INFRASTRUCTURE & CAPACITY
How much development can an historic estate village absorb before it ceases to be avillage in its own right?
SHARED FACILITIES ARE NOT EVIDENCE OF SPARE CAPACITY
A key justification for treating Easebourne and Midhurst together is that they “share many facilities”.
That argument appears repeatedly throughout the Local Plan.
But shared facilities are not evidence of spare capacity.
Riverbank Medical Centre already serves approximately 13,000 registered patients acrossMidhurst, Easebourne and the wider rural catchment.
Easebourne Primary School has capacity for approximately 210 pupils and is alreadyoperating close to full capacity.
Midhurst Rother College serves a large rural catchment extending far beyond Midhurstand Easebourne and is also operating close to capacity.
The proposed 66-bed care home, alongside further housing growth across bothsettlements, will place additional demand on healthcare, education, parking and community services.
The Local Plan relies heavily on Midhurst’s shared facilities to justify further growth.
Yet Midhurst does not even have a full-size supermarket, meaning many residents already travel elsewhere for larger and more affordable food shopping, adding further pressure to the road network.
Most importantly, residents have seen substantial development delivered in recent years.
They are entitled to ask what infrastructure improvements have followed.
Where is the evidence that developer contributions from recent developments havedelivered a corresponding increase in healthcare, education, transport or community capacity?
The existence of a facility is not the same as available capacity within it.Shared facilities are being used to justify growth.
But where is the evidence that those facilities have the spare capacity to support that growth?
