BUILDERS' merchant, Merritt and Fryers, has made its first move in a plan to shift location from Firth Street, Skipton, where it has been since the 1970s.

Six, three storey mews type houses are proposed to be constructed in a storage yard next to the Leeds-Liverpool canal and opposite the redevelopment of Firth Mill by Candelisa,

It will be the initial stage in a longer-term project to move to a location out of Skipton town centre.

Planners have been told the scheme to construct six homes in North yard - a terrace of five overlooking the canal and a sixth on the northern boundary of the site - is acceptable "in principle".

And they have seen details of the longer term aim to seek permission to develop housing on Merritt and Fryers' present site.

Planning consultants for Craven council, who have scrutinised the scheme submitted by Merritt and Fryers, say the development was acceptable in principle and the site is suitable for residential use.

The proposals would mark the first phase of a wider scheme for the site, which would hopefully facilitate the company’s relocation to more suitable premises, allowing for the site’s redevelopment for residential purposes.

It would involve the demolition of the buildings on the site except one, a two storey stone former mill overlooking the canal, which would be converted.

But the plan for the first stage has hit opposition from people living opposite in the Union Mill redevelopment.

Geoff Simpson said he was not against the principle of building new homes, especially on brown field sites, but he believed this development was out of keeping with the historic nature of the area.

"It looks like they want to plonk these modern three storey houses bang in the middle of the heritage area - it will destroy its historical value.

"I'm against it on the basis that it doesn't meet the criteria of the conservation area which planners have a duty to protect and enhance. I don't see in any shape or form how this will enhance the area," he said.

And his neighbour Barry Grindrod says the development was too high and densely packed and was being "shoehorned" onto a small site.

He believed a modern development in a conservation area would compromise its heritage value.