A central concern raised throughout the evening was how a closure initially presented as temporary became permanent. Residents questioned what changed between the immediate safety-based closure and the later decision that services would not return. The Trust explained that the building condition, patient and staff safety concerns, and the estimated cost of repairs were key factors in the decision. However, many people remained concerned that the process had not been explained clearly enough as it unfolded. I pressed on how that decision-making process had been communicated, and why people felt they were learning about major decisions after the fact.

Consultation and whether residents could influence the outcome

Residents repeatedly raised concerns that they had not been properly consulted before permanent decisions were taken. I challenged the Trust and ICB on whether future engagement would take place at a point when people could still make a difference, rather than after decisions had effectively already been made. The Trust said it would be open and transparent as the next stages progressed. However, it was also made clear that some options were not within the Trust’s gift alone. That left a real concern in the room about what residents would actually be consulted on, and whether any future consultation would be meaningful.

Virtual wards, Home First, and alternative care models

The Trust and ICB set out their view that care has changed since Zachary Merton closed, including through virtual wards, Home First, urgent community response, and wider neighbourhood health approaches. Some residents accepted that those models can work well in the right circumstances. Others raised serious concerns about whether they can replace local beds, particularly for older or vulnerable people who live alone, lack family support, or need step-down care after hospital. One resident gave a powerful example of virtual wards working only because a family member was able to advocate and coordinate care. The discussion showed that alternative care models need to be better explained, but also that - as the Trust admitted - they do not answer every concern about the loss of local bedded provision.

The future of the Zachary Merton site

Many questions focused on whether healthcare services could still have a future on the Zachary Merton site. Residents raised ideas including community beds, mixed healthcare use, and whether the site could form part of a future neighbourhood health centre model. The ICB explained that neighbourhood health centre options are being considered in other nearby locations, including Littlehampton and Bognor Regis, and that the Zachary Merton site currently presents major cost challenges. That answer did not settle the issue for many people in the room. The clear message from residents was that this is not simply about preserving a building; it is about keeping healthcare provision accessible to the community.

Local need, older residents, and access to care

A recurring theme was whether decisions properly reflect the needs of Rustington and the surrounding area. I opened the meeting by highlighting the large older population locally, and residents returned to this throughout the evening. Questions were raised about hospital discharge, frailty support, rehabilitation, end-of-life care, and whether services further away create barriers for people who need care close to home. The Trust and ICB pointed to wider community provision and changing models of care. However, many remained unconvinced that those models fully answer the need for accessible local services.

Confidence, site stewardship, and what happens next

Beyond the closure decision itself, wider concerns arose about confidence in how the site has been managed and what will happen to it next. Questions were asked about deterioration, security, potential disposal, and whether any proceeds from a sale could be kept within local healthcare provision. The Trust explained aspects of the estate process, but was not able to give guarantees on every point residents wanted answered. I have already asked the Secretary of State to review the closure decision, and keeping pressure on that call-in request remains central to what happens next. The Trust and ICB have also committed to providing written responses to questions submitted in advance that were not covered during the meeting.

What Happens Next

• Secretary of State call-in request: I have already requested that the Secretary of State review the closure decision and I will continue pressing for that process to move forward. This remains one of the most significant active routes available to ensure concerns around the decision-making process are properly considered.
• Responses to outstanding questions: The Trust and ICB have agreed to provide written responses to questions submitted in advance that could not be covered during the meeting itself. These responses will be published once received.
• Continuing to press for answers: I will continue challenging where important questions remain unanswered and pressing for greater transparency around decisions affecting local healthcare provision.
• Long-term healthcare provision remains the focus: My position remains unchanged. I want to secure a long-term future for healthcare services at the Zachary Merton site and ensure our community has a meaningful voice in decisions affecting it.
• Complete the post-event survey and stay updated: https://www.alisongriffiths.org.uk/zachary-merton

Alison Griffiths MP