Why residents are concerned
A number of residents have reviewed the emerging Local Plan & the evidence supporting it. That work has been distilled into core facts & a note, “Working Together For Easebourne”
FACT 1 – IDENTITY Midhurst & Easebourne are described as ‘two separate settlements’.
Easebourne is also described as ‘an historic estate village’ & the Local Plan identifies ‘distinctive towns and villages’ as one of the special qualities of the National Park. Yet for the first time, SDNPA says it is ‘appropriate to consider them together’ due to proximity & because they share facilities. THAT SINGLE DECISION CHANGES EVERYTHING. Because once Easebourne is treated as part of Midhurst, it becomes part of Midhurst’s growth strategy & housing targets. That growth is significant. Midhurst & Easebourne are identified as the third principal area for growth in the National Park, behind only Lewes & Petersfield. IF EASEBOURNE IS A SEPARATE VILLAGE SETTLEMENT, IT SHOULD BE PLANNED FOR AS A SEPARATE VILLAGE SETTLEMENT.
FACT 2 – TRAFFIC SDNPA’s own transport study places us in the “amber category” — locations with only limited potential to accommodate sustainable growth. Yet further development continues to be proposed. We already experience significant traffic congestion, resulting noise & pollution at peak times especially at North Mill Bridge. In 2025 it was hit, causing chaos across Easebourne, Midhurst & 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 A RESILIENT NETWORK. IT IS A FRAGILE ONE. What’s clear is unlike Lewes and Petersfield, the infrastructure is not there. You can’t widen the bridge, you can’t change the narrow road at Rumbolds Hill & there’s definitely no plans for a by-pass. IF THE INFRASTRUCTURE CANNOT MATERIALLY EXPAND, HOW CAN THE GROWTH CONTINUE TO EXPAND?
FACT 3 – CAPACITYThe main justification for treating Easebourne and Midhurst together is that they share facilities.BUT…Riverbank Medical Centre already serves 12,832 patients across a large rural catchment. Midhurst Rother College is over subscribed in most years. Easebourne Primary School currently only has one year with space available. And we don’t have a full sized supermarket demonstrating that the existing provision we do share is limited. Many residents travel outside the area for their main weekly shop generating additional traffic movements that growth assumptions often overlook. It doesn’t take much to see that we do not have abundant spare capacity. Nor does it take much to see that a proposed 66-bed care home & further housing growth + all the housing that has been built & not yet occupied will place significant additional demands on healthcare, education & community services. WHERE IS THE EVIDENCE THAT THESE FACILITIES HAVE THE CAPACITY TO SUPPORT FURTHER GROWTH?
There are 3 proposals for Easebourne:
SDA24 proposes 25 homes on green land west of Budgenor Lodge. This is not brownfield land. It is open countryside that currently defines the edge of the village.SDA24 is not simply a housing allocation.It is a deliberate decision to move the settlement boundary of Easebourne to accommodate housing by extending development into farmland. ONCE THAT BOUNDARY MOVES, WHEN DOES IT STOP?
SDA22, the former school on Easebourne Street.We’ve already learnt to accept 20 large houses & the loss of green land that came with them. But on the positive it’s renovated the former school and that’s is a positive.But SDA22 now proposes a further 9 homes.THE ISSUE IS NOT 9 HOMES.THE ISSUE IS CONTINUAL EXPANSION INTO GREEN LAND.If every development becomes the justification for yet more development, where doesit stop?
SDA23, a 66-bed care home near Riverbank.No one is arguing that care homes are not needed. That is not the issue. THE ISSUE IS SCALE. We’re not opposed to development, just the wrong kind. It would be lovely to see the Midhurst Community Hospital renovated & bought back into full use, just as with the school. But this is a development suitable for a town, more so a city, certainly not a village. Alongside a proposed 66-bed care home, Easebourne has already absorbed 58 homes; Easebourne Street, Egmont Road & Cowdray Works Yard And that's before taking account of the further growth proposed across Midhurst itself.
THERE IS A HUGE CUMULATIVE IMPACT TO THIS.SDNPA describes Easebourne as an historic estate village & a separate settlement, but what the Local Plan worryingly proposes is not the conservation andenhancement of a village, but the gradual transformation of village character into townscape character and without the infrastructure to match. One way of measuring how much development Easebourne & Midhurst have already absorbed is through infrastructure contributions paid by developers when new homes are built. Recent development in Easebourne has generated approximately £151,000 and development in Midhurst £242,000. Easebourne alone has generated almost as much as Lewes. That demonstrates the scale of growth this village has already accommodated. And now more growth is proposed.
BUT WHERE IS THE EVIDENCE THAT EXISTING INFRASTRUCTURE CAN SUPPORT IT? AND WHERE IS THE INVESTMENT IN THAT INFRASTRUCTURE?THIS GROWTH DESERVES INDEPENDENT PROFESSIONAL SCRUTINY. We learnt from the last round of development that local concern alone is not enough.Residents responded. And yes that’s important.EPC responded. Robustly. With a great Parish Design Statement to ensure housing would sit comfortably alongside historic listed buildings. YET THE OUTCOME CHANGED VERY LITTLE.The Local Plan process is supported by planning officers, transport consultants, landscape consultants, legal advisers & specialist evidence. Residents have access to none of those resources. Nor is their time paid for.
BECAUSE ONCE THESE DECISIONS ARE MADE, THEY WILL SHAPE THE FUTURE OF EASEBOURNE AND MIDHURST, AND ALL OF US THAT LIVE HERE, FOREVER.
