Local plan for Easebourne sets ‘national precedent’

Residents of Easebourne have said that the South Downs National Park Authority’s proposed merger of their village with Midhurst for planning purposes is “unfair, unjust and unsound” and risks undermining the Plan’s objective to “conserve and enhance” the area.

Tuesday, June 23, marks the end of the SDNPA’s consultation period on the updated Local Plan, which earmarks new sites for development.

Three new sites have been proposed for development in Easebourne: land adjacent to the community hospital for a 66-bed care home and greenfield agricultural land west of Budgenor Lodge for 25 dwellings.

A further nine homes have been suggested for the land immediately adjacent to the completed development at the old Easebourne school site on Easebourne Street.

The Plan recognises Easebourne as a “separate settlement” and a “historic estate village”  but has been conflated with Midhurst for planning purposes.

In a statement, the SDNPA said: “There are no plans to combine Midhurst and Easebourne, and the Local Plan is clear that they are two separate and distinct settlements.

“Easebourne has been grouped presentationally with Midhurst in the Local Plan because the proximity of the two settlements means that they share facilities and people can easily walk from one to the other.”

In practice, this approach allows infrastructure assumptions, such as primary school places, GP services and transport capacity, to be pooled across the wider Midhurst and Easebourne area.

It means spare capacity in one part of the settlement can be used to justify growth in another, including edge-of-village sites in Easebourne.

Residents in Easebourne have vigorously questioned whether this plan adequately considers the impact of further development on Easebourne, given the recent influx of housing on the King Edward VII estate.

Nicole Reid, spokesperson for Working Together for Easebourne, said: “This has never happened before. Easebourne and Midhurst are the only two settlements from different parishes combined anywhere in the entire 326-page Plan. No criteria were set. No threshold was established.”

She said, “If this passes, it could be the beginning of the end of villages as we know them. Not because villages shouldn’t evolve, but because the distinction between village and town starts to disappear.

“Once that line is blurred, it becomes much harder to protect what makes places like Easebourne special.”

The draft Local Plan also allocates six sites in Midhurst for a total of 87 new homes, all on brownfield or infill land within the town's existing footprint.

By comparison, the proposed sites in Easebourne would extend development onto agricultural land at the edge of the village.

Opponents say the schemes would urbanise the countryside and further blur the historic distinction between Midhurst and the estate village of Easebourne.

Residents who have contacted the Midhurst and Petworth Observer about the Plan said not only does the plan change the character of the village, but that Easebourne does not have the infrastructure to sustain the proposed development.

They point to Easebourne Primary School, which is at capacity with 202 students, and a shortfall only in one year group.

Others are concerned about the road network and the narrow, stone-built North Mill bridge, which runs over the River Rother, connecting the two areas.

Last year, the bridge was closed for months for specialist heritage repairs after a car crashed into the walls, causing traffic chaos for both commuters and residents.

During peak hours, it can take up to 15 minutes to drive between the BP garage at Easebourne and the top of narrow Rumbolds Hill in Midhurst. This is exacerbated during the summer months when the Goodwood and Cowdray Estates host high-profile sporting events.

On concerns around traffic and transport, the SDNPA said: “The Transport Study for the Local Plan takes into account all existing development and that under construction, including the King Edward VII site.  The study concludes that Midhurst and Easebourne are two of the locations with the greatest potential to deliver sustainable mobility outcomes from new development.”

‘Sustainable mobility outcomes’ are measures that encourage the use of active travel – walking, cycling and ‘wheeling’ on mobility scooters.

However, the SDNPA Transport Assessment carried out in 2024 found that Midhurst and Easebourne only have “some potential” for increased active travel, while Petersfield and Lewis are seen by the SDNPA to have more scope.

Campaigner Nicole Reid said she believes there are several contradictions in the SDNPA’s plan: “We feel like David taking on Goliath. This isn’t about being for or against development. It’s about making sure decisions that will shape Easebourne for generations are based on the full picture.

“However, I want residents to read the evidence and make up their own minds.”

The full plan can be found at South Downs Local Plan Proposed Submission, and residents can respond via the portal: Consultation Home - Keystone or by email [email protected]