IDENTITY

EASEBOURNE IS AN “HISTORIC ESTATE VILLAGE”, NOT MIDHURST’S EXPANSIONAREA

The Local Plan describes Midhurst and Easebourne as “two separate settlements”.However, for the first time, this latest iteration of the Local Plan goes on to say that it is“appropriate to consider them together” because they share facilities.

It is difficult to identify another example in the Local Plan where two separate settlementsare explicitly recognised as distinct and then immediately considered together for development purposes.
That contradiction lies at the heart of the development strategy for Easebourne.

SDNPA also identifies “distinctive towns and villages” as one of the special qualities of theSouth Downs National Park.

It describes Easebourne as an “historic estate village” with its own conservation area,Parish Design Statement and nationally important heritage assets including Cowdray Park,the Priory, the Refectory and St Mary’s Church.

These are not the characteristics of a village that lacks its own identity. They are thecharacteristics of a village whose identity should be protected. Yet Easebourne is nowbeing increasingly drawn into Midhurst’s growth strategy.

Midhurst is identified in the Local Plan as the third of the National Park’s principalsettlements behind Lewes and Petersfield (with significantly larger infrastructure) and isexpected to accommodate significant growth.

The consequence is that a village, recognised as a “separate settlement”, is increasinglybeing expected to accommodate growth arising from the strategy for a larger neighbouringmarket town.

In recent years, Easebourne has already absorbed 58 new homes through developmentsat the former Easebourne School site, Egmont Road and Cowdray Works Yard. Furtherallocations are now proposed.

SDNPA cannot simultaneously recognise Easebourne as an historic estate village worthyof protection whilst treating it as part of Midhurst for the purposes of housing growth.

You cannot claim to protect distinctive villages whilst removing the very distinction thatmakes them unique.

If Easebourne is a separate settlement, it should be planned for as a separate settlement.Easebourne is not Midhurst’s expansion area. It is an historic estate village in its own right.

The question for SDNPA is simple: How does treating Easebourne as part of Midhurst’s growth strategy conserve and enhance the distinct village character the Local Plan says it exists to protect?