Hendre estate plan branded a disaster (From Free Press Series)

Hendre estate plan branded a disaster

A REVISED planning application to redevelop the 800 acre Hendre Estate into a top flight golf course, has been described as ecological disaster by the Campaign for the protection of Rural Wales.

The application has been submitted by Willoughby Estates Ltd for the redevelopment of the Llangattock estate, once the stately home of the Rolls family, now the home of the Rolls of Monmouth golf club.

The estate is currently owned by a Japanese leisure company, and is divided in two by a 385 acre belt of woodland.

This woodland, which is mostly ecologically very valuable 'replanted ancient semi-natural woodland' is owned by the Forestry Commission on a 999 year lease.

John Edwards, vice chairman of the CPRW, said: "Everyone agrees that the Hendre mansion and estate need a secure future, but this beautiful and undisturbed countryside has acquired great wildlife and ecological value during the decades it has been neglected."

"Although it is not the Forestry Commission's responsibility to appraise the detailed merits of any planning application they surely have a duty to consider the broader ecological consequences of any proposed development.

"This must be especially true if they are being asked to release woodland to make the Master Plan possible."

In addition to a 146 bedroom hotel centred on the Mansion and 50 houses in the park the developer's plans include the construction of a second 18 hole golf course along the valley and the felling of 45 acres of woodland to provide sites for a golf club house, car parking and fairways.

Because the Forestry Commission's woodland separates the estate into two areas of parkland the project cannot proceed without the co-operation of the Forestry Commission who have been approached to sell of some of the woodland in exchange for a freehold on other parts of the woodland.

Ian Shaw, the land agent for the Forestry Commission said: "The offer of freehold reversion is on the table, but we have not agreed any terms until we have seen precise details of the proposals.

Mr Edwards added: "We believe that it is in the public interest for this application to be turned down and call on the Forestry Commission to withdraw their support on behalf of the public."