Film-makers cut Rogate Common movie

FILM-makers have withdrawn an application for a movie set on Rogate Common, after dozens of objections from angry residents.

The South Downs National Park Authority received a planning application for a film set on the common in Tipsall Lane, Rogate.

The proposal included construction of hardstanding for temporary marquees and storage facilities, with car parking, to be followed by full restoration of the land on completion of filming.

Use of the site was requested from May 19 until September 26.

The applicant said the land would remain open to the public and at the ‘peak of filming’, there would be some 150 to 200 people on site, with security staff.

Mr Wai Man Chung, said: “There will be extended benefits to the wider community based on the production company spending money on overnight accommodation, meals, fuel supplies, groceries, and local machinery hire.”

However, more than 20 residents objected on grounds of increased traffic and environmental risks.

Peter James Stock objected, saying: “The scale of this film production and its logistical support is totally unacceptable in the South Downs National Park.

“The result will be loss of tranquillity in the area, intrusion of traffic, and danger to the local ecology.”

Rogate resident Dr Derek Mason added: “I note that the application supporting statement claims that it is a form of business enterprise in a rural setting that will stimulate local growth and provide financial input into the local economy.

“It may well provide financial input to the land owners, but for the rest of 
the local community it is hard to envisage any benefits at all.”

Others also questioned the viability of the claims made by the applicant, including economic advantages for the local economy, with some labelling it ‘naïve’ and 
‘almost dishonest’.

Karen Coke asked the planning authority: “How on earth did this project get 
this far?

“The obvious effects of noise, extra traffic on local roads and within the woodland, loss of public amenity, are as nothing compared to the mind-boggling proposed vandalism to the 
destruction of a substantial section of National Park woodland with consequent loss of wildlife habitat, all in the name of a frivolous temporary purpose.”