Residents who submitted questions ahead of my public meeting on Zachary Merton Hospital wanted straight answers.
They wanted to know how a closure originally described as temporary became permanent, why local people were not properly consulted, what will replace the lost inpatient beds, and what now happens to a site that has served this community for generations.
Sussex Community NHS Foundation Trust and NHS Surrey and Sussex Integrated Care Board have now provided written responses to all 110 questions submitted in advance of the meeting. You can read those responses in full below.
I appreciate that both organisations have honoured the commitment they made on the evening to respond. However, publication of the answers is not the same as resolving the concerns.
In several important areas, the responses either confirm what residents feared or leave the central question unanswered.
From a temporary closure to a permanent decision
The Trust says Zachary Merton was closed in December 2023 after serious problems were identified with the building, including its ceilings, heating, and water ingress.
An independent survey estimated that around £8 million would be needed to make the hospital safe and suitable for use. The Trust says that funding was not available.
However, the responses also confirm that no cost-efficiency study was carried out comparing the options of repairing and reopening the hospital with permanently removing its services.
The Trust has again declined to publish the full building survey, citing commercially sensitive information.
Residents understand that an immediate safety decision may sometimes have to be taken quickly. What remains unanswered is why the later decision that services would never return was made without the full public consultation local people had been led to expect.
That distinction matters. A temporary emergency closure and a permanent loss of healthcare provision are not the same decision.
The future of local beds
The Trust and ICB continue to argue that care should increasingly be delivered through services such as HomeFirst, Virtual Wards, Urgent Community Response, and intermediate care units elsewhere in West Sussex.
Those services can work well for some patients. They are not an answer for everyone.
Residents repeatedly raised concerns about older people who live alone, patients who need rehabilitation before returning home, families who cannot provide round-the-clock support, and the difficulty of travelling to beds further away.
The Trust’s response states that there is no evidence that inpatient or rehabilitation beds are required in this area.
I know many residents will strongly challenge that conclusion. It does not reflect what I heard in the packed meeting back in May, the experiences people have shared with me, or the continuing concern about accessible step-down care for an ageing coastal population.
Home-based care should be available where it is safe and appropriate. It should not be used as a blanket justification for removing local beds.
What happens to the site?
The Trust confirms that it is exploring several options for the site, including a possible sale, although it says no final decision has yet been taken.
The responses also confirm that legal due diligence concerning the original gift of the land, possible covenants, charitable status, ownership restrictions, and the treatment of any sale proceeds has not yet been completed.
That work should not be an afterthought.
Before any disposal is considered, residents deserve complete clarity about the legal history of the site, the purposes for which it was originally provided, and any protections that may apply.
The Trust has also provided no commitment that the land would remain in healthcare or community use if sold, instead referring to the future buyer and the planning process.
Given the history of the former Littlehampton Hospital site, residents are entitled to be deeply cautious about accepting assurances that cannot be guaranteed.
Security and maintenance
Some of the most concerning questions came from people living beside the empty hospital.
Residents reported repeated trespassing, antisocial behaviour, fears about their safety, poor communication, concerns about the grounds, and, in one case, having to install security cameras after groups repeatedly entered the site.
The Trust says mobile security patrols, fencing, barriers, and other measures are in place. It has also said that grounds-maintenance arrangements are being reviewed.
I will continue pressing it to ensure the site is properly secured and maintained. Residents living nearby should not have to bear the consequences of a building being left empty while its future remains unresolved.
What happens next
The written responses provide useful information, but they are by no means the end to this campaign.
I have already asked the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care to call-in the decision to close Zachary Merton Hospital. That request remains active, the Minister for Health has confirmed they are formally reviewing that request, and I am continuing to press for a decision.
The concerns about consultation, the permanent removal of beds, the evidence used to justify that decision, and the future of the site all deserve proper scrutiny.
Please read the responses and let me know what you think. My post-meeting survey and the full recording of the public meeting also remain available.
The questions have been anonymised so they can be shared publicly. Anyone who submitted a question and would like to be reminded which was theirs is welcome to contact my office.
I remain committed to securing a long-term future for healthcare at the Zachary Merton site and ensuring local residents have a meaningful say in what happens next.
