The owners of a Mid Sussex visitor attraction have defeated plans to give the public free access under new right-to-roam legislation.

The Countryside Agency has decided not to challenge an appeal by Leonardslee, in Lower Beeding, near Horsham.

Agency officials had ordered that 65 of the garden's 240 acres should be classified as heathland and therefore be liable for free access.

But Robin Loder, whose family owns Leonardslee, said the move would have a "severe impact" on his business, which depends on people paying for admission.

The agency's U-turn was revealed in a House of Commons debate, organised by Horsham MP Francis Maude.

He is now calling for the Loder family to be paid compensation for their legal fees, which run to thousands of pounds.

He said the Loder family's life had been "turned upside down" and in addition to the financial cost they had suffered enormous mental strain.

Rural affairs minister Alun Michael said it was important the Countryside Agency behaved "fairly". He said he would look into the Loder family's case for compensation.

Leonardslee is one of the UK's largest and most spectacular woodland gardens, enjoyed by an estimated 60,000 visitors each year who pay for the pleasure.

Under the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000, the Government made parks and gardens exempt from right-to-roam rules but the public were to have round-the-clock free access to mountain, moor, heath or common land.

Back in November 2001 when Mr Loder heard his property was on the agency's web site as an area mapped for the right to roam, he thought it was a mistake.

At first the agency said 150 of its acres were heath but it was later scaled down to 65, which is lightly wooded parkland grazed by deer and wallabies.

Mr Loder, whose family has owned the gardens for 150 years, had warned the introduction of 24-hour access with dogs would mean the deer and wallabies would have to be removed and the area would revert to scrub.

A spokeswoman for the Countryside Agency said: "It's true we are not going to pursue the matter. When we reviewed the case under the criteria we decided it did not fit in the criteria of open vistas."