Comment

ESCC

1.    Need greater emphasis on tourism

Tourism is mentioned in relation to specific geographic areas and throughout the document. However, the Department for Transport (DfT) LCWIP guidance and the funding associated with this, is more focussed on the ability of a local authority to support modal shift, especially for journeys which support access to work and education. Many existing cycling and walking schemes ESCC are currently undertaking, especially within town centres, will support multiple journey types, particularly the tourist sector.

2.    Use recreational areas as key attractors

A number of recreational areas have been considered as part of network development and will be considered further through reviews of the network through local plan development.

3.    Recreational cycling should be equal to ‘everyday journeys

Everyday journey’s does include recreational journeys, however the current national funding available tends to have more emphasis on supporting modal shift, especially for journeys to work and education. ESCC will continue to work with their partners to seek other funding which is focussed more on supporting recreational cycling and walking.

4.    More emphasis on fun /enjoyment

Agree the opening statement has been updated in the LCWIP summary to reflect this. This message will also be weaved into future travel behaviour change communications plans.

5.    Don’t agree with priority areas

The priority areas reflect the current DfT LCWIP Technical guidance, where areas included should have the greatest opportunities to increase cycling and walking.

6.    New cycle parking (manual and e-bikes) must be a requirement for all new development

This is currently required.

7.    Delivery should rest with the highway authority

The plan can only be delivered with the highway authority working in partnership with key local partners, because the highway authority is not in position to apply for all the available funding to deliver the measures identified.

8.    Are future CIL / developer contributions likely to be used

The LCWIP networks will be integrated as part of district and borough local plans and reviewed according to proposed development for both housing and employment. This will enable CIL or developer contributions to be sought to fund all or part of specific schemes which support development sites coming forward.

9.    Air pollution and impacts on health and wellbeing is missing

These two key policy areas are mentioned throughout the document and are outlined as two of the key issues and opportunities the LCWIP will respond to, see figure 2 LCWIP Summary document. Air pollution is also referred to within the Lewes and Newhaven LCWIP areas, who have Air Quality Management Areas and health and wellbeing data has been used to support the development of the LCWIP, for both the proposed infrastructure measures and initiatives.

10. Ambition for journeys should be 20km not 2 and 5km

The 2km and 5km is based on the distance people are likely to be able to travel for walking and cycling, particularly for local journeys for education, work and shopping. However, the plan does recognise longer journeys for cycling or integration with other modes on key corridors of movement, where people could walk or cycle part of the journey.

11. Want rural areas included

Several more rural market towns are included as part of the LCWIP, i.e., Hailsham, Crowborough, Uckfield, Heathfield, Battle and Rye. More rural areas have been considered as part of the inclusion of longer routes and additional areas, including villages, could be considered through Neighbourhood Plans.

12. Link to the UN Strategic Development Goals 3 (good health and well-being) and 11 (sustainable cities and communities)

Health and wellbeing is considered and integration with place making are considered as key issues and opportunities which the LCWIP can respond to through both the delivery of future infrastructure and initiatives which support more active travel.

13. Consider terminology – ‘getting around’ as opposed to ‘journey’ – the latter comes across as a planned trip or commute

Comment noted, the current terminology is used as national guidance and funding tends to be focussed more on planned trips.

14. ‘social & health’ ignores doing walking & cycling for pleasure or for individual development and could exclude groups involved in cycling & walking and sport and recreational bodies

Agree the opening statement has been updated in the LCWIP summary to reflect this. This message will also be weaved into future travel behaviour change communications plans and initiatives and further work with key local public health and sport partners.

15. Need to align with public realm strategies

District and borough public realm strategies are noted and will be considered as schemes come forward through the design phases.

16. Disagree with indicators in section 6 - should prioritise people.

The delivery of the LCWIP is subject to the ability to secure external funding. Therefore, a set of local indicators which reflect current data collected and LCWIP guidance will be utilised to monitor the plan. However other data at a scheme and initiative programme level will also be collected through monitoring and evaluation.

17. Include running, walk to run routes, run to work etc

This is not a requirement of the LCWIP, however this maybe something that can be explored in the future with sport partners for longer routes.

18. Mention coastal paths

This is mentioned in several sections related to specific geographic areas in Appendix 2.

19. Reference to impacts on aged and ageing population. Infrastructure needs to take into account accessibility for those with long term illnesses and poor mobility.  Also need to consider use of mobility vehicles along some of the narrower routes and where pathways are not available.

Comment noted. Yes agree, population data was assessed as part of the evidence base for the LCWIP and is outlined in section 2.7 of Appendix B. The use of mobility vehicles was considered as part of the walking network development and will be considered as part of scheme design, as these comes forward.

20. Consideration should be given to the psychological barrier to walking and cycling presented by the topography of some areas (e.g. Hastings) and how this can be mitigated

Yes, this is noted in the LCWIP evidence base for some areas, notably Hastings, and was also part of the assessment of the network.

21. Makes no mention of SDNPA’s objective to promote  opportunities for public enjoyment and understanding of the special qualities of the National Park

The Lewes and SDNPA section of the plan has been updated to reflect this.

22. Presuming East Sussex will adopt the national target of doubling cycling levels by 2025

The East Sussex LCWIP will not include targets, but a set of indicators as set out in Appendix A section 6.

23. Need a CO2 reduction target

The LCWIP will be in alignment with the ESCC Environment Plan.

24. For cycling the real target should be modal share

Modal share or modal shift is monitored as part of scheme and initiative level evaluation and monitoring.

25. Has the Health-Related Behaviour survey data been considered for use

Comment noted. A considerable about of health data has been considered as outlined in the JSNA, but health related behaviour survey data for the county has not been referred to. This will be explored with ESCC Public Health colleagues.

26. Section 5. Regarding point 5, need to be able to put cycle on bus e.g., when replacement bus services for trains. It's no use having an integrated transport system that doesn't work 100% of the time.

Comment noted. This has been assessed as part of previous transport initiative programmes and has a number of challenges, especially in relation to causing considerable delay in relation to boarding and alighting and affecting a bus times schedule alongside the storage of cycles. Therefore, this type of scheme does lend itself more to services that support access to leisure and recreation cycling. However, there may be opportunities to review this again as part of future mobility schemes, which ESCC will review as part of their Local Transport Plan.

27. Need monitoring of journeys made by older children

Currently monitor mode of travel to school through the school census for primary and secondary children. For children 16 plus, data on travel is only collected if specific initiatives being undertaken with post 16 education providers.

28. Regarding new infrastructure, suggest that Kilometres of SEGREGATED routes rather than overall network should be monitored

ESCC will monitor the overall network. Whilst the use of segregated routes will be considered at the design phase and delivered where feasible, there will be occasions where we will be required to depart from guidance. This will be in order to deliver a continuous route where we are often required to manage limited and competing demands from other modes, environmental designations and settlements being historic in nature.

29. Section 6 - The indicators are inadequate: need to measure (a) whether people are cycling and walking more locally (b) whether people feel safe to cycle and walk (for themselves and their children) and (c) whether people feel it is more safe to walk and cycle than say a year ago

Comment noted. The delivery of the LCWIP is subject to the ability to secure external funding. Therefore, a set of local indicators which reflect current data collected and LCWIP guidance will be utilised to monitor the plan. However other data, similar to the data mentioned will be collected at a scheme and initiative programme level will also be collected through monitoring and evaluation.

Comment

ESCC

30. Concern over shared space

ESCC is not pursuing the development or delivery of any shared space schemes. However, there will be occasions when the use of a shared route to enable both cycling and walking will be required, where space is limited to enable full segregation.

31. Need for dropped kerbs

The walking network development included the identification of dropped kerbs. ESCC also delivers an annual programme of dropped kerbs following requests from the public through their Capital Programme of local transport measures. Appendix 1 of the LCWIP, Policy 5, includes a separate policy for the provision of dropped kerbs.

32. Want more detail on design, engagement, and delivery

The LCWIP is an evolutionary plan and should therefore be treated as a ‘live document’. The proposed cycling and walking networks indicated in the plan outline the potential alignment of a route or a measure at an early feasibility stage and should not be considered as detailed proposals. The delivery of the plan is dependent on ESCC and their partners ability to seek and secure funding to both develop and deliver future schemes. Once funding is secured for specific schemes these will then be subject to local consultation with members and the public before progressing to implementation.

33. Need to address safety issues and volume and speed of traffic

Any specific safety issues will be dealt with at the scheme design phase.

34. Want more explicit mention of Manual for Streets 2

Comment noted and included.

35. Low traffic or healthy neighbourhoods should feature more heavily

The Cabinet report recommends that in accordance with the DfT guidance, the LCWIP will be a ‘live document’ and will need to be regularly reviewed and updated. With the recent changes to national policy and guidance on cycling and walking, alongside the forthcoming review of the current East Sussex Local Transport Plan it is recommended that further assessments with stakeholders will be undertaken to support the potential identification of schemes for inclusion in the LCWIP from 2022/23, which:

·         strengthen the walking element of the plan,

·         potentially identify cycling schemes which align with the new government Local Transport Note (LTN) 1/20 ‘Cycle Infrastructure Design’, and

·         potentially include schemes which will provide greater priority for people cycling and walking within neighbourhoods or key centres.

36. Remove on-street parking and convert to cycle paths

This will be considered at an individual scheme design stage.

37. Remove unnecessary street furniture to improve accessibility for walking and cycling

This will be considered at an individual scheme design stage.

38. Preference for physical separation for pedestrians and cyclists

Comment noted. Whilst the use of segregated routes will be considered at the design phase and delivered where feasible, there will be occasions where we will be required to depart from guidance. This will be in order to deliver a continuous route where we are often required to manage limited and competing demands from other modes, environmental designations and settlements being historic in nature.

39. Greater emphasis on speed restrictions

This will be considered at an individual scheme design stage.

40. Need to consider those with visual, hearing or movement difficulties

An Equality Impact Assessment has been undertaken as part of the development of the plan and individual schemes will be subject to an EqIA alongside the engagement with relevant stakeholders at the scheme design phase.

41. Support a constant policy approach but would add ‘monitoring and learning’ in order to allow for adjustments, as necessary, to fit the people and place.

Evaluation & monitoring are key components of scheme and initiative design and delivery.

42. Link walking schemes with walk / cycle routes with distance markers

This will be considered at an individual scheme design stage.

43. More pelican crossings at key junctions

This will be considered at an individual scheme design stage.

44. There is no clear commitment to widening pavements on a significant scale to shift the transportation balance towards pedestrians.

This was considered as part of the development of the walking network. The Cabinet report also recommends that in accordance with the DfT guidance, the LCWIP will be a ‘live document’ and will need to be regularly reviewed and updated. With the recent changes to national policy and guidance on cycling and walking, alongside the forthcoming review of the current East Sussex Local Transport Plan it is recommended that further assessments with stakeholders will be undertaken to support the potential identification of schemes for inclusion in the LCWIP from 2022/23, which:

·         strengthen the walking element of the plan,

·         potentially identify cycling schemes which align with the new government Local Transport Note (LTN) 1/20 ‘Cycle Infrastructure Design’, and

·         potentially include schemes which will provide greater priority for people cycling and walking within neighbourhoods or key centres.

45. There needs to be more protection, from traffic, on the proposed routes that are built around desire lines

This will be considered at an individual scheme design stage and referring to relevant design guidance.

46. On designated routes every junction should have, where possible, some controlling of traffic - 20mph zones and modal permeability

This will be considered, as appropriate, at an individual scheme design stage and referring to relevant design guidance.

47. ESCC should be supporting the campaign for ‘implied-zebras’ as a low cost option on low volume street junctions, along these routes, backed up with controlled crossings at busier junctions

Comment noted and will be explored as part of future work recommended in the Cabinet report.

Comment

ESCC

48. Support behaviorual change

ESCC has undertaken several travel behaviour change programmes the most recent being Active Access for Growth 2017 – 2020. Active Access for Growth - Programme – East Sussex Active Access for Growth – East Sussex County Council ESCC has recently secured £219,774 of Department for Transport Active Travel Funding to deliver a programme of cycling and walking initiatives, including active steps with workplaces and communities, cycle/electric cycle hire, ‘walk once a week’ programme’ with schools and further development to the ESCC Cycle Hubs at Eastbourne & Peacehaven.

49. Adult training should be available in all towns and not just 2 hubs

Adult Bikeability is available across the entire county on request to ESCC.

50. Encourage cargo bikes with ‘last mile’ policies of Government

This will be encouraged as part of ESCC Active Travel Programme 2021 -22 and subsequent years, specifically work with businesses and where funding can be secured for this. This will also be explored more as part of the review of ESCC Local Transport Plan.

51. E-bikes should be given a higher profile

ESCC has previously invested in an e-bike loan scheme as part of the Active Access for Growth 2017 – 2020 programme, which is now sustainable. Pedal Power - Bikes, Bike Rental (eastsussexpedalpower.com) East Sussex Active Travel Programme for 2021-22 will provide further investment for this to extend the coverage of the scheme and with a greater emphasis with access to electric cycles.

52. Link with groups for business development (cycle shops, tourism, walking breaks, countryside parks or coastal paths)

ESCC is happy to consider these types of initiatives subject to funding and available resource. Similar projects have been undertaken previously working in partnership with the South Downs National Park Authority.

53. Use of East Sussex Active Lives (Sport England) data.

This data has been used to support the development of the Active Travel Initiative Programme 2021/22 and has informed the areas prioritised for delivery.

54. Develop a communications and marketing strategy with and work in partner to deliver campaign messages

This will be included as part of ESCC Active Travel Initiative Programme 2021/22.

55. Need to agree monitoring indicators in partnership with Healthy Weight Partnership. Will monitoring include the number of people benefiting from specific programmes such as Bike Ability, Wheels for All, Health Walks etc? Again, to be agreed with HWP

The Active Travel Initiative Programme 2021/22 will monitor the outputs and outcomes from delivery.

Comment

ESCC

56. D’s & B’s and other key local stakeholders should be part of the project boards and walking and cycling forums

ESCC is happy to involve the district and boroughs with the project boards associated with infrastructure and initiative delivery and the East Sussex Cycling, Walking & Access Forum.

57. Scheme prioritisation - Timetable – colour coding is unclear

ESCC has provided a detailed timetable for the initial prioritisation of schemes within the Appendix 4 – LCWIP Summary of the Cabinet Report and removed the colour coding from the previous version.

Comment

ESCC Response

1.    The plan is supported.

·         ESCC welcomes this response to the consultation.

2.    The plan is not supported and would prefer to see strategy and investment for other modes of travel.

·         ESCC will be reviewing their Local Transport Plan (LTP) during 2021/22. This will set out the transport strategy, alongside corresponding implementation plans for all modes of travel. The LCWIP will be a supporting document to the LTP.

·         Active Travel is a key Government priority following the publication of their new cycling and walking strategy – ‘Gear Change’. The delivery of this strategy is supported by the availability of £2bn of funding, which is available to local authorities to support the delivery of walking and cycling measures and initiatives. An LCWIP supports local authorities in securing this funding. 

·         Increasing the number of people walking and cycling complies with ESCC’s key strategic documents particularly the Local Transport Plan, Economic Recovery Plan, the Healthy Weight Plan and the Environment Plan and the objectives of, reducing carbon emissions, improving health and wellbeing, reducing congestion and the reliance on the car.

3.    The LCWIP is not in alignment with current government policy and guidance for active travel.

·         The LCWIP has been developed in line with Government policy and technical guidance to support and enable more people to walk and cycle.

·         The LCWIP has been developed in conjunction with local cycling, walking and access groups and local district and boroughs. Whilst these routes are indicative and subject to future consultation and funding, it is a starting point to improve connectivity within key towns with the opportunity to look at further improving connections in and between towns and in more rural areas, as the LCWIP will be a live document and reviewed and revised accordingly

4.    The plan needs greater consideration of disabled people's needs.

·         Throughout the main summary document and the associated appendices reference is made to how the routes have been developed to consider the needs of those with physical and hidden disabilities. For example, Appendix B which comprises more detail on specific routes explains how ‘audits of walking routes were undertaken by those ‘with detailed knowledge of planning transport improvements for people with disabilities.

·         The Wheels for All initiative are a nationally recognised initiative and takes into consideration those with disabilities to participate in cycling activities. This is currently being operated by ESCC at the Eastbourne Cycle Centre. It is envisaged that this will also be operated at the Peacehaven Cycle centre in the near future.

·         An Equality Impact Assessment has been undertaken as part of the LCWIP, as is summarised in the initial pages of the document.

·         As cycling and walking measures, as identified in the LCWIP, come forward for design local access group alongside other key stakeholders will be consulted at an early stage and throughout, alongside the public, prior to any measures being delivered.

5.    Prefer investment in maintenance of roads and footways

·         ESCC will continue to invest in the maintenance of roads and footways. There are different funding streams available for ESCC to bid from both within the internal organisation and externally.   However, some of the funding which ESCC has secured specifically for walking and cycling measures has enabled improvements to existing measures as footway and cycle route maintenance are an important element of the LCWIP. 

·         It is important to note that reducing vehicular movements on the highway network through increased walking and cycling will reduce the costs of highway (road) maintenance.

6.    The proposed cycling and walking networks should be connected with designated development sites included in district and borough Local Plans.

·         The LCWIP has been developed in conjunction with local authorities and where appropriate future housing and employment growth / sites have been considered and identified and are mapped in 2.7 ‘Key Issues and Opportunities - specific geographic areas’ in Appendix B alongside key trip attractors.

7.    Footpaths should be re-designated to bridleways

·         Whilst the County Council does have powers to upgrade public footpaths to public bridleways (by Creation Agreements) the resource and cost implications for doing so are incredibly high, and we are therefore unlikely to proactively seek these.

·         Creation Agreements can only be made where the landowner agreed to agree to increase the levels of access.

·         In most cases a third party (usually a local group or other authority) has negotiated an agreement with the landowner which is then legally formalised by the County Council.

·         Creation Orders are costly if they are objected to as they may be referred to the Secretary of State with the County Council fronting any public inquiry costs. Landowners are also able to potentially claim compensation as a result of Creation Orders.

8.    The East Sussex LCWIP should be linked to other adjoining local authority LCWIP’s. 

·         The guiding principles of this LCWIPs align with Government policy and guidance.

·         Where a walking or cycle route links to an adjoining local transport authority’s area (i.e., other County or City Councils,) ESCC will consult with the relevant adjoining local authority.

·         LCWIP’s are live documents and adjoining local authorities have either developed their LCWIP or are in the process of developing these. Therefore, future iterations of the ESCC LCWIP will include greater linkages to adjoining local authorities LCWIP’s as they evolve.

Comment

ESCC Response

10. Shared cycling and walking routes are supported.

·         Recent guidance advises that segregated walking and cycle paths should be introduced where possible.

·         However as explained in question 9, often due to the lack of space and the competing and important demands from other modes, there will be instances we will have to depart from LTN 1/20 and introduce shared walking and cycle routes, this may be for part or all of a route.

11. Road space should not be re-allocated to active travel as it will cause more congestion on the roads.

·         The provision for new cycling or walking measures which involve re-allocating road space, will be developed by undertaking appropriate assessment and audits. This will ensure that the issues and opportunities are assessed fully, and key stakeholders and the public are able to provide their views through engagement and consultation with ESCC.is

·         The re-allocation of road space to enable more people to walk and cycle is a key aim of the governments ‘Gear Change’ Strategy, with the expectation that local authorities will look to deliver schemes which support this. ESCC has already undertaken a successful trial of a ‘School Streets’ project, which involved restricting access to the road directly outside of the school entrance.

12. Require greater connectivity of proposed cycling and walking networks to existing routes

·         The draft LCWIP seeks to improve connectivity between existing routes and to key attractors from residential areas in the priority areas as identified in Appendix B.

·         It is not possible to prioritise or identify all of these within this LCWIP, however, we envisage that future iterations of the plan will identify and plan for making these connections.

13. Require more traffic calming/20mph zones/reduction of parking

·         These types of measures will be identified either through requests through the ESCC capital programme for local transport improvements, or identified and delivered as part of larger schemes, as deemed appropriate.

·         The reduction of parking to either provide more space for cycling and walking measures or to discourage people driving will be considered on a scheme basis during the design phase where both key stakeholders and the public will be consulted.

·         The majority of on street parking is either privately owned, or the responsibility of local planning authorities, not the local transport authority, i.e., ESCC.

14. Would like consideration given to the needs of equestrian users in the development of routes

·         If any new routes, particularly which will potentially impact equestrian users, both positively and negatively, this would of course be subject to consultation.

·         The ESCC Rights of Way team has been involved in the development of the ESCC LCWIP and has raised the need to accommodate the needs of equestrian users if bridleways are part of future scheme development.

15. Concern around the implementation, funding, and delivery of schemes

·         Without an LCWIP in place which specifies where schemes can come forward in the county it will be more difficult for ESCC and their partners to secure larger scale national funding for the implementation of the walking and cycling schemes identified within the plan. The current plan prioritises more urban areas of the county and the larger market towns.

·         The draft LCWIP also recognises the importance of opportunities for cycling and walking trips within rural areas. Working with our key local partners, the draft LCWIP will also be used to seek and secure funding from a variety of sources to deliver the infrastructure and measures identified in the LCWIP. Aside from Government funding, which will be more appropriate for funding schemes within the priority areas as they are able to demonstrate greater value for money, other potential sources for more rural areas could include our Capital Programme of Local Transport Improvements, development contributions, and other partners bidding for funding.

·         The government has committed £2bn of funding for Active Travel for the next four years.

Comment

ESCC Response

16. Require greater regulation of cyclists.

If cycling was to be regulated this would be required to be led by Government and implemented by the relevant bodies, including police and local transport authorities through changes to enforcement and appropriate signage.

17. Supports and requires greater training for people cycling.

·         Acknowledge and appreciate the feedback.

·         We advocate and support the need for training people of all ages and abilities to cycle. ESCC offer a comprehensive county wide Bikeability programme for schools, as well as training through the school holidays and training for adults. See link on ESCC Webpage - Apply for Bikeability training | East Sussex County Council

·         The importance of cycling for the physical and mental health and wellbeing is recognised by ESCC. As are the benefits to the environment and economy through reduced vehicular movements, i.e., less carbon emissions, reduced congestion.

18. Supports and requires greater training for drivers regarding people cycling.

·         Drivers should be fully aware of the needs and vulnerabilities of other road users, including cyclists.

·         Driver awareness is managed by the Sussex Safer Roads Partnership, see attached web link - Welcome to Sussex Safer Roads Partnerships | SSRP

Comment

ESCC Response

19. The maps are difficult to read.

·         The maps are purely indicative at this stage and further detail on specific schemes will be provided at a later stage as schemes progress.

·         In the future ESCC will look to make these maps available online through a GIS mapping system, which will improve map navigation.

20. The document is too long.

·         The document was developed in accordance with the technical guidance provided by the Department for Transport. Due to ESCC ambition to include all major urban centres and market towns this required the inclusion of a lot of background evidence. This is important to support applications for future funding. 

·         A summary document of the LCWIP has been developed and this will be the main LCWIP written document. The other documents will be supporting evidence to this document.

·         As outlined in question 19 there is a longer term aim to make the LCWIP more of a map-based document, especially with the need to keep the document ‘live’. The development of this will be subject to funding.

Comment

ESCC Response

21. Require greater emphasis on rural areas & linking of villages

·         The Department for Transport technical guidance in the development of LCWIP’s advises that these plans should be focussed on areas where there is the greatest opportunity to increase cycling and walking. Therefore, the first iteration of ESCC plan is focussed on improving connections within key urban towns and larger market towns.

·         The plan does however include longer routes, which often provide connections to more rural areas of the county

·         Linking rural areas and villages will be considered in more detail in future iterations of the plan but will be considered as part of the development of local plans and could also be considered by local parishes in the development of Neighbourhood Plans.

·         The funding for measures in more rural areas could be made available from the ESCC Capital Programme of Local Transport Improvements, development contributions, and other partners bidding for funding.

Concern re topography

·         Whilst we cannot change the topography of the County, we recognise that in areas where there are steep hills, this may discourage more cycling and walking for some people in the county.

·         Therefore, we will provide routes which provide users with the most comfort as this is likely to increase usage.

·         With cycling initiatives, we will prioritise the provision of electric cycle schemes in areas where the topography is more challenging. (i.e., Hastings)

Supports/wants greater emphasis on linking towns

·         Certain locations have linkages between towns. The greatest focus is however on improving links within towns, particularly for walking.

·         We are more likely to enable more people to walk and cycle by getting people to travel shorter distances, and this is why the initial focus is on making improvements within towns.

·         Once these connections have been made, we will look to identify further / future schemes which make connections between towns, villages, rural areas etc.

Comment

ESCC Response

Croft Rd, Crowborough

A number of roads in Crowborough town centre, including Croft Road, are highlighted as presenting challenges for active travel due to the high levels of traffic flow and limited dedicated infrastructure. Options including pedestrianisation are highlighted in the report as potential interventions to improve conditions for non-car users however it is recognised that this type of intervention could only come forward if supported locally and if key concerns around bus routing/bus stop access, deliveries and traffic flow displacement were addressed.

Broad St, Seaford

The Seaford report identifies a number of high-level, potential interventions in the town centre area including the High Street and Broad Street that would help facilitate increased levels of cycling for local journeys and more comfortable conditions for pedestrians. These options include pedestrianisation, but it is recognised that this could only be explored further through extensive local engagement to ensure that businesses, residents, and car-users with mobility needs are not negatively impacted in terms of access and deliveries.

A259 Newhaven to Rottingdean

The Sustrans report for the Newhaven, Peacehaven and Seaford area identified a number of barriers to active travel on the extent of the A259 between Newhaven and Rottingdean. The high traffic flows and limited infrastructure, in particular for cyclists, serve to constrain significant modal shift from car-borne to active travel modes. It is recognised however, that this corridor provides a strategic transport function linking key settlements and principal employment sites, and therefore any improvements need to be holistic across transport modes. For this reason, the County Council is undertaking the A259 South Coast Road corridor study focussed on the corridor between Eastbourne and Brighton. Complementing the Transport for the South East study, the study will be multi-modal and using an appropriate evidence base will seek to identify localised interventions for public transport, improvements to enable people to cycle or walk for all or part of their journeys, alongside localised road and junction capacity improvements and the potential use of smart technology along and around the hinterland of this corridor