed site to be well screened and supported restricting new residential development in the open countryside to that which is essential to the needs of agricultural, forestry or other essential land management of a farm.