# Scotlands Farm, Telegraph Hill, Fernhurst (garage and access track) - **Decision:** dismissed, 30 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: Claire Coles - **Authority:** South Downs National Park Authority (South East) - **Appeal reference:** 6004640 - **Application reference:** SDNP/25/01131/FUL - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Three-bay garage and permanent access track (improvement of a temporary construction access) at a refurbished farmstead - **Site context:** national-park, open-countryside - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** N4 - **Development plan policies:** South Downs Local Plan SD1, SD4, SD5, SD7, SD11, SD12, SD31 - **Main issues:** landscape character and tranquillity in a National Park - **Tags:** national-park, landscape-harm, transitional-no-consultation, obligation-unsecured, drafting-slip, tier-2 ## Summary A farmstead in the South Downs National Park sought a three-bay garage and a permanent version of an access track first built as a temporary construction access under permitted development. The garage was acceptable, but the track cut through former woodland and brought vehicle movements into a tranquil area. The inspector found significant landscape and tranquillity harm contrary to N4 and the park's local plan. Dismissed. ## Issues and findings - **Transition.** "I have not sought comments from the main parties in respect of the revisions to the Framework as I do not consider the policy emphasis regarding the main issue in this case to have changed" (DL ¶3). - **Access track, N4: FAIL.** "Landscape harms arising from the proposal would be significant" (DL ¶12). The permitted-development track "only lasts for the duration of the construction period, and the provision is explicitly worded to prevent a precedent for permanent development" (DL ¶13). "the proposed development would not conserve or enhance the landscape within which it sits" (DL ¶17). ¶19 calls the same harm "substantial harm to the character and appearance of the area". - **Garage: ACCEPTABLE, but unsecured land swap.** "the proposed garage would have no significant effect on the SDNP" (DL ¶24), but "In the absence of a mechanism for securing the land swap the proposed garage would fall outside the residential curtilage" (DL ¶24). - **Benefits.** BNG planting and avoiding the SSSI access are benefits, but "the access through the SSSI is existing and no further harm would be caused to the SSSI from the proposal, whereas the proposed development would cause additional harm to the NP" (DL ¶19). - **Drafting.** ¶8 describes the purpose of "National Landscapes" in a National Park case. Incidental. ## Planning balance Plan-led (s38(6)): conflict with the development plan as a whole, and the material considerations do not indicate otherwise (DL ¶30). N4 substantial weight to conserving natural beauty set out at DL ¶7. No S4/S5 step. ## What made the difference The track, not the garage. A temporary permitted-development access cannot be the baseline for a permanent one, and the historic-track claim was unevidenced. Without firm evidence of a long-established access, and a secured curtilage swap for the garage, the scheme could not succeed. ## Transferable points - A construction access built under GPDO Part 4 Class A gives no precedent or fallback for a permanent track (DL ¶13). - In a National Park, sympathetic surfacing does not overcome the intrusion of a new permanent track through woodland (DL ¶13, ¶18). - Avoiding an existing harmful access is not a benefit that offsets new harm elsewhere in the protected landscape (DL ¶19). - A land swap that surrenders curtilage needs a planning obligation, not a condition (DL ¶23). ## Policy findings - **N4: fail (substantial weight).** access track through previously undeveloped woodland; significant landscape and tranquillity harm; does not conserve or enhance; statutory "seek to further" duty (LURA 2023) not met (DL 7-8, 12-20) - **N4: pass.** garage itself subordinate, screened and grouped with outbuildings; no significant effect on the NP (DL 22, 24) - **N2(1)(d): harm.** mapped - loss of woodland/trees from the construction track counted as part of the landscape harm; trees on own land could be felled anyway (DL 15, 17, 26) - **BNG (Sch 7A TCPA): neutral.** planting/BNG claimed as a benefit; baseline disputed (should predate the PD construction track); not pursued as appeal fails (DL 19, 27) - **PSED: neutral.** improved access might help people with impaired mobility, but no evidence anyone at the property needs it; does not outweigh harm (DL 29) ## Key facts - Temporary construction access built under GPDO Sch 2 Pt 4 Class A; lasts only for the construction period, so no precedent for a permanent track (DL 13) - Claim that the route follows a 35-year-old historic track not borne out; mapping and photos inconclusive (DL 12, 14) - Landscape Character Area O1 Greensand Hills; woodland, isolated farmsteads, tranquillity (DL 11) - Fittleworth stone surface with central grass strip insufficient mitigation (DL 18) - Garage acceptable but relied on a land swap into the residential curtilage with no mechanism to secure it; a condition would not do (DL 23-24) - Alternative access through an SSSI is existing, so avoiding it is not a benefit that offsets new NP harm (DL 19) - Parties not consulted on the 2026 Framework (DL 3) ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6004640 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/643413a7-d99d-47a3-9356-4c35949efb72 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6004640.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers.