Future of south Warwickshire forestry business could be in doubt after expansion plans refused

The future of a rural forestry business based in the south Warwickshire countryside could be in doubt after plans for a new building to help it expand were thrown out by planners.

And according to the architect behind the scheme, that decision could jeopardise the future of Grove Park (Warwick) which is based at Holes Wood, off Woodway Lane, in Budbrooke.

Warwick District Council’s planning department has written to the applicant explaining that the notification for prior approval was refused because ‘it is not considered that the siting, design and external appearance of the building as proposed, is reasonably required for the purposes of forestry within the forestry unit. The building is not designed for forestry purposes.’

David Ellis, architect with Rigby & Rigby, explained that the replacement building needed to be in place by the end of the summer.

He said: “The existing buildings are coming to the end of their useful lives and they must be replaced as soon as possible. Expensive equipment is currently stored off site due to the risk of rural crime. This is extremely inefficient for the company.”

Mr Ellis explained that vehicles and equipment would be stored in the building which had been designed due to its proximity to a house on the site which the owner planned to improve.

He added: “This application is important to Grove Park (Warwick) Ltd, in order to help them sustain and grow this business. Without permission to replace the failing buildings the sustainability of this rural company would be put in jeopardy.

“It is business critical to have this building built during the summer period 2020.”

But a report by council planner Andrew Tew questioned the design as did Cllr Jan Matecki (Con Budbrooke) who opposed the proposed scheme.

Mr Tew said: “The building does not appear as a modern, utilitarian building as would be expected for forestry purposes. A standard building of this type would be coated steel in a rectangular shape, sufficiently secure to protect valuable equipment.

“The design cues provided with the application reference traditional tithe barns. Whilst this is a traditional design, the examples provided have now been converted into non-agricultural buildings, suggesting their design is no longer fit for forestry purposes.

“The design submitted is considerably larger than the buildings to be demolished on site and whilst an equipment inventory has been provided, the inclusion of “6 safety helmets, ear defenders, orange jackets”, seems inordinate to be considered justification for a design of this size.”

And he added that the inclusion of windows in all elevations plus roof lights seemed excessive for a building for forestry purposes.