SDNPA’S OWN TRANSPORT EVIDENCE DOES NOT SUPPORT THIS LEVEL OF GROWTH
SDNPA’s own Transport Study places Midhurst and Easebourne in the amber category —locations with only some potential to accommodate sustainable growth.
It does not identify them as locations capable of absorbing significant growth without constraint.
Yet further development continues to be proposed.
If the Local Plan considers Midhurst and Easebourne together because they share facilities, thenthe impact of development must also be considered together.
Traffic does not recognise settlement boundaries.
Residents already experience significant congestion on the A272 and A286 at peak times.
They also understand how fragile the network has become.
When North Mill Bridge was struck in 2025, disruption at a single location caused chaos acrossEasebourne, Midhurst and the surrounding road network.
That incident exposed a simple reality.
A network that can be brought close to a standstill by disruption at a single location is not aresilient network.
It is a fragile network already constrained by two severe pinch points at North Mill Bridge andRumbolds Hill.
Yet further development is now proposed before the full impact of Egmont Road, the formerEasebourne School redevelopment, Cowdray Works Yard, the King Edward VII Estate and otherplanned development across Midhurst has even been realised.
Unlike Lewes and Petersfield, Midhurst and Easebourne are constrained by their historic layout,topography and heritage assets.
There is no realistic prospect of a bypass, major relief road, significant road widening oralternative route capable of relieving pressure on the existing network.If the infrastructure cannot materially expand, how can the growth continue to expand?
SDNPA’s own evidence identifies limitations.
Residents experience those limitations every day.The question is why the level of proposed growth appears to exceed what SDNPA’s owntransport evidence suggests the area can sustainably accommodate.
