Caravan park approved in ‘saturated’ Maltby Le Marsh

Plans for 85 static caravans and lodges in Maltby Le Marsh were approved after councillors said there was no reason to reject them.

Bella King Designs, speaking for the applicant, said it would deliver “a quality and sustainable development” which would benefit the area.

However, residents claimed they already had too many caravans and too few facilities.

Parish Councillor David Whitehouse said: “Maltby-le-Marsh is a small village with fewer and fewer facilities. The garage and petrol station have closed.

“But whilst the village has few amenities, there are a surfeit of caravans.

“Enough is enough. Residents have submitted over 40 letters of objections to the latest application.”

He added that the site on Main Road had poor visibility and “residents crossing the road will do so at their own peril.”

It was noted that the site would sit next to another large caravan park.

East Lindsey District ward Councillor Sandra Harrison submitted a statement saying: “The village has a population of 300, and there could be 150 people from this park alone thanks to this.

“There is no pub or restaurant. It has reached saturation point.”

She also raised road safety concerns if there was additional traffic, saying: “Economic growth is not more important than the safety of the village.”

The applicant’s agent told the committee: “Sustainable development which ensures the rural and urban economy should be encouraged. This will deliver a quality and sustainable development which benefits this village and surrounding areas.”

Residents claimed the sewerage network was “not fit for purpose”, and hundreds more residents would only make it worse.

However, the agent said that both Anglian Water and the Lindsey Marsh drainage board were happy with the plans.

Councillor Neil Jones told the committee he was reassured by the designs.

“There is no reason which we could disapprove the plan,” he said, recommending that it was passed.

Councillor Sid Dennis seconded this, saying the expansion of developments like this “keep everything alive.”

One member of the planning committee voted against it and three others abstained.