1. A condensed version of the Notice is listed below. Please note a full version of the Notice is available at Appendix 1. East Sussex County Council proposes to introduce:
1.1. Bus Lanes in the following lengths of road in Eastbourne[ES2] [HB3] :
1.1.1. Seaside (north-western side)
1.1.2. Seaside (south-eastern side)
1.1.3. St Anthonys Avenue (south-eastern side)
1.2. Bus Stop Clearways in the following roads in Eastbourne:
1.2.1. Seaside (north-western side)
1.2.2. Seaside (south-eastern side)
1.2.3. St Anthony’s Avenue (north-western side)
1.2.4. St Anthony’s Avenue (south-eastern side)
1.3. No Waiting At Any Time in the following roads in Eastbourne:
1.3.1. Allfrey Road (both sides)
1.3.2. Finmere Road (both sides)
1.3.3. Romney Street (both sides)
1.3.4. Rye Street (both sides)
1.3.5. Seaside (north-western side)
1.3.6. Seaside (south-eastern side)
1.3.7. Southbourne Road (north-eastern side)
1.3.8. St Anthony’s Avenue (north-western side)
1.3.9. St Anthony’s Avenue (south-eastern side)
1.3.10. St Anthony’s Avenue Service Road East
1.3.11. St Anthony’s Avenue Service Road West
1.4. Time Limited 8am - 6pm maximum stay 1 hour no return within 1 hour in the following road in Eastbourne:
1.4.1. Seaside (south-eastern side)
1.5. Introduce or alter pedestrian crossings in the following locations in Eastbourne:
1.5.1. Seaside – outside Nos. 342 and 347, with the associated zig-zag markings extending for a total distance of 30.8 metres on the north-west side and 47.8 metres on the south-east side.
1.5.2. Seaside – outside St Andrew’s Church, with the associated zig-zag markings extending for a total distance of 22.7 metres on the north-west side and 52.5 metres on the south-east side.
1.5.3. Seaside – approximately 40 metres south-west of Seaside Roundabout (at the side of Wren Kitchens), with the associated zig-zag markings extending for a total distance of 44.8 metres on both sides.
1.5.4. Seaside – outside No. 511, with the associated zig-zag markings extending for a total distance of 44.7 metres on the north-west side and 32 metres on the south-east side.
1.5.5. Seaside – outside Queen Alexandra’s Cottage Homes and No. 1 Winston Crescent, with the associated zig-zag markings extending for a total distance of 30.9 metres on the north-west side and 43.7 metres on the south-east side.
2. 581 representations have been received during the TRO advertisement period. Of these representations, 37 representations were in support, 544 were in objection to the proposed TRO on one or more grounds. The majority of objections and representations received did not directly address the specific provisions outlined in the TRO itself, but rather were objections to the scheme as a whole. The scheme had been subject to 2 previous rounds of consultation in summer 2023 and summer 2024, with the outcomes of the summer 2024 consultation presented to the Lead Member for Transport and Environment at her decision-making meeting in November 2024 where the Lead Member resolved to progress the scheme to detailed design and construction.
3. East Sussex County Council (ESCC) officers assessed all representations and subsequently categorized all objections into recurring themes. This allowed ESCC officers to formulate and deliver a comprehensive response to each of the key objection themes raised. The number of objections presented below represents the frequency with which each theme was raised across all objections. It is important to note that these figures do not reflect the total number of unique objections received, as a single objection often referenced multiple themes. Of these 544 objections:
3.1. 252 objections raised concerns around the perceived negative impact of the bus priority scheme on businesses and their customers.
3.1.1. Following the first public consultation in 2023, the ESCC project team specifically engaged with local business representatives prior to the second public consultation on the Seaside and St Anthony’s Avenue bus priority scheme in 2024 to refine design proposals and address concerns about parking and access raised in the 2023 consultation. The extent of the proposed eastbound and westbound bus lanes was significantly reduced[ES4] [HB5] as part of the design refinement to minimise the loss of on-street parking for residents and customers.
3.1.2. The advertised TRO included, in response to stakeholder feedback, a new parking restriction limiting wait times from 8am - 6pm to 1 hour with no return within 1 hour on the south side of Seaside between Rye Street and Winchelsea Road. This will increase the turnover of spaces and maximise the likelihood of customers being able to park.
3.1.3. Having considered the objections, officers are satisfied that there are not sufficient grounds for the proposals to be withdrawn.
Recommendation: To not uphold the objections and install the proposals as advertised.
3.2. 205 objections were made in objection to the proposed loss of on-street parking on Seaside and St Anthony’s Avenue, and concerns that this would lead to an increase in vehicular traffic and parking down residential side-streets.
3.2.1. To successfully deliver the Bus Service Improvement Plan (BSIP) bus priority proposals, adjustments to existing car parking provisions along the identified route are necessary. The retention of as many car parking spaces as possible and increased provision where feasible has been prioritised in direct response to the feedback received at the summer 2023 public consultation and engagement with local business representatives prior to the second public consultation.
3.2.2. In response to concerns raised during the summer 2023 consultation about loss of parking on the north side of Seaside, utilisation studies were undertaken to better understand the current use of parking spaces and the potential impact of reducing on-street parking to accommodate the bus lane in this location. Parking surveys were conducted on Thursday, 9 May 2024 and Saturday, 11 May 2024 (7am - 7pm) along Seaside between Churchdale Road and Southbourne Road. On every hour, vehicles parked for an hour or longer were counted. A comparison was then undertaken on the number of parked vehicles with available spaces on the westbound lane between Wartling Road and Winchelsea Road, after[SW6] [HB7] [HB8] the proposed bus lane implementation.
3.2.3. In summary, the results of the parking beat survey showed the demand for on-street parking on the north side of Seaside within the scheme extent was relatively low in relation to the available kerbside space. Consequently, the on-street parking provision along Seaside under the BSIP proposal would be sufficient to adequately accommodate the parked vehicles counted on both sides of the road with the bus lane in place[ES9] [HB10] [JW11] .
3.2.4. Having considered the objections, officers are satisfied that there are not sufficient grounds for the proposals to be withdrawn.
Recommendation: To not uphold the objections and install the proposals as advertised.
3.3. 169 objections were on the basis that the proposed bus lane proposals would lead to an increase in congestion on Seaside and St Anthony’s Avenue, or that the journey time savings expected would either not be realised or would lead to little real-world benefit.
3.3.1. Traffic video and parking surveys were conducted in May 2024 to understand current congestion and driver behaviour. This data was then used with Vissim micro-simulation software to model traffic patterns for all road users. The Vissim modelling focused on Seaside between Windermere Crescent and the Seaside Roundabout, using traffic data collected in September 2024. Vissim modelling was excluded for Seaside and St Anthony's Avenue east of the Seaside Roundabout due to the wider road widths and available space, which were considered sufficient to mitigate the risk of right-turn blocking.
3.3.2. Micro-simulation modelling has shown that the reduction of on-street parking on Seaside between Windermere Crescent and Seaside Roundabout to introduce the eastbound bus lane will have no detrimental impact on eastbound (towards Seaside Roundabout) general traffic journey times in the morning (7:45am – 8:45am) and afternoon peak hours (5pm – 6pm).
3.3.3. Following further design amendments, the current proposals are expected to improve westbound vehicle journey times in peak hours, whilst delivering significant benefits to bus reliability and journey times. These amendments include replacing the existing zebra crossing between Southbourne Road and Finmere Road and removing the centre island to provide a signalised puffin (pedestrian) crossing, retaining a right-hand turning space for one vehicle at Southbourne Road and lastly retaining a right-hand turning space for one vehicle at Northbourne Road.
3.3.4. Having considered the objections, officers are satisfied that there are not sufficient grounds for the proposals to be withdrawn.
Recommendation: To not uphold the objections and install the proposals as advertised.
3.4. 98 objections mentioned that the proposals are not the best use of public money.
3.4.1. East Sussex County Council received £41.4m from the Department for Transport (DfT) for the East Sussex Bus Service Improvement Plan (BSIP), with £18.5m designated for bus priority measures. This funding is exclusively granted to the County Council for the delivery of bus priority schemes and cannot be used for other purposes.
3.4.2. BSIP funding is awarded from central government specifically for bus service and infrastructure improvements and is separate from the highway maintenance budget. The Councils is seeking to coordinate the bus priority works with planned highway maintenance to maximise the benefits from the funds available and improve conditions for everyone - including car users - along Seaside and St Anthony's Avenue.
3.4.3. Improvements to Seaside Roundabout and the Lottbridge Drove approaches are beyond the scope of the funding available from the Bus Service Improvement Plan (BSIP) which is specifically for bus priority measures, however these are being investigated separately for implementation should other funding opportunities arise.
3.4.4. Having considered the objections, officers are satisfied that there are not sufficient grounds for the proposals to be withdrawn.
Recommendation: To not uphold the objections and install the proposals as advertised.
3.5. 83 objections were raised with no context (e.g. “Silly idea”)
3.5.1. Having considered the objections as these do not relate to a specific item listed in the proposed TRO, officers are satisfied that there are not sufficient grounds for the proposals to be withdrawn.
Recommendation: To not uphold the objections and install the proposals as advertised.
3.6. 59 objections suggested that the proposals were unnecessary, and traffic issues along Seaside could be mitigated with the removal of existing bus stop build-outs.
3.6.1. The bus priority proposals do not increase the number of bus stop build-outs. Of the two existing build-outs on Seaside, the build-out between Allfrey Road and Myrtle Road is proposed to be removed, to enable the establishment of a bus lane while retaining existing parking spaces. The bus build-out outside DB Domestics is proposed to remain as it currently is. The purpose of this specific bus stop build-out is to provide additional footway space for bus shelters and a safe waiting area for pedestrians, whilst facilitating the departure of buses from the stop. Where such build-outs are not present, it is known that when general traffic fails to give priority, buses are often left waiting to ensure safe departures, which can delay journey times which runs counter to the objectives of the East Sussex Bus Service Improvement Plan.
3.6.2. Furthermore, where build-outs are provided they can act positively to protect the availability of parking spaces. Removing build-outs may result in a reduction in parking spaces to allow more room for buses to safely manoeuvre into and out of bus stops. Build-outs near junctions on existing double yellow lines can improve visibility for vehicles exiting junctions, reduce crossing times for pedestrians, and offer protection for cars parked in adjacent on-street bays.
3.6.3. Having considered the objections, officers are satisfied that there are not sufficient grounds for the proposals to be withdrawn.
Recommendation: To not uphold the objections and install the proposals as advertised.
3.7. 33 objections mentioned an increase in air pollution due to a perceived increase in congestion brought about by the scheme proposal.
3.7.1. The Government’s Design Manual for Roads and Bridges (DMRB) guidance has been reviewed, noting the triggers for an air quality assessment. Currently, the proposed scheme for Seaside and St Anthony’s Avenue is not expected to significantly alter the volume of traffic in the area enough to require an air quality assessment.
3.7.2. Under the Climate Change Act (2008), the UK aims to achieve net zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050. In East Sussex, transport contributes 35% of CO2 emissions; hence, decarbonising transport is crucial for reaching net zero. East Sussex County Council and Eastbourne Borough Council are actively working towards meeting this target.
3.7.3. Additionally, the East Sussex Local Transport Plan 4 (LTP4) focuses on planning for people and places, enhancing capacity, resilience, reliability, and connectivity through public transport interventions by increasing buses’ ability to capture a greater share of short, medium and longer distance trips, reducing the number of private car trips taken, limiting carbon emissions from transport and improving air quality.
3.7.4. Policy B5 in the East Sussex LTP4 addresses air quality by promoting less polluting forms of travel, such as buses, active travel, and electric vehicles. This includes implementing infrastructure like bus lanes and leveraging advancements in vehicle technology, including ultra-low and zero emission vehicles. In summary, developing bus priority infrastructure for urban and rural areas will support decarbonisation and improve air quality.
3.7.5. Having considered the objections, officers are satisfied that there are not sufficient grounds for the proposals to be withdrawn.
Recommendation: To not uphold the objections and install the proposals as advertised.
3.8. 31 objections were regarding drivers’ ability to load or unload in the bus lanes, delivery or trade vehicles loading or unloading in the bus lanes, and taxis stopping to pick up or drop off passengers in the bus lanes.
3.8.1. It is important to distinguish between vehicles driving in the bus lane and those stopping for loading or unloading. While driving and parking within the bus lane is strictly prohibited, in accordance with the Highway Code (Rule 141), vehicles may enter a bus lane to stop and load or unload where this is not otherwise prohibited. This provision includes taxis picking up and dropping off passengers, supermarket delivery vans making deliveries or trade vehicles unloading and loading materials and/or tools for property maintenance purposes. Vehicles should only enter the bus lane at the point that these activities will be taking place. The vehicle must leave the bus lane straight away when the activity has been completed and must not travel unnecessarily through the bus lane. Vehicles are permitted to cross over the bus lane to access driveways.
3.8.2. It should be noted, however, that the parking surveys conducted in 2024 indicated that taxis or delivery vehicles would generally find available parking spaces on the opposite side of the road to the bus lane to load or unload passengers and deliveries and/or goods respectively.
3.8.3. Having considered the objections, officers are satisfied that there are not sufficient grounds for the proposals to be withdrawn.
Recommendation: To not uphold the objections and install the proposals as advertised.
3.9. 30 objections mentioned the safety of new signalised pedestrian crossings, the removal of informal crossing points or the frequency of pedestrian crossings on Seaside and St Anthony’s Avenue.
3.9.1. The design introduces new and upgraded signalised crossings along Seaside and St Anthony’s Avenue to enhance pedestrian safety. These crossings will use sensors to detect pedestrians and only allow cars to proceed when the road is clear. This approach prioritises pedestrian safety and accessibility while minimising travel delays for buses and other vehicles. The proposals comprise:
· Upgrading the existing crossings between Windermere Crescent and Channel View Road, and on Seaside west of the Winston Crescent junction to allow pedestrians to cross in one movement.
· The existing zebra crossing between Southbourne Road and Finmere Road is to be replaced with a signalised puffin (pedestrian) crossing, removing the centre island, and the existing pedestrian crossing between Myrtle Road and Fort Road is to be removed.
· New signalised puffin crossings, which will allow pedestrians to cross in one movement, are planned to be introduced between Fort Road and Seaside Roundabout, and on Seaside immediately east of Seaside Roundabout.
3.9.2. In terms of single stage pedestrian crossings, the independent Road Safety Audit did not identify their introduction as a safety concern. Removing crossing staggers will improve pedestrian accessibility to bus stops and local amenities overall by making it simpler and quicker for pedestrians to cross the road. Smart traffic signals would improve safety by detecting pedestrians and those with mobility issues and/or using mobility aids etc thereby allowing them enough time to cross the road, but at the same time improve traffic flow by holding vehicles at red no longer than is necessary.
3.9.3. Following feedback received during the second public consultation in 2024 and the informal pre-TRO consultation in December 2024 and January 2025, the following informal crossings with their centre islands are proposed to be retained which will enable accessible places for pedestrians to cross, with minimal impact on journey times for general traffic
· The informal crossing with centre island to the east of Winston Crescent and
· the informal crossing with centre island east of Leeds Avenue.
3.9.4. Having considered the objections, officers are satisfied that there are not sufficient grounds for the proposals to be withdrawn.
Recommendation: To not uphold the objections and install the proposals as advertised.
3.10. 27 objections mentioned safety during school drop-off and pick-up hours, or that the loss of on-street parking spaces would affect the ability of parents and/or carers to park, leading to further congestion.
3.10.1. To address concerns raised during the public consultation regarding safety for children entering and exiting Tollgate Junior School, an upgraded signalised crossing is proposed west of the Winston Crescent junction to enable pedestrians to cross in a singular movement. The crossing will use modern sensors to monitor pedestrian movement and will change the signal for cars only when there are no pedestrians on the road. It is anticipated that this will enhance the crossing point, addressing safety and accessibility concerns for school children and other pedestrians.
3.10.2. Feedback from the second public consultation in 2024 as well as the informal pre-TRO consultation in December 2024 and January 2025 has informed the designs. As a consequence, the informal crossing point with the centre island to the east of Winston Crescent for crossings onto Seaside heading northwest towards Langney Roundabout has been retained. The informal crossing with the centre island just east of Leeds Avenue has also been retained, allowing pedestrians, including school children, to continue heading northeast from Lidl while crossing Leeds Avenue.
3.10.3. Feedback from both public consultation in summer 2023 and summer 2024 as well as the informal pre-TRO consultation in December 2024 and January 2025 has also informed the designs to address concerns raised regarding safety for children entering and exiting St Andrew’s C of E Infants’ School. The existing zebra crossing between Southbourne Road and Finmere Road is to be replaced with a signalised puffin (pedestrian) crossing, removing the centre island, and the existing pedestrian crossing between Myrtle Road and Fort Road is to be removed. It is anticipated that this will enhance the crossing point, addressing safety and accessibility concerns for school children and other pedestrians.
3.10.4. Officers recognise the concern regarding the loss of parking spaces during peak times and school drop-off and/or pick-up times. Regarding potential impacts on Tollgate Junior School, the design increases uncontrolled on-street parking on the north side of Seaside at Crumbles Sewer, enhancing the current parking between Seaside Roundabout and Crumbles Sewer. The proposed scheme encourages walking or taking the bus as sustainable alternatives to driving to school.
3.10.5. Regarding St Andrew’s C of E Infants’ School, there are no proposed changes in parking provision in Winchelsea Road, and existing parking spaces are being retained on the south side of Seaside between Rye Street and Winchelsea Road, which now includes limiting wait times from 8am - 6pm to 1 hour with no return within one hour which will still facilitate parental and/or carer parking at drop off and pick up times.
3.10.6. Having considered the objections, officers are satisfied that there are not sufficient grounds for the proposals to be withdrawn.
Recommendation: To not uphold the objections and install the proposals as advertised.
3.11. 27 objections believed the roads are not wide enough to fit the proposed bus lanes.
3.11.1. Following the continuation of the Preliminary Design stage, further assessment has indicated that part of the carriageway alongside the Archery Recreation Ground will require localised widening within the highway boundary. This would require reconfiguration of the existing hedge and boundary fencing which, following discussions with Eastbourne Borough Council who own the Recreation Ground, presents opportunities for planting of native species (many of the existing hedgerow species are non-native). The elm tree opposite no. 391 would require removal. To mitigate this tree loss, planting of 3 trees within the Archery Recreation Ground is proposed. A dedicated consultation will be held on the proposed tree loss required for this scheme.
3.11.2. Outside of this section of the scheme alongside the Archery Recreation Ground, topographical surveys have indicated that the carriageway widths along Seaside and St Anthony’s Avenue for the remainder of the scheme extents are sufficient to accommodate the TRO proposals and the introduction of the respective bus lanes, on street parking and maintaining 2 general traffic lanes.
3.11.3. Having considered the objections, officers are satisfied that there are not sufficient grounds for the proposals to be withdrawn.
Recommendation: To not uphold the objections and install the proposals as advertised.
3.12. 17 objections were in relation to the ESCC consultation process or queried the need for the TRO to have been re-advertised.
3.12.1. Two public consultations for the initial scheme were held from 31 July to 25 September 2023, and on a revised proposed scheme from 15 July to 18 August 2024. Both consultations provided proposal details on the ESCC Consultation Hub webpage and included several in-person events. The project team attended to answer questions and display exhibition boards. These events were well attended by residents, interest groups, bus operator staff, local councillors, and the Eastbourne MP. Additionally, consultation postcards were distributed to nearby businesses and properties, complemented by social media coverage and a press release.
3.12.2. Following the second consultation in summer 2024, an informal TRO pre-consultation took place from 16 December 2024 to 16 January 2025. This informal pre-consultation included amended designs based on feedback received at the second public consultation from local businesses and residents.
3.12.3. The designs were adjusted to introduce limited wait parking from 8am - 6pm, with a restriction of no return within one hour on the south side of Seaside between Rye Street and Winchelsea Road. These parking restrictions aim to support local businesses by providing customers with parking options when visiting stores, thereby maintaining a steady flow of parking due to the imposed time limits.
3.12.4. The formal TRO was first advertised from 23 May to 13 June 2025, however owing to typographical errors that were identified after the TRO advertisement period closing, the County Council decided to re-advertise the formal TRO from 18 July to 8 August 2025 to ensure residents were provided with accurate information. All valid representations made through the initial advertisement period were still considered and responded to. Those who had already made a representation were not required to make another representation during the re-advertisement period and this was communicated to all those who had already made a representation to the TRO.
3.12.5. Having considered the objections, officers are satisfied that there are not sufficient grounds for the proposals to be withdrawn.
Recommendation: To not uphold the objections and install the proposals as advertised.
3.13. 15 objections criticised the frequency or reliability of the bus services along Seaside and St Anthony’s Avenue.
3.13.1. Seaside and St Anthony’s Avenue is a key bus corridor in Eastbourne and the introduction of the bus priority proposals on the main sections where delays are occurring for bus services will help to address the current issues by improving service reliability and punctuality.
3.13.2. The improvements to bus journey times and reliability will benefit a significant number of people - around 2,000 passengers utilise the corridor every day, a considerable number of households do not own or have access to a car, and by encouraging some car users to switch to bus would help ease congestion and improve conditions for those whose journeys still depend on car travel.
3.13.3. A range of flexible, day rider and group tickets are available, and together with the £3 National Bus Fare Cap for single journeys, which is in place until at least until the end of 2025, this is helping to improve the affordability of bus travel.
3.13.4. Having considered the objections, officers are satisfied that there are not sufficient grounds for the proposals to be withdrawn.
Recommendation: To not uphold the objections and install the proposals as advertised.
3.14. 14 objections raised concerns about emergency vehicles using the bus lane, or the loss of an ambulance bay outside Queen Alexandra Cottage Homes.
3.14.1. Emergency vehicles will be permitted to drive and park in the bus lanes during an emergency call-out. The ambulance parking bay located outside New Derby House is to be retained.
3.14.2. Having considered the objections, officers are satisfied that there are not sufficient grounds for the proposals to be withdrawn.
Recommendation: To not uphold the objections and install the proposals as advertised.
3.15. 13 objections suggested that the proposals would not allow vehicles to easily turn into side streets, thus adding to congestion.
3.15.1. In response to objections regarding the removal of right-turn pockets along Seaside for turns into Northbourne Road and Southbourne Road, Microsimulation traffic modelling between Windermere Crescent and Seaside Roundabout was undertaken using traffic data collected in September 2024, which demonstrated that by providing space for one vehicle to turn right at both Northbourne Road and Southbourne Road, no overall increase in journey times for general traffic is anticipated compared with the existing situation. This proposed change to the design was reflected in the report that was considered by the Lead Member for Transport and Environment on the consultation outcomes and recommended next steps in November 2024.
3.15.2. Feedback about the removal of informal crossing points with centre islands was also received. After re-evaluating the road widths, the design has been revised to include centre islands east of Winston Crescent, retaining right turn pockets and informal crossing points.
3.15.3. It is not anticipated that turning into side streets will be made more difficult by the proposals, as although two lanes and/or traffic streams will need to be crossed, the bus lane will only be used by buses and cyclists, so there will be plenty of gaps in that traffic stream to enable vehicles to turn in and out.
3.15.4. Having considered the objections, officers are satisfied that there are not sufficient grounds for the proposals to be withdrawn.
Recommendation: To not uphold the objections and install the proposals as advertised.
3.16. 8 objections mentioned the Exceat Bridge project, and that this should be prioritised over the BSIP A259 Seaside and St Anthony’s Avenue bus priority scheme.
3.16.1. It was agreed at the East Sussex County Council Cabinet meeting on 22 April 2025, after approval from the Department for Transport, to re-direct £11.128m BSIP grant funding from the Newhaven and Peacehaven bus priority schemes to the Exceat Bridge Replacement Project while allocating £4m of the 2025/26 BSIP funding to the Newhaven bus priority scheme.
3.16.2. Having considered the objections, officers are satisfied that there are not sufficient grounds for the proposals to be withdrawn.
Recommendation: To not uphold the objections and install the proposals as advertised.
3.17. 7 objections raised concerns about cyclist safety or that cyclists had not been properly considered in the scheme proposals.
3.17.1. The proposals have been developed with consideration of cyclists and cycle routes. Cyclists will be permitted to cycle in the eastbound and westbound bus lanes. The proposals also feature footway widening and enhanced crossing facilities on the St Anthony’s Avenue arm of Langney Roundabout to facilitate greater cycle connectivity between existing cycle routes and the westbound bus lane.
3.17.2. Having considered the objections, officers are satisfied that there are not sufficient grounds for the proposals to be withdrawn.
Recommendation: To not uphold the objections and install the proposals as advertised.
3.18. 6 objections suggested that congestion on Seaside and St Anthony’s Avenue was primarily caused by queuing at Seaside Roundabout.
3.18.1. Improvements to Seaside Roundabout and the Lottbridge Drove approaches are beyond the scope of the funding available from the Bus Service Improvement Plan (BSIP) which is specifically for bus priority measures, however these are being investigated separately for implementation should other funding opportunities arise.
3.18.2. Having considered the objections, officers are satisfied that there are not sufficient grounds for the proposals to be withdrawn.
Recommendation: To not uphold the objections and install the proposals as advertised.
3.19. 6 objections were in relation to disruption caused by construction works.
3.19.1. ESCC will work with Highway Service Partner Balfour Beatty Living Places to ensure a robust and suitable construction plan (including traffic management and pedestrian access and safety) is implemented, to minimise disruption and inconvenience to residents and businesses as much as possible. Recommendations for the construction plan are included in the Action Plan of the scheme’s draft Equality Impact Assessment.[SW12] [HB13] [SW14] [HB15]
3.19.2. Having considered the objections, officers are satisfied that there are not sufficient grounds for the proposals to be withdrawn.
Recommendation: To not uphold the objections and install the proposals as advertised.
3.20. 2 objections were opposed to the proposed tree loss brought about by the TRO proposals.
3.20.1. Following the continuation of the Preliminary Design stage, further assessment has indicated that part of the carriageway alongside the Archery Recreation Ground will require widening, within the highway boundary. This would require reconfiguration of the existing hedge and boundary fencing which presents opportunities for planting of native species (many of the existing species are non-native). The elm tree opposite no. 391 Seaside would require removal.
3.20.2. To mitigate this tree loss, planting of three trees within the Archery Recreation Ground is proposed. A dedicated consultation will be held on the proposed tree loss required for this scheme.
3.20.3. Having considered the objections, officers are satisfied that there are not sufficient grounds for the proposals to be withdrawn.
Recommendation: To not uphold the objections and install the proposals as advertised.
4. Officers have considered the objections in relation to TRO and officers are satisfied that there are not sufficient grounds for the proposals to be withdrawn.
5. [ES16] [HB17] [HB18] Recommendation: To not uphold the objections and install the proposals as advertised.
[BH1]Again for ease / audit purposes, can this be retained as will help ensure connectivity to the documents in the future. It can be located as a sub header or within a header/footer
[ES2]See comment in the main report.
[HB3]This text is taken directly from the condensed TRO Notice so needs to remain unedited.
[ES4]Is this the right word, would “reduced” be better?
[HB5]We have amended this now
[SW6]Do you mean the location of the proposed bus lane?
[HB7]We have reworded the final sentence of 3.2.2 to make clearer
[HB8]further comments added by Jon Wheeler here for extra context
[ES9]Is it worth mentioning why it is just this stretch of the A259 where we have considered this issue?
[HB10]We can add additional context here, however we are not certain that this will be considered a satisfactory reasoning (to my knowledge, primarily due to time, budget constraints and us focusing on that section as the priority)
[JW11]Have added some additional text in 3.2.2 to cover Ed’s point
[SW12]Is this in the public domain yet? Can we link it?
[HB13]We don't currently have the EqIA available online for this scheme, it is a live document which has been drafted, but not undergone final checks within the project team or from the Equalities Lead. We would be reluctant to publish the unfinished version as is, but would be happy to make this available for members to view.
[SW14]Is it worth mentioning here that it is currently a draft EqIA?
[HB15]Have added the word draft
[ES16]I’m not sure these bits are necessary, so have suggested deletion. Also para 6 largely repeats para 4.
[HB17]Received
same feedback from Joanna:
Should these remaining paragraphs be in Appendix 2? They do not
refer to particular objections. App 2 is where the detail of the
specific objections and responses are set out so I am not sure
these paragraphs setting out general justification should be in App
2?
[HB18]Happy for the removal of the old sections 5 & 6