Signs are that village is against new lodges
VILLAGERS fear “significant” safety risks if plans for holiday lodges on a single-track village road are approved.
Residents have also criticised the potential loss of green space and privacy issues, with protest signs now in place along Limby Hall Lane in Swannington, where the applicants hope to build six holiday lodges.
The site is currently used as a paddock, but applicants Mr and Mrs Hayles wish to redevelop a large chunk for tourism.
However, there is much criticism of the application, with the location a key concern – especially given Limby Hall Lane’s use as a single track road frequently used by walkers.
It has led to fears that pedestrians could face dangers, while others believed increased traffic would see cars forced on to grass verges to avoid other vehicles and pedestrians.
Planning documents submitted to North West Leicestershire District Council reveal no major changes are planned to the single lane access in Limby Hall Lane.
Instead, drivers will be guided into the site off a new access point, where 12 parking spaces would be provided.
Next to these would be the six lodges. All would be cladded, two-bedroomed builds and be surrounded by an “onset buffer of vegetation” to disguise their appearance.
However, signs against the proposal are already in place, calling on villagers to “say no to more campsites in our village”.
Work is under way to create 52 timber lodges in nearby Spring Lane, while proposals for a holiday rental in Foan Hill also sparked criticism before being withdrawn last year.
Villagers fear this latest proposal could harm existing properties, with one objector saying the lodges would result in “significant” loss of privacy for nearby residents.
They also claimed the lodges would have an “overbearing” presence in Swannington and “detract from the open and undeveloped character” of the village.
Others have questioned the need for the lodges at all, believing that Swannington offers little in terms of amenities.
One said potential guests would be “heavily reliant” on cars for “basic day-to-day needs”. This, they said, went against any hopes of the site being “environmentally sustainable”.