Council approves 200 new caravans in Mablethorpe

Plans for more than 200 extra caravans in Mablethorpe have been voted through, despite objections and a petition with more than 100 signatures.

East Lindsey District Council’s planning committee voted to give the expansion to Mermaid Caravan Park on Seaholme Road the go ahead.

The plans will include an extension to the site’s internal road system, extra car parking spaces and extra landscaping.

Initial plans to close a public footpath to the east of the site were later taken out of the plans and instead a diverted route created.

Councillor Neil Jones said it was next to an existing site already.

“We have got to support local tourism, particularly with the fact that more people are staying home and coming to tourism in the area rather than going abroad.”

He was backed by Councillors Helen Matthews and Danny McNally.

The latter said: “If this brings more people into the town centre at night time, it is desperately needed because it looks like a ghost town.”.

Councillors voted by eight to two in favour with one abstention.

Jack Young, speaking on behalf of the applicant, said the application was supported by local and national policies.

“The proposal… will have no significant detrimental impacts and is considered to be sustainable development in an appropriate location,” he said.

Mr Young also reassured members that a footpath to the edge of the development would be retained and kept open.

However, objectors say the plans will create a number of issues.

They include the Mablethorpe Town Council whose issues include the ‘overbearing nature of the application’, the impact on traffic, an increase in crime and the visual impact of the site.

Almost 34 letters of objection were initially submitted, with a further 19 sent after the plans were amended. A 104 signature petition was also received by the council.

How Mermaid Caravan Park’s extension would be laid out.

Objections included the impact on the wider landscape, impact on neighbouring residential properties, how the public footpath was incorporated into the development, the suitability of the highway network and drainage implications.

Residents also listed the loss of agricultural land, the impact on local services, the number of caravans already in the area, and fears over flooding among their concerns.

Martin Coach, one objector, said infrastructure in the area was “stretched already” and that the new proposals would “only make things worse”.

He said the development was the “urbanisation of countryside” and would result in the loss of agricultural land.

He said roads were too narrow and that the visual impact of the development was “of great concern”.

Ward Councillor Tony Howard also called for the plans to be refused due to concerns including overintensifation, poor layout, and the impact on local amenities.

“It’s nice to see a local business believing that there is an opportunity in the market at the moment, but that doesn’t mean that the committee should pass this at all costs,” he said.

“I think there’s a lot of tweaking that needs to be done.”