Plans for holiday accommodation near a popular North Yorkshire walking route have attracted criticism from local residents.
A planning application for eight cabins beside a footpath on the so-called Easby Loop route, between Richmond and Easby Abbey, has been submitted to North Yorkshire Council.
A site service road, concealed solar panels, utility containment and moveable buildings are also proposed for the site, known as the Playing Fields at the end of Easby Low Road.
Supporting documents say all cabins and buildings would be single-storey mobile units, without permanent foundations.
The site is near the Drummer Boy Stone, which according to local legend marks the spot where a military drummer boy vanished in a tunnel between Richmond Castle and Easby Abbey.
The application has been submitted by Nicholas and Autumn Green, who own the St Nicholas Estate, on Maison Dieu, Richmond.
A report filed with the application states: “The proposal aims to generate economic benefit for the town, and income to support the ongoing running costs of St Nicholas and its historic park and garden.”
It adds: “At present used for agricultural purposes, the site has a long and recent history as a sports field and amenity land, playing a role (with the owners’ permission) in the local community.
“Rather than keeping the land for agricultural use, the proposal aims to restore the site to a positive contribution to the town and community.”
The report says the site would be “low-impact and complementary to its setting”, while the increase in traffic on Easby Low Road was expected to be “minimal”.
It adds: “The site is almost fully concealed from public view on all sides, and will make use of utility connections already existing in or adjacent to the field.
“The unique location also offers car-free visitors rural accommodation within walking distance of the town.”
However, the plans have attracted several responses from local residents opposed to the application.
One respondent said: “The application is misleading about Easby Low Road.
“It overstates the current vehicular traffic, understates the additional traffic that would result from the proposed development, and almost ignores the far larger number of walkers on the route.
“It glosses over the problems of the road’s poor surface, blind bends, crumbling verges, exposure, and liability to falling trees and freezing runoff.”
Another added: “Almost all of Richmond is already Airbnb. We don’t need more holiday accommodation here. We need more facilities for residents.”
The plans have also been criticised on social media, although others have suggested the location is ideal for a holiday complex and say the owners should be allowed to do what they want with their land.
Mayor of Richmond, Councillor Carl Tate, said Richmond Town Council was organising a meeting of its planning committee to discuss its response to the scheme.
Comments are closed.
Just a loud, resounding NO!!!
Why spoil a beautiful, so popular, well loved walk? This walk is used by locals, the surrounding areas & visitors.
Fight this all the way.
Increased traffic would have a high impact on walkers,runners , families and hense a decrease in visitors due to danger on the easy low road .Tight bends by the church and there is plenty of holiday accomodation already available.
I think it’s going to mean the drummer boy end of the loop becomes much more dangerous for both walkers and motorists.The road has very poor fencing on the riverside. An accident waiting to happen if the development goes ahead.
I write to register my complete objection and opposition to the proposal for development of land off Easby Low Road.
I write having owned The Boathouse for 28 years until selling in November of this year. We are proud of how we left the property and the impact we have had as custodians of this beautiful site.
We are stunned at the prospective impact of this ludicrous plan, which would inflict an ugly acne on perhaps Richmond’s most beautiful face. It would completely destroy a quite beautiful landscape, brutally impacting on precious local flora and fauna.
The construction of parking areas, service roads and an ugly 2 metre fence along the Easby Loop walk prompts the question what community asset does the applicant think he is providing our lovely town?
We lived in this uniquely special area for 28 years and fully appreciated how special it is to so very many people. We had 12.5 acres and could have bought the field behind ourselves. We never considered, let alone applied for permission to blight this beauty spot in the preposterous way the application details.
We will no longer be living at the site, but care just as passionately about this proposed vulgar vandalism as if we still were.
It would be unsightly, unnecessary, and unwelcome.
And crucially if approved, it would represent just an opportunistic foot in the door for future development.
The irrefutable reasons to reject this self indulgent nonsense are turbo charged however by the fact that the development would cause access chaos and real danger in the area.
Easby Low Road has been cynically mis represented in the proposal.
The “road” runs across private land, most of which is not owned by the applicant.
The “road” is adopted by NYC Highways who have a clear obligation and responsibility to maintain it.
It is an unsealed, steep, single carriage lane with a rough, uneven, poorly drained surface.
It is impossible for vehicles to see or be aware of oncoming vehicles across the majority of the lane. There are completely blind corners, overhanging rocks with running water and the entire road is fringed by steep slopes, either down to the river or up into woodland.
The road is best used by 4 wheel drive vehicles, which can however also struggle in poor weather.
The wall referred to in the proposal is in significant disrepair, and it has taken many years for NYC to replace dangerously neglected fences that provide flimsy protection from plunging into the river 100 feet below.
The road meanders up, down and around through woodland, which regularly sees branches and entire trees fall across the narrow lane. Timber falling across the road causes more disruption than poor weather. Landowners will not fell dangerous trees and NYC has been negligently unwilling to press them to meet their obligations as landowners. Several extremely dangerous trees have been repeatedly identified as threats to life, yet continue to precariously balance above the lane.
Our excellent Councillor Stuart Parsons has been our only ally in applying pressure to NYC Highways.
There is absolutely no space for vehicles to pass on the lane, it is extremely dangerous to attempt to do so. The passing points claimed in the ridiculous proposal are non existent. The widths described are absurdly over stated.
On meeting an approaching vehicle, one of them has to reverse the entire course they have taken, as it is physically impossible to pass. Such reversing is extremely difficult and dangerous, as well as hugely inconvenient.
Weather impacts the road significantly. In winter, ice and snow make the lane impassable. The road is never gritted and the salt boxes not replenished, other than by deposits from unhelpful dog walkers who should know better.
In autumn the fallen leaves and branches gather to make the surface extremely slippery and treacherous. Heavy rain overpowers the appalling drainage, resulting in huge pot holes and ridges quickly developing, which NYC simply do not properly address. Sustained rainfall literally washes the road into deep ruts. As owners of The Boathouse, we have far more often addressed the damage through Macplant, than NYC have themselves met their clear obligations. The previous Highways manager was extremely difficult to contact, and most importantly did not follow through on promises he made in person but never in writing.
NYC have not and do not rod to unblock the drainage pipes, we have to regularly do so as regular walkers would confirm.
The road serves just one property where a dwelling has a vehicular easement across the road. The property behind has no such legal right.
Easby Low Road is the only access to and from the property The Boathouse, Backhouse Ings.
We lived at this property for 28 years and fully understand this road.
The “road” serves as sole access to The Boathouse. It is not merely a route in and out for the owner as specified in the property deeds, but it is also the only means of supplying the property and crucially of providing emergency services. A gentleman in his 70’s acquired The Boathouse on Nov 28th 2025. He has significant medical needs and will require prompt emergency support. More traffic and disruption on Easby Low Road would represent a significant additional risk to his life.
Waste collection vehicles cannot travel along Easby Low Road meaning that The Boathouse has never had waste removed directly by NYC.
Yorkshire Water and other Utilities do however require vehicular access at all times, with a storm drain flowing into the Swale on The Boathouse land.
Easby Low Road forms part of the much advertised and very popular Easby Loop walk. The lane serves as a footpath too before splitting into the two public rights of way that fringe The Boathouse property.
The soaring popularity of this walk has seen its daily use rise to many hundreds. Many dog walkers also hugely enjoy the route, but this also creates more safety complications on the lane. Great care has to be taken when meeting pedestrians in the lane, especially those less familiar with it, who are very high in numbers all year round. More traffic is the very last thing this lane needs, or can cope with. Only a complete idiot would deny this.
The application proposed is embarrassingly naive. It absurdly underestimates the vehicle flow that currently happens, and ridiculously understates the flow that would follow the installation of 8 static caravans.
The attempt to crudely average these limited journeys across the day is also laughably simplistic.
Each and every head on meeting of vehicles on Easby Low road would cause chaotic danger, and yet there is absolutely no way to prevent these encounters, as visibility of oncoming vehicles is non existent and the road is so narrow, without passing space or scope to create a safe one. The added complication of so many walkers would make these encounters irresponsibly dangerous.
There is no lighting whatsoever anywhere along Easby Low Road, nor should there be, yet there are large numbers of walkers who use the path in darkness.
It is not merely The Boathouse, or the hundreds of walkers who would be negatively impacted.
All of the residents on Lombards Wynd would be hugely negatively impacted and inconvenienced by the extra traffic caused by 8 caravans and the supporting cast. It is already difficult to manoeuvre around Lombards Wynd when vehicles regularly converge.
The field behind The Boathouse has only very recently been acquired from Zetland Estates. The current owner merely absorbed it into his existing St Nicholas’ estate.
This field was previously let by Zetland to Richmond school as an emergency playing field. It has not been used for many years and was never a good playing field, being regularly waterlogged.
The school in fact did not use the pitch and built superior facilities on their own site. They did then sublet this field to Richmond Mavericks FC. This caused huge disruption and inconvenience given the number of vehicles using Easby Low Road on match day. It was chaos until the team relocated.
The field has been unused for many years now.
The applicant claims to want to provide the town with a community asset. In reality his plan will destroy one.
He claims the income generated will help fund the restoration of St Nicholas Gardens. This was once an asset enjoyed by the community, but the current owner has left it to degenerate into sad wilderness.
Perhaps instead of spending £70k to buy a parcel of land, then another huge sum buying ugly static caravans that will blight a beauty spot, he may have been better served simply caring for gardens he already owned?
It would be physically impossible to transport static caravans along Easby Low Road.
If the landowner chose to transport the caravans across his land from Easby Road to the proposed site, it beggars the question why would he not provide such access to the caravan users of his proposed site?
The answer will no doubt be safety and understandably so, but there is absolutely no doubt that access to the proposed site from Easby Low Road would be immeasurably more difficult and dangerous.
The development is not required and is totally impracticable.
It really beggars belief that any intelligence has been employed in the production of such a woeful proposal. It seems merely entitled self indulgence by an aloof interloper who appears to now possess more acres than brain cells.
The people of this fine town should treat this application with the contempt it deserves.
I would be highly suspicious of how and why NYC would find this application appropriate.
We have countless photos of Easby Low Road and will make these public to support the contents of this objection.
We also have extensive trails of communication to NYC or Richmondshire over the years to support our point of view.
I will also be bringing this matter to the attention of Rishi Sunak and frankly, anybody who will listen.
I would urge anybody who opposes this vacuous application to express their opposition on the NYC Planning portal under Easby Low Road.