New vehicular timber double gates

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 10 March 2026 by K Crutchfield BA (Hons) MSc MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 26th March 2026 Appeal Ref: 6001680 Applegarth, Fyning Lane, Rogate, West Sussex GU31 5DD • The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended) against a refusal to grant planning permission. • The appeal is made by Mrs Sue Jones against the decision of South Downs National Park Authority. • The application Ref is SDNP/25/01675/HOUS. • The development proposed is new vehicular timber double gates. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Main Issue 2. The main issue is the effect of the development on the character and appearance of the area, having particular regard to the effect on the South Downs National Park (SDNP). Reasons 3. Section 11A of the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949, which was amended by section 245 of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023, places a statutory duty upon me to seek to further the statutory purposes of the SDNP, which includes conserving and enhancing the natural beauty of the designated area. 4. The area has a distinct rural and verdant character and appearance. Front boundaries are typically hedges; the majority of front entrances are either open or comprise a field gate. There are also some examples of metal gates and solid timber gates, but these are not as common and do not detract from the prevailing rural and verdant character and appearance of the area. 5. The appellant contends that the gates would be screened by mature vegetation. However, I observed that the gates would be able to be seen from Fyning Lane, both directly outside of the appeal site, and from the east. 6. The South Downs National Park Authority Design Guide Supplementary Planning Document (2022) advises that field gates are a characteristic of the SDNP. The proposed gates, in contrast, by virtue of the height, scale and solid timber design, would be out of keeping with the predominantly open or field gate entrances in the area. The proposed gates would introduce a formal entrance, which would be incongruous, out of keeping and harmful to the prevailing rural and verdant character of the area. Appeal Decision 6001680 2 7. I conclude that the proposed development would be unacceptably harmful to the character and appearance of the area, including the SDNP. The proposal would therefore fail to conserve and enhance the natural beauty of the SDNP. As such, it would conflict with Policies SD1, SD4, SD5 and SD7 of the South Downs Local Plan (2019), Policy BE1 of the Rogate and Rake Neighbourhood Development Plan (2021), and Policy 1 of the Partnership Management Plan (2020-2025). These policies seek, amongst other things, to ensure that new development is sympathetic to local character, and that great weight should be given to conserving and enhancing landscape and scenic beauty in National Parks. Other Matters 8. The appellant considers that the proposal is permitted development. I have been provided with various appeal decisions relating to proposals for gates on different sites relating to applications for Certificates of Lawfulness under s191 and 192 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (the Act). It is not my role, in the context of a s78 appeal, to make a formal determination on the need for planning permission. It is open to the appellant to make an application for a Certificate of Lawfulness under s192 of the Act, and there would be a right of appeal in the event of refusal. The current planning application was submitted willingly by the appellant, and I have determined the resulting appeal on its planning merits. My decision does not prejudice the outcome of a s192 application and would not prevent gates from being erected under permitted development rights. 9. I acknowledge the appellant’s primary reasons for the proposed gates are for privacy and security. However, the proposal is unlikely to be the only means of achieving these objectives and these matters do not outweigh the harm I have found in this case. 10. The appellant considers that the proposal would avoid harm to the living conditions of the occupiers of the neighbouring properties and is acceptable in highway safety terms. This is not disputed by the Authority and I find no reason to disagree with the Authority’s conclusions on these matters. However, the absence of harm in these respects are neutral factors. Conclusion 11. For the reasons given above, I conclude that the proposal conflicts with the development plan as a whole, and the material considerations do not indicate that the appeal should be decided other than in accordance with it. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. K Crutchfield INSPECTOR