RNLI lifeboat station extension approved by Scarborough Council despite concerns about access

Scarborough Council has granted planning permission for the extension of the Filey RNLI lifeboat station despite concerns from councillors and the public.
Watch more of our videos on Shots! 
and live on Freeview channel 276
Visit Shots! now

At a meeting of the planning and development committee on Thursday September 8, councillors voted in favour of allowing the RNLI to extend its Filey lifeboat station after councillors agreed to change the plans.

According to the Royal National Lifeboat Institution’s application, the 2.6m seawards extension is required for its 10-minute launch target to be met.

Hide Ad
Hide Ad

However, at a previous meeting of the planning committee in August, councillors decided to defer their decision until they could visit the site in person.

Scarborough Council has granted planning permission for the extension of the Filey RNLI lifeboat station despite concerns from councillors and the public.Scarborough Council has granted planning permission for the extension of the Filey RNLI lifeboat station despite concerns from councillors and the public.
Scarborough Council has granted planning permission for the extension of the Filey RNLI lifeboat station despite concerns from councillors and the public.

Councillors suggested that the extension would severely limit vehicular access at Coble Landing and would create a “conflict” between pedestrians and drivers.

They also raised several concerns about a proposed side access door to the lifeboat station which some members suggested would “restrict the business and profitability” of the adjacent business.

Speaking at the meeting, Cllr Mike Cockerill said: “As I’ve previously declared, I do have a personal interest in this application.

Hide Ad
Hide Ad

“I have supported Filey lifeboat for well over sixty years and my wife is secretary to the Filey Women’s Lifeboat Guild, which raises a tremendous amount of money for the lifeboat station.

“Consequently, you will appreciate how difficult it is for me to speak against this application.”

He said: “But I have to look further than the RNLI, I have to look at the wider picture, particularly in relation to the operation of Coble Landing and most importantly, to the safety of all those using Coble Landing.”

Cllr Cockerill said that a site visit showed members of the committee “some of the problems with vehicular traffic, particularly, delivery vehicles” which he said existed “even without the proposed extension to the lifeboat house” and suggested that the plans be rejected.

Hide Ad
Hide Ad

He added: “Coble Landing is tight enough as it presently exists, it is clear that the RNLI has not considered the detrimental impact on the safety of the public.”

Cllr Mike Cockerill proposed that the committee vote in favour of refusing the plans but as no one seconded his proposal, it was not voted on.

Councillors suggested that the extension would severely limit vehicular access at the Landing and would create “conflict” between pedestrians and drivers.

Councillors also raised several concerns about a proposed side access door to the lifeboat station which some members suggested would “restrict the business and profitability” of the adjacent business.

Hide Ad
Hide Ad

The council’s planning officers had reportedly contacted the RNLI to ask whether they would agree to change the plans so the door was not included. Though the officers did not receive a formal response, some councillors said they had been told that the RNLI would be willing to compromise on the matter.

Cllr Glenn Goodberry said he understood why the RNLI had asked for an extension: “The current set-up as it stands is chaotic in the fact that you have multi-vehicle manoeuvres outside of that station.

“The proposal will allow for one movement so you can drive that boat out and away you go.”

Vice-chair of the committee, Cllr Jane Mortimer, said: “Something needs to happen and this at the moment seems to be the one we have in front of us.”

Hide Ad
Hide Ad

After a lengthy discussion, the committee voted in favour of granting planning permission subject to “omission of the side door” and agreed that the council “writes to the Harbour Master to raise the wider issue of the management of Coble Landing”.

The motion was approved by the planning committee with only two votes in abstention.