East Sussex County Council (ESCC), with support from technical transport consultants Jacobs, conducted a public consultation on a series of Active Travel measures focussed on the Hailsham, Polegate and Stone Cross areas, as part of the A22 Full Business Case (FBC). Following the public consultation period (4 November - 8 December 2024), this report documents the process, presents the results of the feedback received, and outlines ESCC’s responses to the key themes that emerged through the consultation.

The information presented in the report will be used to inform the next steps for the proposed Active Travel schemes, which form part of the A22 FBC, with the feedback received being used to inform subsequent design decisions.

Background

During the summer of 2021, a programme of junction improvements for the southern section of the A22 serving Hailsham, Polegate, and Stone Cross to the south of the Wealden district, were consulted upon. These junction improvements were proposed to reduce congestion and to accommodate the anticipated transport demands generated by new housing and employment in the area.

A detailed analysis of the 2021 consultation outcomes highlighted a greater desire from respondents for increased sustainable transport measures for pedestrians and cyclists to be included alongside the package of improvement measures to be delivered at junctions along the A22. Therefore, building on the evidence and proposals within the East Sussex Local Cycling and Walking Infrastructure Plan (LCWIP), a further package of sustainable transport measures have been identified and developed for the area to the south of the Wealden district. The measures address the comments raised in the initial consultation and include the following:

§ Hempstead Lane traffic management and walking/cycling improvements (LCWIP Scheme HL2)

§ Hailsham Core Walking & Cycling Zone (LCWIP Scheme HL1)

§ Improved access to the Cuckoo Trail

§ Polegate High Street to Stone Cross village centre walking and cycling improvements (LCWIP Scheme E4)

§ NCN21 Dittons Road, Polegate to Willingdon Drove, Eastbourne walking and cycling improvements (LCWIP Scheme E8)

Together, the package of junction improvements and active travel measures will improve strategic and local connectivity of communities in the south Wealden area to facilitate economic and housing growth. The package will also create better travel opportunities that interlink with one another, encourage walking and cycling for local journeys, benefits buses travelling through the junctions, and in doing so help to reduce carbon emissions, local air pollution and noise generated by traffic.

The A22 scheme active travel measures were added to the scheme package following the initial public consultation on the junction improvements, and as such the active travel measures were not previously consulted upon. The recent public consultation held between 4 November and 8 December 2024 looked to elicit feedback from the public on the active travel measures proposed as part of the wider A22 scheme.

Funding

In May 2024, the Department for Transport approved the Major Road Network (MRN) Outline Business Case in relation to the A22 Corridor Package of junction and active travel improvements along and near the southern section of the A22.The full funding approval of the £46.5 million package is pending the development and approval on a full business case which will be submitted to Government in early 2026.

The potential active travel measures included in the package and outline business case were identified from the East Sussex Local Cycling and Walking Infrastructure Plan (LCWIP). The LCWIP was developed through a structured process following Department for Transport (DfT) guidance. The key stages of the development of the LCWIP are provided below.

§ Determining scope: Identified focus areas within the county where the LCWIP would be most effective.

§ Gathering information: Reviewed existing data on cycling and walking, along with relevant policies and strategies.

§ Network planning for walking and cycling: Assessed current networks and identified key connections and improvements needed for both walking and cycling.

§ Prioritising improvements: Evaluated and prioritised potential schemes for short, medium, and long-term implementation.

§ Integration and Application: Received approval from the ESCC cabinet on 30^th September 2021, and set out a plan for delivering, and updating the ESCC.

Using the evidence base which supported the East Sussex LCWIP, an extensive option identification process and sifting methodology was undertaken, and preliminary designs were produced for the shortlisted active travel components as part of the development of the Outline Business Case which was submitted to Government in December 2022. All the measures are aligned to the approved LCWIP which in turn was heavily influenced by the Government’s Active Travel Strategy, Gear Change.

Following the OBC submission, Active Travel England provided comments on the active travel schemes, which were developed further in June 2023 with design improvements and a greater level of detail. These active travel design iterations demonstrate a good-to-high level of facilities through their assessment in the Cycling Level of Service (CLOS) Tool, along with alignment to Local Transport Note (LTN) 1/20. This has helped to ensure the packages of schemes included in the consultation presented the highest benefits in each area, were affordable within the funding available, and could be delivered in line with the Government’s Department for Transport spend and delivery timescales.

Consultation & Engagement to Date

Public and stakeholder engagement has previously been undertaken on the draft East Sussex LCWIP (2020) and A22 junction improvements (2021) prior to and during the development of the A22 package of improvements to understand the current condition of the active travel network and local issues.

This previous engagement led to the identification of the proposed active travel schemes in Hailsham, Polegate and Stone Cross. In particular, the early engagement, as detailed below, identified a strong desire from local residents to improve active travel provision within the south Wealden area.

The previous consultation and engagement undertaken is summarised below.

ESCC LCWIP Public Consultation, 2020

To ensure that the initial interests of local stakeholders were considered in the preparation of the East Sussex LCWIP, the district and borough councils, alongside local cycling, walking and access groups were engaged with in the development of the proposed networks.

However, it is important to note that the proposed cycling and walking networks consulted upon in the LCWIP process indicated the potential alignment of a route or a measure, with an emphasis on demonstrating how they can connect people with the places they may travel to for everyday journeys. They did not contain detailed proposals, with the intention that once funding was secured for specific schemes, they would then be developed further into a feasibility/preliminary design and be subject to public consultation.

A22 Junction Improvement Public Consultation, 2021

Between 12 July 2021 and 3 September 2021, a public consultation was undertaken to generate feedback on the A22 junction improvement proposals. Engagement was also carried out prior to the consultation with key stakeholders including local County, District Borough, Town and Parish Councillors. A complementary survey was also undertaken with the businesses along the corridor to capture their views on the proposals.

A total of 706 survey responses were received, the majority of which were from the Hailsham, Polegate and Eastbourne areas. For each of the five junctions, at least 45% to 50% of respondents were in favour of the proposed improvements, with the A22/A295 Eagles roundabout receiving the highest amount of support with 67% of respondents in agreement. There were some concerns raised through the consultation about the impacts of the proposed improvements in relation to increasing congestion especially where traffic lights are being introduced at junctions; the general transport impact of additional housing in the area, and the wider traffic impacts that the construction of these improvements would bring.

More detailed analysis of the consultation outcomes highlighted a greater desire by respondents towards increasing the sustainable transport measures for pedestrians and cyclists alongside the measures already included in the proposed package of improvements to the junctions along the A22. Therefore, building on the evidence and proposals within the East Sussex LCWIP, a further package of sustainable transport measures have been identified and developed for the south Wealden area which addresses the comments raised in the recent public and stakeholder consultation.

Summary

In light of the above, the aim of the recent A22 Corridor active travel measures consultation was to build on the work already undertaken, gathering feedback on the feasibility of designs, which have been developed following the production of the ESCC LCWIP produced in October 2020.

Project Vision & Objectives

The overarching aim of the proposed schemes as part of the A22 Active Travel package isto provide for and promote the use of cycling, walking and wheeling in and between the areas of Hailsham, Polegate, Stone Cross, and Eastbourne areas.

To support this overarching aim, the specific objectives of the active travel measures are set out below:

§ Improve active travel access within and between local communities to jobs, education, shops etc.

§ Encourage and improve local journeys on foot, for people with mobility issues (wheeling) and by bike.

§ Improve safety for pedestrians, wheelers and cyclists.

§ Improve people’s health and wellbeing.

§ Help reduce carbon emissions and improve air quality.

An overview of the proposals is provided below.

Overview of the Proposals

The proposals are located within the following areas:

§ Hailsham

§ Cuckoo Trail (Hailsham)

§ Polegate

§ Stone Cross

§ North of Eastbourne

The proposals are divided across five areas as displayed in Figure 1.

igure 1: Location of Scheme Proposals

An overview of the proposals is provided below.

Element 1 –Hempstead Lane traffic management and pedestrian/cycling improvements (LCWIP Scheme HL2)

Scheme extends from the proposed all moves roundabout on the A22 Hailsham Bypass connecting to Hempstead Lane through to the mini roundabout at Leaps Cross. The scheme comprises the introduction of traffic calming measures including 20mph speed limit (reduced from 30mph) and speed cushions alongside additional crossings, and a mixture of widened shared use footpaths and segregated walking and cycling infrastructure along Hempstead Lane.

Element 2 – Hailsham Core Walking & Cycling Zone (LCWIP Scheme HL1)

Improvements to walking and cycling facilities between the A22 Hailsham bypass, Diplocks Industrial Estate, Hailsham Town Centre and the Cuckoo Trail. Improvements include new crossings, improved lighting, and segregated walking and cycling infrastructure as well as making Western Road one way eastbound for vehicles between Sussex Avenue and Summerheath Road to provide a safer route for cyclists.

Element 3 – Improved access to Cuckoo Trail, Hailsham

New access point from London Road and from the Community College as well as on-road cycle route markings on The Cedars.

Element 4 – Polegate High Street to Stone Cross village centre walking and cycling improvements (LCWIP Scheme E4)

Improvements along the whole corridor including:

§ In Polegate Town centre, on the High Street/Station Road junction a new dedicated crossing along the southern arm of the junction.

§ Around the Old Polegate Station site a new toucan crossing to facilitate movements towards an existing access path connecting to local residential streets leading towards the Cuckoo Trail to the north.

§ Furthermore, widening of the existing cycle path around the toucan crossing by Levett Road to allow for a full two-directional cycle path on the south side of Dittons Road.

§ Extending the walking/cycling facilities along the Stone Cross section of Dittons Road from the A22/Dittons Road junction back towards the existing facility which starts near the Townsend Way junction.

Element 5 – NCN21 Dittons Road, Polegate to Willingdon Drove, Eastbourne walking and cycling improvements (LCWIP Scheme E8)

This comprises of:

§ Improved wayfinding along the existing National Cycle Network route that runs parallel to the A22 Golden Jubilee Way.

§ A new parallel crossing on Edwards Road and toucan crossing on Willingdon Drove to connect to the Cuckoo Trail as well as widening of the shared walking and cycle path along Willingdon Drove.

§ Proposed parking restrictions on Edwards Road to offer priority to cyclists and pedestrians.

2. Consultation

Details of the Consultation

Technical transport consultants, Jacobs supported ESCC with the consultation exercise on the proposed A22 Active Travel measures. The consultation period ran for 5 weeks, between 4 November and 8 December 2024.

The aim of the consultation was to seek public and stakeholder feedback on the feasibility designs for the package of A22 Corridor Active Travel Measures prior to a decision over which scheme(s) are to be taken forward through to detailed design and construction.

Consultation Materials & Channels for Promotion

A range of materials were produced for the consultation to help respondents understand the proposals and submit informed comments. These were subsequently promoted via several communication channels to raise awareness and encourage participation.

The material and channels are detailed below.

Core Scheme Information

Online Webpage

The Citizen Space website is the online platform that hosted the A22 Active Travel Measures consultation materials, including:

§ Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs),

§ the consultation survey,

§ engineering drawings,

§ overview plans,

§ in-person event details and

§ contact details for the project team.

The webpage also provided access to an easy read narrative. This helped ensure that the public consultation was fully inclusive and accessible to all members of the community, in line with the Government’s Diversity and Inclusion Strategy[1].

The website URL was: A22 Active Travel Measures - East Sussex - Citizen Space

A PDF of the website is shown in Appendix A.

Consultation Leaflet

The consultation leaflet provided a written overview of the scheme proposals, as well as visual representations of the schemes in the form of public facing, simplified drawings (referred to as the ‘Consultation Maps’).

The consultation leaflet was distributed across local venues to raise awareness of the proposals and to encourage participation in the consultation. The leaflet provided information on the consultation exercise and provided a link/ QR code to the consultation webpage and consultation survey. Information regarding the in-person consultation events was also listed. The leaflets were distributed to the following venues:

§ Wealden District Council, Hailsham

§ Hailsham Town Council offices

§ Hailsham Library

§ Polegate Town Council offices

§ Crafted Coffee, Stone Cross village centre

Both Hailsham Library and the James West Community Centre in Hailsham also had consultation posters on show as well.

A copy of the leaflet can be viewed in Appendix B.

Frequently Asked Questions

A FAQ document was produced and included on the consultation webpage.

A copy of the FAQs can be found in Appendix C.

Raising Awareness

Engagement during the consultation period

During the consultation period, contact was made with Active Travel England alongside accessibility groups, to gain their feedback on the proposed schemes however no response has been received at the time of writing.

A meeting was held with the British Horse Society on 5 November 2024, while Bespoke Cycle Group, Hailsham Active and the resident’s association for Western Road attended the public consultation events.

Member Briefings

Prior to the consultation, several briefings were held with elected members as key stakeholders. These briefings provided an opportunity for attendees to have advance sight of the proposals and consultation materials before they were available to the public.

The sessions were held online via MS Teams and were led by ESCC. Table 1 below provides a list of the meetings held.

Table 1: Summary of pre-consultation briefings

Pre-Consultation Briefing	Date & Time
East Sussex Lead Member	Tuesday 29 October 2024
County Councillors	Tuesday 29 and Wednesday 30 October 2024
Eastbourne Borough Councillors	Wednesday 30 and Thursday 31 October 2024
Wealden District Councillors	Thursday 31 October and Friday 1 November 2024
Parish and Town Councillors	Friday 1 and Monday 4 November 2024

Press Release

ESCC issued a press release which helped generate coverage during the consultation. Sussex World published an online news article on 12 November 2024 providing details of the consultation and in person events.

Social Media

A Social Media campaign was carried out which utilised organic (free) social media content to raise awareness of the consultation and its drop-in events, particularly targeting residents living near the A22 corridor. The campaign had the following aims:

§ Raise awareness of the A22 Active Travel consultation and drop-in events.

§ Encourage residents to attend drop-in events.

§ Drive participation in the online survey.

In total 51 posts were made by ESCC across various social media platforms including Facebook, X, Nextdoor, and Linkedin. The campaign achieved a total of 36,392 impressions and a reach of 33,255, highlighting strong visibility across platforms, particularly through Nextdoor and Facebook.

Consultation Postcard

Postcards were distributed to promote the consultation and generate awareness of the proposals. The postcard can be viewed in Appendix D.

During the consultation, over 11,000 postcards were delivered to properties in close proximity to the schemes. The distribution area in which the postcards were delivered is shown in Figure 2.

Figure 2: Postcard catchment area

The postcard provided recipients with information about the consultation including a link to the consultation survey and ESCC consultation webpage, as well as listing the in-person consultation events and contact information for the project team.

Consultation Events

In Person Events

Four in person public drop-in events were held (see Table 2 below). Events were advertised via email, press release, social media, the consultation brochure, postcards distributed at key locations in the vicinity of the schemes and posters, and were also highlighted on the consultation webpage. The events were well attended by residents, interest groups, locally elected councillors and MPs.

The table below lists the event times, dates, locations, and attendance.

Table 2: List of Consultation Events

Location	Date and time	Attendance (approx.)
James West Community Centre, Hailsham	Thursday 7 November 2024, 14:30 – 17:30	50
James West Community Centre, Hailsham	Tuesday 12 November 2024, 14:30 – 17:30	29
Polegate Community Association, Polegate	Saturday 23 November 2024, 10:30 – 14:30	65
St Luke’s Church and Parish Centre, Stone Cross	Thursday 28 November 2024, 15:00 – 19:00	25

During the in-person events, a series of exhibition boards were displayed with large scheme proposal maps. Consultation leaflets and postcards were available as well as scheme technical drawings for reference. Attendees were directed to the online consultation survey to provide formal responses. However, paper copies of the consultation survey were also available at the events and at the following locations for those whom this is a preferred method:

§ Wealden District Council, Hailsham

§ Hailsham Town Council offices

§ Hailsham Library

§ Polegate Town Council offices

§ Crafted Coffee, Stone Cross village centre

Members of the project team were able to assist several residents with visual impairment to complete a paper survey during an event.

The event boards are presented in Appendix E.

The events were staffed by ESCC officers and Jacobs representatives from the core project team that had been involved in the development of the A22 Active Travel schemes, as well as technical representatives to answer any specific design queries.

Responding to the Consultation

Feedback Survey

An online consultation survey was the main method of gathering feedback on the proposals. It was available on the East Sussex Citizen Space webpage throughout the duration of the consultation (4 November – 8 December 2024).

Alternative formats, including hard copies, were made available on request.

Printed copies of the survey were also available at the in person consultation events, for respondents who would prefer to hand-write their responses rather than completing the online survey. These could be handed back to the project team during the event or posted for free direct to ESCC.

A total of 26 hard copies of the survey were received. The vast majority of these were received during the consultation period. To allow sufficient time for postal copies to be received, these were also accepted in the week following the consultation closure.

A copy of the survey is provided in Appendix F.

Consultation Mailbox and Phoneline

The A22 Active Travel Consultation inbox (A22Activemeasures.consultation@eastsussex.gov.uk) was monitored for feedback and queries throughout the consultation period. A total of 23 items of feedback were received during the consultation period; these are summarised in Chapter 8 of this report.

A phoneline was also set up for the project for respondents to speak to a member of the project team. The mailbox was open 24/7 and was advertised via the consultation webpage, postcard and poster.

Response Analysis & Methodology

Data Analysis & Coding Methodology

The consultation exercise generated a large amount of data, including surveys, emails, and other documents/ written responses. A robust process was put in place to manage the volume of responses received.

Online survey responses were processed directly through the Citizen Space portal, before the data was downloaded into a spreadsheet. Paper copies of the survey were transcribed and inputted into the same spreadsheet database, before the analysis was undertaken. The results of the analysis are presented in a series of charts and tables, which follow in subsequent sections of this report.

The survey was largely made up of closed questions, where respondents could select one or more choices from the options provided, in total there were 41 questions. An open-ended question was asked at the end, inviting free-text responses. These responses required further analysis, which is presented in Chapter 7.

Coding free-text responses

A process called ‘coding’ was undertaken to analyse the free-text comments provided in response to the open-ended survey question. This involves the identification of common high-level themes and issues, each of which is assigned a code. Comments were then read through, with the codes being applied where the issues raised in the comment were consistent with those in the codeframe. Codes can then be analysed quantitatively to identify the most frequently recurring areas of comment.

The codeframe is a list of the codes which represent the broad range of comments raised by respondents. This is created by reviewing a sample of the responses and identifying common themes, each of which is given a unique code.

Both the codeframe and the coding underwent a quality assurance check to ensure consistency and accuracy throughout the process.

A full summary of the coding methodology and codeframe development is presented in Chapter 7.

3. Effectiveness of the Consultation

The effectiveness of the methods used to publicise the consultation are assessed in this section, looking at the number of responses received, online reach and engagement with the materials.

Responses

A total of 247 surveys were completed during the consultation period. 221 responses were completed through the online survey, while 26 paper copies were received.

As well as the consultation survey, 23 emails were received in the A22 Active Travel Consultation Mailbox (and/or to a member of the project team). In addition, three documents were submitted during the consultation period providing a more detailed response to the scheme proposals. These are summarised in Chapter 8 of the report.

Table 3 below shows a breakdown of the responses received.

Table 3: Breakdown of responses

Method	Number
Online survey responses	221
Hard copy survey responses	26
Comments via the Consultation Mailbox	23
Additional responses (written reports, sketches, signed petitions)	3

In addition to the above, feedback was also received during the public consultation events, as well as during meetings with stakeholders.

Survey Respondents

A combined total of 247 respondents submitted feedback on the A22 Active Travel proposals, comprising 221 online survey responses and 26 hard copy responses. It should be noted that questions in the survey were not ‘forced response’, meaning that respondents could choose whether they wanted to give an answer or not. Therefore, where percentages are used, the number of respondents to that question is also specified in the figure title or descriptive text.

While the questions were not mandatory, they were included in the survey to allow ESCC to seek to understand whether the profile of respondents relates to the overall profile for the wider county. This has helped to check whether a representative set of views were captured through the survey, in line with the wider East Sussex population demographic.

Age of Respondents

In terms of demographics, respondents were asked to give their age. The age profile of respondents is shown in Figure 3. The age ranges of respondents demonstrate a relatively broad sample, although there is a tendency towards older respondents, with those over 55 comprising 67% of the survey responses. This highlights that the older population within this survey were overrepresented compared to the wider East Sussex population, (more than a quarter of the East Sussex population is over the age of 65, whereas 36% of the respondents of this questionnaire were aged over 65).[2]

Figure 3: Age profile of respondents to the survey (n=224)

Gender

Respondents were asked to specify their gender, with the proportion of male respondents (51%) being larger than the proportion of female respondents (46%), while 2% opted for the self-described response. This is not in line with the gender structure across the wider East Sussex population, where a greater number of people identify as female (52%) compared to male (48%)². If we discount the respondents who did not declare their gender, a greater proportion of men responded to the survey than women.

Figure 4: Stated gender of respondents to the survey (n=214)

Respondents were also asked whether their gender is the same as the one they were registered at birth. A total of 209 respondents answered this, with 202 stating that it was the same, while seven respondents said that their gender was now different to the one they were registered with at birth.

Ethnicity

Respondents were asked to give details of their ethnicity with a total of 222 providing an answer. The vast majority of respondents were White British (95.9%). The remaining ethnic groups comprised a relatively small proportion of the overall total of respondents, with one respondent answering Mixed, one Chinese, one Irish, one Indian, one Black British, one Astrakhani, and one White European. Although broadly representative of the East Sussex population - where 93.9% of the population are White - this does indicate that minority ethnic groups were slightly under-represented in the survey, relative to their population size.[3]

Sexual Orientation

When asked about their sexual orientation, 173 respondents gave an answer to this question, with 96% identifying themselves as Straight / Heterosexual, 3 percent as Gay or Lesbian, one percent as Bisexual and one percent as self-described.

Religion

In terms of religion, the largest number of respondents stated that they had no religion (93) followed by those identifying as Christian (87). Less represented religious groups included Buddhist (1) Jewish (1), Hindu (1), Humanist (1), and Pagan (1).

Physical and Mental Health

Respondents were asked whether they had any physical or mental health conditions or illnesses that had lasted or were expected to last 12 months or more, in total 238 answered this question. 65% of the respondents said that they did not, while 18% said that they did, and 17% preferred not to say.

Respondents were asked to give details of the conditions mentioned in the previous question. It was possible for respondents to select more than one response to this question. The results shown in Figure 5 below demonstrate that this is a physical impairment in most cases, followed by a long-standing illness and sensory impairment.

Figure 5: Specified physical or mental health conditions or illnesses lasting or expected to last 12 months or more

Breakdown of Respondents by Postcode

The final question respondents were asked in terms of their demographic information, was to give their postcode, which 225 provided in a useable format. The first half of the postcode data was used to determine a postcode sector which is shown in Table 4 below, with the location of the postcode respondents, in relation to the postcard catchment area displayed in Figure 6. A further 22 respondents gave postcodes other than those shown below, the most prevalent of which was BN8 (6 respondents), and TN22 (3 respondents).

The below analysis highlights residents living in Hailsham provided the largest number of responses, with Polegate and Stone Cross residents also providing a strong number of responses.

Table 4: Respondents from each postcode area

Postcode District	Area description	Number
BN27	Hailsham	126
BN26	Polegate	31
BN24	Stone Cross	15
BN22	Eastbourne (Hampden Park, Roselands)	11
BN20	Eastbourne (West of A2270)	10
TN21	Heathfield	10

Figure 6: Location of Respondents in Relation to Postcard Catchment Area

4. Current Travel Patterns and Views

Prior to giving feedback on the proposed active travel schemes, respondents were asked about their current travel patterns and views.

The results in Figure 7 below outlines the main modes of transport through the scheme area. The results demonstrate that the car is the main mode of transport used when travelling. With 78% of respondents stating that they use cars as their main mode of travel, with 11% responding walking, 8% travelling by bicycle and 2% travelling by bus. This highlights the large car dependency in the area.

Figure 7: What is your main mode of transport when travelling to/from/through the scheme area? (n=246)

Respondents were asked about their travel patterns, and how often they travel through the proposed scheme area. The options ranged from:

§ daily,

§ weekly,

§ monthly, and

§ never.

The results in Figure 8 below demonstrate that 66% of the respondents travel through the proposed scheme area daily, with 29% travelling weekly, 4% monthly and 1% never doing so.

Figure 8: Please indicate how often you travel through the proposed scheme area? (n=246)

Respondents were then asked about how often they walk/wheel (use mobility aids) through the scheme area. The results in Figure 9 demonstrate that 39% of respondents never walk or use mobility aids through the scheme area. However, 51% walk through the scheme area at least on a weekly basis, while 10% do so monthly.

Figure 9: How often do you walk/wheel (use mobility aids) through the scheme area? (n=245)

Respondents were then asked how often they cycle through the scheme area. Figure 10 shows that 66% never cycle through the scheme area, with 5% cycling daily, 13% weekly and 15% monthly.

Figure 10: How often do you cycle through the scheme area? (n=247)

Figure 11 highlights that despite the high level of car usage in the area and particularly low levels of cycling, 63% are in favour of improving active travel measures in the area, with only 20% disagreeing.

Figure 11: Support of measures to improve active travel (n=246)

5. Feedback on the Schemes

The main part of the consultation survey presented questions on each of the five active travel scheme proposals in turn.

For each scheme, a series of closed questions were asked, to gauge levels of support and opposition. Feedback was sought on individual elements of the schemes, such as proposed new crossings or inclusion of segregated walking and cycling paths.

Respondents could select which scheme they wished to comment on; they could respond to the questions for one or multiple schemes.

A copy of the survey is provided in Appendix F.

Towards the end of the survey, one open-ended question was asked, where respondents could provide any further comments on the A22 Active Travel Measures, across all packages and schemes. The question was optional. Respondents were able to provide a qualitative, free-text comment in response to the question. All comments have been coded and analysed; the results are presented in Chapter 7, with a brief commentary provided in this section where comments were made in relation to specific scheme elements.

Chapter 5 of the report provides a summary of the quantitative feedback received on each individual scheme proposed. These are set out below:

§ Element 1 - Hempstead Lane traffic management and walking/cycling improvements (LCWIP Scheme HL2)

§ Element 2 – Hailsham Core Walking & Cycling Zone (LCWIP Scheme HL1)

§ Element 3 – Improved access to Cuckoo Trail

§ Element 4 – Polegate High Street to Stone Cross village centre walking and cycling improvements (LCWIP Scheme E4)

§ Element 5 – Dittons Road, Polegate to Willingdon Drove, Eastbourne walking and cycling improvements (LCWIP Scheme E8)

Chapter 6 provides a summary of respondents view on whether the proposed schemes will be successful in achieving the scheme objectives.

Chapter 7 of the report then provides a summary of the qualitative, free-text comments provided in response to the open-ended question of the survey.

Hempstead Lane traffic management and walking/cycling improvements (LCWIP Scheme HL2)

Figure 12 below, shows the respondents scale of support in relation to the traffic management and walking/cycling improvements along Hempstead Lane in Hailsham.

The responses to Question 7a regarding traffic calming measures, such as a 20mph speed limit, road narrowing, turning restrictions, and speed cushions, revealed a divided opinion among respondents. A total of 43% supported these measures, with 29% strongly supporting and 14% supporting. However, a significant 43% opposed the measures, with 17% opposing and 26% strongly opposing. The remaining 14% neither supported nor opposed the measures.

In contrast, Question 7b concerning the implementation of widened shared-use walking and cycle paths, along with segregated walking and cycling infrastructure along Hempstead Lane, received a more favourable response. Half of the respondents (50%) supported these measures, with 31% strongly supporting and 19% supporting. Opposition was lower compared to Question 7a, with 30% opposing the measures (11% opposing and 19% strongly opposing). Additionally, 20% of respondents neither supported nor opposed these infrastructure changes.

Figure 12 – Hempstead Lane traffic management and walking/cycling improvements (LCWIP Scheme HL2)

Hailsham Core Walking & Cycling Zone (LCWIP Scheme HL1)

Figure 13 below shows the respondents scale of support in relation to the Hailsham Core Walking and Cycling Zone proposals.

The responses to Question 8a regarding a shared walking and cycle path constructed through Hailsham Recreation Ground and onto Western Road showed a majority in support. A total of 56% supported this initiative, with 30% strongly supporting and 26% supporting. However, 20% opposed it, with 6% opposing and 14% strongly opposing. The remaining 26% neither supported nor opposed the path.

For Question 8b, which concerned a shared walking and cycle path at the Diplocks Way/Gleneagles Drive roundabout, the responses were similarly mixed. A total of 56% supported the path, with 30% strongly supporting and 26% supporting. Opposition was at 25%, with 12% opposing and 13% strongly opposing. Additionally, 20% of respondents neither supported nor opposed this measure.

Question 8c asked about a shared footway/cycleway south from The Diplocks to link to the existing footway to Diplocks Way. Here, 54% of respondents supported the proposal, with 29% strongly supporting and 25% supporting. Opposition stood at 23%, with 11% opposing and 12% strongly opposing. The remaining 23% neither supported nor opposed the footway/cycleway.

The responses to Question 8d, which involved new lighting and crossings throughout the Core Walking and Cycling Zone scheme, were more favourable. A total of 71% supported this initiative, with 40% strongly supporting and 31% supporting. Only 14% opposed it, with 6% opposing and 8% strongly opposing. The remaining 15% neither supported nor opposed the new lighting and crossings.

Finally, Question 8e, which proposed a one-way movement (eastbound) introduced between Sussex Avenue and Summerheath Road on Western Road, received the least support. Only 25% supported this measure, with 16% strongly supporting and 9% supporting. Opposition was significant at 48%, with 13% opposing and 35% strongly opposing. The remaining 28% neither supported nor opposed the one-way movement.

Figure 13 – Hailsham Core Walking & Cycling Zone (LCWIP Scheme HL1)

Improved access to Cuckoo Trail

Figure 14 shows the respondents scale of support to proposals involving improving access to the Cuckoo Trail.

The responses to Question 9a regarding new access points from London Road and to the Community College showed a generally positive reception. A total of 62% supported this proposal, with 30% strongly supporting and 32% supporting. Only 9% opposed it, with 3% opposing and 6% strongly opposing. The remaining 29% neither supported nor opposed the new access points.

For Question 9b, which concerned on-road cycle route markings in The Cedars and Milland Road, the responses were more varied. A total of 51% supported the markings, with 25% strongly supporting and 26% supporting. Opposition was at 16%, with 5% opposing and 11% strongly opposing. Additionally, 34% of respondents neither supported nor opposed this measure.

Figure 14 – Improved access to Cuckoo Trail

Polegate High Street to Stone Cross village centre walking and cycling improvements (LCWIP Scheme E4)

Figure 15 shows respondents support of the Polegate High Street to Stone Cross village centre walking and cycling improvement proposals.

The responses to Question 10a regarding the installation of a new pedestrian/cycle crossing at the northern end of Polegate High Street near the Station Road mini roundabout showed a mix of opinions. A total of 52% supported this initiative, with 27% strongly supporting and 25% supporting. Opposition was at 16%, with 5% opposing and 11% strongly opposing. The remaining 32% neither supported nor opposed the crossing.

For Question 10b, which concerned the installation of a new pedestrian/cycle crossing near the Old Polegate Station site (Morrisons Local), the responses were slightly more favourable. A total of 56% supported this measure, with 28% strongly supporting and 28% supporting. Opposition was at 14%, with 5% opposing and 9% strongly opposing. Additionally, 30% of respondents neither supported nor opposed this crossing, showing some neutrality.

Question 10c asked about the introduction of a shared walking and cycle path from the A22 Dittons Road junction to the existing facility at Townsend Road. Here, 47% of respondents supported the proposal, with 24% strongly supporting and 23% supporting. Opposition stood at 16%, with 6% opposing and 10% strongly opposing. The remaining 37% neither supported nor opposed the path.

Figure 15 – Polegate High Street to Stone Cross village centre walking and cycling improvements (LCWIP Scheme E4)

NCN21 Dittons Road, Polegate to Willingdon Drove, Eastbourne walking and cycling improvements (LCWIP Scheme E8)

Figure 16 shows the respondents support of the Dittons Road to Willingdon Drove walking and cycling improvement proposals (LCWIP Scheme E8).

The responses to Question 11a regarding a new parallel crossing (zebra crossing for pedestrians with parallel priority ‘zebra’ crossing facility for cyclists) and signalised toucan crossing to connect the Cuckoo Trail to Willingdon Drove via Edward Road showed a generally positive reception. A total of 55% supported this initiative, with 27% strongly supporting and 28% supporting. Opposition was at 12%, with 5% opposing and 7% strongly opposing. The remaining 32% neither supported nor opposed the crossing.

For Question 11b, which concerned the widening of the shared walking and cycle path along Willingdon Drove, the responses were similarly mixed. A total of 51% supported the widening, with 27% strongly supporting and 24% supporting. Opposition stood at 16%, with 6% opposing and 10% strongly opposing. Additionally, 33% of respondents neither supported nor opposed this measure.

Question 11c asked about proposed parking restrictions on Edward Road. Here, the responses were more divided. A total of 30% supported the restrictions, with 17% strongly supporting and 13% supporting. Opposition was slightly less at 21%, with 9% opposing and 12% strongly opposing. The remaining 49% neither supported nor opposed the parking restrictions, showing a high level of ambivalence.

Figure 16 –Dittons Road to Willingdon Drove walking and cycling improvements (LCWIP Scheme E8)

6. Feedback on Scheme Objectives

Five questions were also asked to explore whether respondents believed that the active travel measures proposed as part of this scheme would result in the scheme objectives being achieved. Figure 17 provides the results of this analysis, with each question discussed below.

Question 12: How strongly did you agree/disagree that the measures proposed would fulfil the aim of encouraging and improving local journeys on foot, for people with mobility issues (wheeling), and by bike?

The responses to this question were mixed.

While 39% of respondents agreed (16% strongly agreed and 23% agreed) that the measures would encourage and improve local journeys via active modes, a larger portion, 38%, disagreed (18% disagreed and 20% strongly disagreed).

Additionally, 23% of respondents remained neutral on this issue.

Question 13: How strongly did you agree/disagree that the measures proposed would fulfil the aim of improving active travel access within and between local communities to jobs, education, and shops?

Opinions were quite divided on this question.

A total of 40% of respondents agreed (14% strongly agreed and 26% agreed) that the measures would improve active travel access. However, an equal percentage, 40%, disagreed (18% disagreed and 22% strongly disagreed).

The remaining 21% of respondents were neutral.

Question 14: How strongly did you agree/disagree that the measures proposed would fulfil the aim of improving safety for pedestrians, wheelers, and cyclists?

There was a relatively positive response to this question, with 46% of respondents agreeing (18% strongly agreed and 28% agreed) that the measures would improve safety.

In contrast, 32% disagreed (15% disagreed and 17% strongly disagreed), and 22% were neutral.

Question 15: How strongly did you agree/disagree that the measures proposed would fulfil the aim of improving people’s health and wellbeing?

Responses to this question were mixed.

While 32% of respondents agreed (14% strongly agreed and 18% agreed) that the measures would improve health and wellbeing, a larger portion, 38%, disagreed (19% disagreed and 19% strongly disagreed).

A significant 30% of respondents were neutral on this matter.

Question 16: How strongly did you agree/disagree that the measures proposed would fulfil the aim of helping to reduce carbon emissions and improving air quality?

This question received the highest level of disagreement. Only 28% of respondents agreed (12% strongly agreed and 16% agreed) that the measures would help reduce carbon emissions and improve air quality. A substantial 46% disagreed (19% disagreed and 27% strongly disagreed), while 26% remained neutral.

Figure 17 – Scheme Objectives summary

Summary

Overall, the responses indicated a range of opinions, with a notable amount of scepticism about the effectiveness of the proposed measures in relation to the objectives, particularly in terms of improving people’s health and air quality improvements.

However, there were areas where more respondents agreed that the schemes would contribute towards achieving objectives. For instance, a higher percentage of respondents agreed that the measures would improve safety for pedestrians, wheelers, and cyclists (46% agreed, 32% disagreed) and encourage and improve local journey by active modes (39% agreed, 38% disagreed).

7. Free Text Survey Responses

Summary of free text survey responses

An open-ended question was included within the survey, giving respondents an opportunity to give feedback in their own words, rather than selecting clearly defined options as for the other questions. The question asked:

Are there any comments about particular aspects of the proposals that you would like to share with us?

Having an open-ended question requires a different qualitative approach when coming to the analysis of responses and these being taken into account by ESCC. A total of 185 comments were received. A coding approach was applied to convert the large amount of qualitative data from the free text responses, into a useable quantitative format where the most frequently occurring issues could be identified and presented.

Approach to coding

In order to convert the free text responses into a numeric (quantitative) format from which it would be possible to make meaningful conclusions, a coding approach was followed.

A codeframe was developed to capture the issues expressed in the free text responses to the open-ended question. The sentiments expressed in each comment were assigned a code. These codes were then assigned to the comment, reflecting the issues raised in the free text response. As a code could only be assigned to a comment once, in combination, the analysis gives a frequency count of the most prevalent issues raised by number of respondents.

Once the coding of the responses was completed, a frequency table was developed and a count was undertaken on the data to determine what issues had been raised most frequently in the free text responses.

Results of the coding

The frequency table counts the number of times a specific code appeared within the 185 comments – remembering that a code could only be applied once to a comment. As such, the number of times a code appears is the number of respondents that raised the specific issue captured in that code. The results presented in the section which follows are separated by sentiment and the topic area of the codes.

Supportive comments – Active Travel proposals overall

In total 19 respondents left comments highlighting their support for Active Travel schemes, while 12 respondents highlighted their support for traffic calming measures. However, there were 9 respondents that commented that while they were in favour of active travel interventions, they believed that the scale of the improvements needed to be greater.

Opposing comments – Active Travel proposals overall

Opposing comments were those that came from respondents that did not support the proposals in their response and had a negative reaction to the active travel proposals.

Among the comments, 17 respondents argued that the schemes would be a waste of money, and that they would worsen congestion. A number of comments (14) argued that road maintenance should be the focus of investment, while 12 respondents argued that the road network is not adequate to cope with the increase in demand associated with new housing developments in the area.

12 respondents believed the scheme would not encourage modal shift towards active modes, with 8 respondents highlighting that the A27 cycle infrastructure did not encourage an increase in cycling, while 10 commented that the minority of people who cycle would be the only beneficiaries of the scheme.

Other notable comments include that the proposed schemes would increase pollution (9 respondents), that the bus provision is inadequate in the area, so people are forced to use cars (7 respondents), 6 people highlighted their opposition to speed bumps in general, while 5 people commented that they believe shared walking and cycle paths are dangerous. 2 respondents highlighted their disappointment that the measures did not include neighbouring villages.

Figure 18: Frequency count of opposing comments – active travel proposals overall

Element 1 - Hempstead Lane traffic management and walking/cycling improvements (LCWIP Scheme HL2) comments

The qualitative feedback in relation to the LCWIP Scheme HL2 proposals is displayed in Figure 19.

In total 4 respondents specifically commented that they were in favour of the traffic calming measures along Hempstead Lane.

However, the issues which respondents raised in relation to the Hempstead Lane proposals include the following:

§ The potential safety implications of having a 20mph zone in such close proximity to the A22 (4 respondents).

§ Hempstead Lane near the London Road Junction is too narrow already and is not suitable for further narrowing. Issues were raised about buses struggling to already pass each other on this stretch. (7 respondents).

§ Concerns were raised about the suitability of traffic calming measures in general (8 respondents).

§ While 4 respondents were concerned about the increase in flow that will result from increasing access via the A22.

There were also a number of other suggestions around improvements to the scheme with 4 respondents highlighting that the proposed Hempstead Lane 20mph speed restriction should be extended to further roads in the area to prevent them from becoming rat runs and increase safety.

Figure 19: Qualitative comments in relation to the Hempstead Lane Proposals (Green in support, red in opposition, yellow alternative suggestions)

Element 2 - Hailsham Core Walking & Cycling Zone (LCWIP Scheme HL1) comments

In relation to the Hailsham Core Walking and Cycling Zone, as shown in Figure 20, while 2 respondents specifically mentioned they were in support of the measures in this area, there were many concerns raised in relation to the scheme. In total, 40 respondents commented that the proposal to make Western Road one-way would not be suitable for the area. Respondents were concerned that residents having to reroute via Summerheath Road, London Road, and Summerfields Avenue to access Western Road would not be suitable for multiple reasons including:

§ The risk of increasing congestion issues in the area.

§ Increased safety risks for pedestrians attempting to cross these roads.

§ The large number of parked cars along the alternative route making an increased flow dangerous.

§ Poor visibility at the junctions on the alternative route.

In addition, 8 respondents commented that there are already speeding issues along Western Road, and if it were to become one-way these issues could become even worse.

Alternative suggestions for the area included increasing parking restrictions in the area, and to improve the quality of the pavements.

Figure 20: Qualitative comments in relation to the Hailsham Core Walking & Cycling Zone proposals (Green in support, red in opposition, yellow alternative suggestions)

Element 3 - Improved Access to the Cuckoo Trail comments

The number of comments related to the Cuckoo Trail were limited in the qualitative comments. A summary of the comments on access to the Cuckoo Trail include:

§ Improve the connection between Horsebridge and the Cuckoo Trail.

§ Provide a connection between the cycle path on the A27 and the Cuckoo Trail.

§ A pedestrian crossing at the top of Summerheath Road would be useful to improve access to the Cuckoo Trail.

§ A pedestrian crossing above the Cuckoo Trail on London Road will increase congestion.

Element 4 Polegate High Street to Stone Cross village centre walking and cycling improvements (LCWIP Scheme E4) comments

In relation to the walking and cycling improvements between Polegate High Street and Stone Cross village centre comments were limited.

There were a couple of comments where crossings were supported yet the respondents believed they should be in different locations. There were another couple of comments highlighting that there has already been widespread roadworks recently in the area and they were worried about further disruption.

In addition, three comments were made in relation to the Golden Jubilee Way needing crossing points due to the severance issues at this junction.

Figure 21: Qualitative comments in relation to the LCWIP Scheme E4 proposals (Green in support, red in opposition, yellow alternative suggestions)

Element 5 – NCN21 Dittons Road to Willingdon Drove walking and cycling improvements (LCWIP Scheme E8) comments

Comments in relation to this aspect of the scheme were limited and included:

§ Roundabouts at Willingdon Drove should have traffic lights.

§ Parking should not be restricted on Edward Road.

§ Cuckoo Trail requires maintenance.

Alternative Scheme Suggestions

A number of alternative schemes were suggested.

Several respondents raised the issue of crossing the A22 at multiple points highlighting that crossings were needed, these include at the A27/A22 Golden Jubilee Roundabout, Arlington Road East/Arlington Road West (either side of Hailsham bypass), and Boship Roundabout to serve the new sports hub off the A267 which is due for completion by the end of 2026[4].

Multiple respondents mentioned that the A27 should become a dual carriageway. A number of other ideas were mentioned including a speed reduction along the A22 and a cycleway along the A22.

Figure 22: Alternative Schemes Suggested

Other codes

The final section of the codeframe was for comments on matters such as the consultation itself. A total of 3 respondents commented that they believed the advertisement of the consultation was poor. A further 3 respondents pointed out errors within the information provided or that they found the information provided difficult to understand. While 1 respondent highlighted that the questionnaire should have had questions focussing on the negative impact of the schemes on groups such as car drivers.

8. Email, Written Responses & Documents Submitted

Throughout the consultation period, various additional responses and other documents were submitted to ESCC in response to the proposals. This included emails and reports from stakeholders. A total of 23 emails were submitted during the consultation period, alongside three reports from various organisations and individuals. This included responses from, transport user groups, City/Borough/District Councils, Town/Parish Councils, individual residents and charities.

These additional responses were received via the A22 Active Travel Consultation Mailbox.

A summary of the key themes, general sentiment and issues raised among the responses is provided below. Technical questions and points raised have been passed back to the design team for consideration.

General Feedback/Comments

§ A mixture of support for the schemes in general coupled with opposition to specific measures mainly focussing on Hempstead Lane and Western Road (as part of the Hailsham Core Walking and Cycling Zone proposals) in Hailsham.

§ Complaints regarding the advertisement of the consultation with comments on the lack of notice, timing of the drop in events not suitable for working people.

§ Concerns regarding unclear information being provided as part of consultation.

§ Highlighted that specific groups such as horse riders need to be considered as part of proposals.

§ Active travel measures should be more comprehensive.

§ Focus should be on maintaining existing paths such as along the Cuckoo Trail rather than building new ones.

§ Crossings are needed across the A22 at multiple points.

§ Villages are ignored by the proposals.

§ Concerns that schemes would increase pollution and congestion.

§ Suggestions of adjustments to proposals and additional proposals.

Comments related to Element 1 - Hempstead Lane traffic management and walking/cycling improvements (LCWIP Scheme HL2)

§ Bespoke Cycle Group were supportive of many of the design elements of this scheme.

§ However, there were concerns raised about the 20mph speed limit in close proximity to the higher speeds on the A22 being a safety issue, this was raised by Bespoke and multiple other respondents.

§ Multiple respondents commented that the narrowing of Hempstead Lane would be impractical particularly given buses already struggle to pass each other towards the eastern stretch. Bespoke raised the comment that signage may need to be included to remind drivers to give 1.5 metre space when passing cyclists at this narrow stretch.

§ One respondent believed that widening the pavement towards the eastern stretch would require encroaching upon private land.

§ Multiple concerns were raised about the increase in flow along Hempstead Lane resulting from the increased access via the proposed A22 roundabout connection to Hempstead Lane. Worries were raised that this could increase pollution and congestion.

§ Some respondents supported the speed restrictions but believed they should be spread further to other roads such as Anglesey Avenue to prevent rat running.

§ Bespoke suggested continuing the cycle improvements from Hempstead Lane to Hawks Road to increase access to the Cuckoo Trail. Another email mentioned that the Cuckoo Trail is currently difficult to access for Wheelers so improvements should consider this.

§ The British Horse Society highlighted that the new roundabout connecting the A22 to Hempstead Lane should have signal-controlled crossing to enable connectivity between Hempstead Lane and bridleway Hailsham 68a.

§ An email mentioned that a couple of local developments are required to make payments towards improvements towards the Hempstead Lane/London Road/Hawks Road junction.

Comments related to Element 2 - Hailsham Core Walking & Cycling Zone (LCWIP Scheme HL1)

§ A number of concerns were raised about the proposed one-way eastbound intervention on Western Road. Highlighting that the alternative route into the Diplocks housing estate is inappropriate due to congestion and poorly parked cars along Summerfields Avenue and Sussex Avenue.

§ A resident argued that the proposed walking/cycling route from the A22 to the Diplocks and along Western Road is inappropriate as there is no demand for this route.

§ Another resident highlighted that the Diplocks housing estate is quite a hostile environment for pedestrians and cyclists with the pavement often obstructed by parked vehicles and many non-continuous pavements.

§ Other respondents mentioned the need to remove barriers between Hailsham Recreation Ground and Diplocks Way, and between Pine Way and Diplocks Way to allow continuous cycling.

§ It was also noted that improvements within Hailsham Recreation Ground would require consultation and permissions from Hailsham Town Council.

Comments related to Element 3 - Improved Access to the Cuckoo Trail

§ As mentioned within the Hempstead Lane improvements section, comments were made about the need to improve access to the Cuckoo Trail via Hawks Road.

§ In addition, Bespoke commented that there needs to be a review of the route along Lindfield Drive, including the short section of path through the car park connecting to the Cuckoo Trail in relation to cyclists.

Comments related to Element 4 – Polegate High Street to Stone Cross village centre walking and cycling improvements (LCWIP Scheme E4)

§ Bespoke welcomed the proposal along this corridor, however it was highlighted that there is a lack of cycling priority across the roads to the west of the scheme corridor in the scheme designs.

§ Opinions were mixed on the crossing across Polegate High Street with some in support and others questioning the need for it and the resulting congestion implications.

§ Concern was raised about the impact of the implementation of the shared cycle path along Pevensey Road (between Aberdale Road and Levett Road) resulting in the removal of a stretch of daffodils bulb planting that had been funded by the Town Council.

§ It was also raised that the existing path along Pevensey Road would be wider if regular maintenance was carried out to stop vegetation crossing the path.

Comments related to Element 5 - Dittons Road to Willingdon Drove walking and cycling improvements (LCWIP Scheme E8)

§ Bespoke raised the view that the proposed Toucan crossing across Willingdon Drove would be better placed to the western side of Highfield roundabout, and then upgrades should be made to the existing footway on the southern side of Willingdon Drove with the addition of a new crossing across Lottbridge Drove to connect the NCN21 cycle route.

§ Another email mentioned that they regularly travel along the Cuckoo Trail between Polegate and Eastbourne and that overgrown vegetation along the route means it is single file in places and this should be rectified.

Summary of Reports Received

Bespoke (local cycling group)

Bespoke were generally in favour of the proposals and appreciated the attempts to follow LTN 1/20 guidance. However, the report contained several comments on the individual schemes which they believed should be considered as part of detailed design proposals.

British Horse Society

A report from the British Horse Society highlighted the requirement to ensure horse riders are considered and accommodated as part of any scheme designs in the area. The report provided a summary of the policy documents which highlight the need to consider horse riders, the safety issues faced by horse riders, the health benefits and economic benefits associated with horse riding. While also highlighting that not accommodating horse riders is a form of discrimination, and that the Equality Act 2010 created a Public Sector Equality Duty for organisations to provide equal opportunities for all.

In general, the British Horse Society would like to see equestrians included in every new or improved provision proposed for non-motorised users and or active travel facilities unless there are evidence-based reasons for their exclusion which cannot be overcome.

One of their specific scheme recommendations to cater for equestrians is captured within the Hempstead Lane section, they also recommended improvements to the A22 junction with Bay Tree Lane, to provide a means of safely connecting bridleway Polegate 1a to the West with Bay Tree Lane and Bridleway Polegate 18 to the east.

Local resident/cyclist

In addition, a report provided by a local resident who regularly cycles recreationally raised a number of concerns associated with the proposed schemes, most of which have already been captured within the feedback captured in the sections above. However, the summary of the report was that many of the schemes are purely cosmetic and unnecessary, and that it is a struggle to see the rationale behind them.

9. Key Themes & Design Considerations

ESCC has considered all comments received through the public and stakeholder consultation. This section summarises the key themes that emerged from the feedback received in relation to the proposals, that has been summarised throughout this report. This includes feedback that was received via the online consultation survey and via email/ other written responses.

Table 5 sets out responses to the key themes that were raised multiple times. These themes have been generated based on the coding exercise summarised in Chapter 7, as well as the key themes emerging from email and written responses received as set out in Chapter 8.

The range of comments made under each theme are reflected in the table, alongside ESCC’s response to each theme.

It is important to note that many of the issues raised require information that would only be available once more detailed design work has been carried out. The scheme is still at an early stage in design, and further work may be required to progress the proposals to the detailed design stage, based on the feedback received during the consultation.

Table 5: Key Themes, Design Considerations and ESCC Response

Theme	Nature of comments	ESCC Response & Potential Design Considerations
General support for the schemes	Agreement with the proposals	We welcome these comments in support of the A22 Corridor Active Travel schemes. They have been noted as part of the process to determine the next steps and future decisions on the various schemes within the A22 Active Travel package.
	Support for measures to improve active travel
	Support for traffic calming measures
General opposition for the Active Travel schemes	Proposals are a waste of money/only benefit minority of people.	The walking and cycling schemes that were included in the consultation proposals were identified within the East Sussex LCWIP and its evidence base. These proposals will look to contribute towards the LCWIP and East Sussex Local Transport 4 objectives as well as the specific project objectives by contributing towards tackling climate change, improving the air quality and improving physical and mental health. The benefits of improving travel choices and planning for people and places to promote greater use of active modes will not only be felt by those who walk and cycle, but also by those who are currently impacted by the negative externalities of car dependence.
	Proposals will worsen traffic congestion.	The impact of the schemes on traffic congestion will be modelled during the next phase of development/design of the scheme, but the schemes seek to improve travel choices and encourage greater level of active travel journeys for a mix of journey lengths which otherwise would have been undertaken by car and thereby reduce congestion. The schemes which are then delivered will be subject to extensive monitoring and evaluation to allow any mitigation measures to be developed and implemented.
	Proposals will not encourage modal shift to active modes.	The proposals align with the Government’s Local Transport Note (LTN) 1 20 design guidance. In combination with the active travel elements being delivered as part of the A22 junction improvements, the proposals will result in increasing the attractiveness and safety of walking and cycling, improving travel choices and thereby encourage greater level of active travel journeys for a mix of journey lengths which otherwise would have been undertaken by car.
	Priority should be road maintenance.	Road maintenance is a priority for the County Council and significant funding has been allocated towards road maintenance in the county from Government and topped up with County Council capital/revenue funding. This package of active travel measures is part of a wider package for the A22 Corridor also junction improvements and we are seeking specific funding through the Government’s Major Road Network fund to develop and develop these improvements.
Suggestion that the proposals don’t go far enough	Further measures should be introduced / other areas should be included in the active travel/traffic calming schemes	Responses to specific additional measures put forward through the qualitative responses are highlighted in responses below.
Element 1 - Hempstead Lane traffic management and walking/cycling improvements (LCWIP Scheme HL2)	In support of crossings	We welcome these comments in support of the schemes. They have been noted as part of the process to determine the next steps and future decisions on the various schemes within the A22 Active Travel package.
	In support of traffic calming
	Hempstead Lane too narrow to accommodate further narrowing of highway	There is no further narrowing to the existing narrowest section of Hempstead Lane. The narrowed section retains widths of at least 6.5m, which is wider than the minimum width in the current section of Hempstead Lane (which will not be narrowed) regularly used by buses.
	20mph Speed Limit on Hempstead Lane too close to 70mph speed limit	The new Hempstead Lane roundabout on the A22 Hailsham bypass would be subject to a 40mph speed limit on the A22 dual carriageway bypass meaning traffic would be entering into Hempstead Lane from a 40mph into a 20mph, rather than the current national speed limit (70mph). The mitigation package is also supported by the introduction of walking, wheeling and cycling measures along the corridor also helps to facilitate access to the Cuckoo Trail at the eastern end of the Hempstead Lane corridor.
	Cycle improvements should extend from Hempstead Lane to Cuckoo Trail via Hawks Road	We have explored this extensively. This was originally considered as part of the design however, the steep gradient and space available would prohibit a cycle access from the south, a signal crossing was considered to allow for access westbound from the northern ramp onto Hawks Road, but without costly bridge widening, there is insufficient space to accommodate the crossing. The intention is to look at this within a separate study, with findings learned from this process incorporated within the future scheme
	Concerns around increased flow on Hempstead Lane as a result of increased access from proposed A22 roundabout	The proposals for traffic calming and a lower speed limit on Hempstead Lane were identified to mitigate the impact of opening up the road to potentially greater levels of traffic wanting to travel to/from north-west and northern parts of Hailsham as a result of replacing the existing left in/left out arrangement with an all-moves roundabout at its junction with the A22 Hailsham bypass.
	Speed reductions should be more widespread	The request is noted however considering further speed reductions in the adjacent areas to Hempstead Lane is outside the scope of this scheme. A separate ‘Movement and Access Strategy for Hailsham and Hellingy study (MASHH2) is currently being undertaken considering further transport and traffic improvements in the Hailsham and Hellingly area. The potential for further speed reductions will be considered as part of that study.
Element 2 - Hailsham Core Walking and Cycling Zone (LCWIP Scheme HL1)	Supportive of active travel measures in this location	We welcome these comments in support of the schemes. They have been noted as part of the process to determine the next steps and future decisions on the various schemes within the A22 Active Travel package.
	Opposition to Western Road one-way proposals	As this is seen to be of big concern within the consultation, several potential choices have been identified: 1. No change and continue with the proposed one-way proposal - due to the strength of opposition, this is unlikely to be feasible, particularly for a route which is not seen as well as the other high-quality schemes. 2. Drop the proposed one-way element of the scheme - this would raise issues with ATE and compliance with LTN1/20, but the scheme could be promoted as a series of separate measures instead of an end-to-end route. 3. Explore alternative options to provide some level of benefit while enabling two-way movement on Western Road - while there is likely to be a potential solution, this will need to be investigated further at the next design stage. As a consequence, it is proposed to drop the proposed one-way element of the scheme, retain two-way movement for vehicles and explore alternative options which also support two-way movement of cyclists as part of the overall route linking the Diplocks Way Industrial Estate, town centre and Cuckoo Trail.
	Concerns regarding speeding along Western Road	A speed survey was conducted along Western Road which showed average speeds below the 30mph speed limit. However, it is understood a small number of anti-social drivers are thought to be responsible for these concerns.
	Remove barriers between Hailsham Recreation Ground and Diplocks Way, and between Pine Way and Diplocks Way to allow continuous cycling.	Noted. This can be considered at the next design stage but there is a need to balance the needs of cyclists and the safety of pedestrians by restricting motorised access.
	Suggestions regarding increasing parking restrictions in the area	Noted. Further restrictions to parking could be considered at the next design stage in relation to the Hailsham Core Walking and Cycling Zone proposals however there is a risk that further restrictions are seen negatively by members of the public. In addition, with no Civil Parking Enforcement currently in Wealden, enforcing any parking restrictions fall to the Police to undertake.
	Pavements along Western Road need improvements	While it is agreed that improvements to footway quality along Western Road would benefit the area, it is not being considered as part of this scheme and would fall under maintenance at East Sussex Highways.
Element 3 - Improved access to the Cuckoo Trail	Improve the connection between Horsebridge and the Cuckoo Trail.	There is an existing high-quality connection to the Cuckoo Trail on Upper Horsebridge Road. Any additional cycle connections in the area would need to be considered separately and are outside the scope of this scheme.
	Provide a connection between the cycle path on the A27 and the Cuckoo Trail.	Improvements to the connection between the A27 and Cuckoo Trail are being considered as part of the Polegate High Street/Wannock Road/Eastbourne Road junction improvement scheme(off road) and the Polegate High Street 20mph scheme (on-road)
	A pedestrian crossing at the top of Summerheath Road would be useful to improve access to the Cuckoo Trail.	With a crossing close by to the east of the junction providing an additional crossing here would not be feasible.
	A pedestrian crossing above the Cuckoo Trail on London Road will increase congestion.	While traffic would experience additional delay as a result of the crossing, this would not be expected to be significant. There is unlikely to be any wider network impacts of installing a crossing in this location and the needs of pedestrians and cyclists needs to be balanced with those of drivers.
	A review is needed of the route along Lindfield Drive, including the short section of path through the car park connecting to the Cuckoo Trail in relation to cyclists.	Noted. This would need to be considered separately as is outside the scope of this scheme.
Polegate High Street to Stone Cross village centre walking and cycling improvements (LCWIP Scheme E4)	Support of crossings but potentially they could be in different locations/in additional locations	The location of the various crossings have been placed based on desire lines, engineering feasibility as well as other factors. The current locations present the best balance of these factors. Any additional crossing locations would have to be considered separately and are outside the scope of this scheme.
	Fear of more roadworks in the area causing disruption	It is noted that there was been various roadworks in the Polegate and Stone Cross area over the last 2 to 3 years which have beena mainly undertaken by utility companies (renewals and/or related to development). The majority of the active travel measures works in Polegate and Stone Cross would be on the footway and while some carriageway closure would be required, this is unlikely to be lengthy and a sufficient traffic management strategy would be implemented.
	Crossing needed at A27/A22 Jubilee Way Roundabout	As there is no current desire line or planned development to the north of the roundabout, a crossing has not been considered at this time.
	There is a lack of cycling priority across the roads to the west of the scheme corridor in the scheme designs.	While some improvements could be made to the route in this area, it is not being considered as the cycle facilities towards the west of the corridor are more advanced than to the east and as such priority was given to complete the route. However, these improvements could be considered as part of a future study.
	Concerns around crossing on Polegate High Street causing congestion	While traffic would experience additional delay as a result of the crossing, this would not be expected to be significant. There is unlikely to be any wider network impacts of installing a crossing in this location and the needs of pedestrians and cyclists needs to be balanced with those of drivers.
	Potential for installation of cycle path along Pevensey Road resulting in the removal of a stretch of daffodils	Noted. The proposal was to bring together the existing segregated sections of footway and cycle route between Aberdale Road and Levett Road to create a shared use facility similar to that either side of the section of route along Station Road/Pevensey Road/Dittons Road from Polegate High Street to the A22 Dittons Road junction. We are aware that significant funding has been used to plant the daffodil bulbs in the grassed area between the footway and cycle route sections on this section of Pevensey Road. It is proposed to not progress with this section of the scheme and it will remain as is.
	Existing path along Pevensey Road would be wider if regular maintenance was carried out to stop vegetation crossing the path	Noted. The issue with hedgerow maintenance along this section of Pevensey Road will be passed to our highway contractor.
NCN21 Dittons Road to Willingdon Drove walking and cycling improvements (LCWIP Scheme E8)	The proposed Toucan crossing across Willingdon Drove would be better placed to the western side of Highfield roundabout, and then upgrades should be made to the existing footway on the southern side of Willingdon Drove with the addition of a new crossing across Lottbridge Drove to connect the NCN21 cycle route.	While the suggested alternative crossing location could be seen a more direct connection to the NCN21, the presence of bus stops to the west of the roundabout as well as the access to Morrisons rule out this location for the crossing.
	Along the Cuckoo Trail between Polegate and Eastbourne there is overgrown vegetation along the route which means it is single file in places.	Noted. The issue of overgrown vegetation and maintenance will be passed to our highway contractor.
Other highlighted issues	Poor advertisement of the public consultation	An extensive publicity programme was conducted to advertise the public consultation. This included the range of promotion channels set out in section 2 of this consultation report giving an extensive reach and opportunity to comment on the proposals.
	Errors in information provided/difficult to understand information	Noted. The consultation documentation was reviewed extensively however we apologies if any errors were present and welcome further feedback on how we can improve the quality of information provided which we can include in future consultations.
	Questionnaire should have had section that explored potential negative impacts of the schemes	The questionnaire did provide an opportunity for comments both positive and negative about the proposals. Whilst the benefits of the measures were presented across the documentation, plans and consultation, it is noted that the information could have also included what the potential dis-benefits of some proposals could be.

[1] Charity Commission for England and Wales. Diversity and Inclusion Strategy 2019-2023.

[3] Data from 'East Sussex in Figures', using 2021 Census data.

[4] https://letstalk.wealden.gov.uk/community-sports-hub-exhibition