6. Key findings from public consultation survey
Overview
The public consultation received over 1,000 engagements and responses across the library drop-in sessions, online consultation, emailed submissions and postal responses and is broken down as follows:
- 755 online responses.
- 19 posted responses.
- 67 emailed responses.
- 216 conversations at libraries.
This section of the report presents the feedback provided.
Methodology
The methodology undertaken for analysing the results from the public consultation involved closed and open question analysis.
Open questions were analysed through the use of code frames and assigning each point made by respondents in their response a code. The use of coding is a common methodology, which allows the same points raised by multiple respondents to be logged and categorised together within the coding frame, thereby, making it possible to quantify how many times the same or very similar points are made by respondents.
In the public consultation survey respondents were asked a series of open and closed questions regarding the draft LTP4, alongside two sections about respondent information and equalities monitoring. The full list of questions asked can be found in Appendix A.
Respondent analysis
Analysis of some of the questions regarding the person responding has been undertaken.
Section A - Respondent information
Some responses have been removed from individual questions analysis. These include responses to questions that are inappropriate, rude or offensive responses.
Type of respondent
Respondents were asked to identify who they were responding on behalf of. A total of 834 submissions to the question have been received, of which 24 respondents did not answer the question.
Respondent Type | Percentage of respondents |
---|---|
As an individual (East Sussex Resident) | 83.2% |
As an individual (non-East Sussex Resident) | 1.6% |
As an individual business (East Sussex Based) | 1.1% |
As an individual business (non-East Sussex Based) | 0.0% |
On behalf of a group or organisation | 8.5% |
As an elected representative (e.g. county, district, borough, parish or town councillor or an MP) | 2.8% |
Not Answered | 2.9% |
Key results:
- Most respondents were individuals from East Sussex (83%).
- 9% of respondents represented groups or organisations. These included borough, district, parish and town councils. It also included groups representing local communities and/or different user modes.
- We also received a number of responses from businesses (1%) and elected representatives (3%).
Main mode of travel
Respondents had tick box options, with an open text box for modes not listed. Of the 806 responses, 3 have been excluded, 21 respondents preferred not to say and 3 responses have been removed.
Respondent main mode of travel | Percentage of respondents (survey) |
---|---|
Walking | 12.2% |
Wheeling (wheelchair/mobility scooter) | 0.7% |
Scoot | 0.0% |
Cycle – pedal bike | 4.5% |
Cycle – E-bike | 1.1% |
Bus | 12.4% |
Train | 3.7% |
Car or van (driver) | 46.8% |
Car or van (passenger) | 3.8% |
Car or van (unknown) | 0.2% |
Motorcycle | 0.1% |
Other | 0.6% |
Multiple of various modes | 6.7% |
Prefer not to say / no response / removed | 7.1% |
Key results:
- Nearly half of respondents use a car or van as a driver as their main mode of travel for everyday journeys
- The next most popular modes for everyday journeys were active travel modes (walking, wheeling and cycling) and bus.
- 7% of respondents use multiple or various modes for their everyday trips (either as part of a multiple stage journey or depending on where the respondent is travelling (e.g. walking for local trips and car for longer journeys).
- Other modes of transport included taxi and heavy goods vehicle (HGV).
Section B – Vision and objectives
Respondents were asked closed questions about how strongly they agreed or disagreed with the draft LTP vision and the six objectives on a five point scale from ‘Strongly agree’ to ‘Strongly disagree’, with options for ‘do not know’ and ‘do not wish to answer’. Respondents were then given the opportunity to explain or add detail in an open question at the end of the section.
Vision
Question B1 asked people about the draft LTP4 vision and how strongly they agreed or disagreed with it.
The vision that was consulted on was “an inclusive transport system that connects people and places, is decarbonised, safer, resilient, and supports our natural environment, communities, and businesses to be healthy, thrive and prosper.”
Response | Percentage of respondents |
---|---|
Strongly agree | 56.2% |
Somewhat agree | 24.6% |
Neither agree or disagree | 5.4% |
Somewhat disagree | 7.0% |
Strongly disagree | 6.6% |
Do not know | 0.1% |
Number of respondents – 683 (excluding ‘Not answered’ and ‘Do not wish to answer’)
Key results:
- 80% of respondents agree with the vision and 56% strongly agree.
- Only 14% of respondents disagree with the vision.
Objectives
Question B2 asked people about the draft LTP4 objective 1 (‘deliver safer and accessible journeys’) and how strongly they agreed or disagreed with it.
Response | Percentage of respondents |
---|---|
Strongly agree | 47.4% |
Somewhat agree | 30.5% |
Neither agree or disagree | 7.3% |
Somewhat disagree | 6.1% |
Strongly disagree | 7.4% |
Do not know | 1.3% |
Number of respondents – 673 (excluding ‘Not answered’ and ‘Do not wish to answer’)
Key results:
- 77% of respondents thought that objective 1 and its outcomes support the vision.
- 13% of respondents indicated that they have a slight issue with aspect of objective 1 and its outcomes.
Question B3 asked people about the draft LTP4 objective 2 (‘support healthier lifestyles and communities’) and how strongly they agreed or disagreed with it.
Response | Percentage of respondents |
---|---|
Strongly agree | 44.4% |
Somewhat agree | 28.5% |
Neither agree or disagree | 9.0% |
Somewhat disagree | 8.2% |
Strongly disagree | 9.1% |
Do not know | 0.7% |
Number of respondents – 680 (excl. ‘Not answered’, ‘Do not wish to answer’)
Key results:
- 73% of respondents thought that objective 2 and its outcomes support the vision.
- 17% of respondents indicated that they have a slight issue with some aspect of objective 2 and its outcomes.
Question B4 asked people about the draft LTP4 objective 3 (‘decarbonise transport and travel’) and how strongly they agreed or disagreed with it.
Response | Percentage of respondents |
---|---|
Strongly agree | 43% |
Somewhat agree | 29% |
Neither agree or disagree | 8% |
Somewhat disagree | 7% |
Strongly disagree | 12% |
Do not know | 1% |
Number of respondents – 676 (excluding ‘Not answered’ and ‘Do not wish to answer’)
Key results:
- 72% of respondents thought that objective 3 and its outcomes support the vision.
- 19% of respondents indicated that they have a slight issue with Some aspect of objective 3 and its outcomes;
- 12% of respondents strongly disagree that it supports the vision, which is the highest rate across the six objectives.
Question B5 asked people about the draft LTP4 objective 4 (‘conserve and enhance our local environment’) and how strongly they agreed or disagreed with it.
Response | Percentage of respondents |
---|---|
Strongly agree | 46.8% |
Somewhat agree | 25.8% |
Neither agree or disagree | 10.9% |
Somewhat disagree | 5.4% |
Strongly disagree | 9.9% |
Do not know | 1.2% |
Number of respondents – 679 (excludes ‘Not answered’ and ‘Do not wish to answer’)
Key results:
- 73% of respondents thought that objective 4 and its outcomes support the vision.
- 15% of respondents indicated that they have a slight issue with some aspect of objective 4 and its outcomes.
Question B6 asked people about the draft LTP4 objective 5 (‘support sustainable economic growth’) and how strongly they agreed or disagreed with it.
Response | Percentage of respondents |
---|---|
Strongly agree | 39.0% |
Somewhat agree | 29.8% |
Neither agree or disagree | 13.8% |
Somewhat disagree | 7.9% |
Strongly disagree | 7.9% |
Do not know | 1.6% |
Number of respondents – 674 (excludes ‘Not answered’ and ‘Do not wish to answer’)
Key results:
- 69% of respondents thought that objective 5 and its outcomes support the vision.
- 16% of respondents indicated that they have a slight issue with some aspect of objective 5 and its outcomes;
- 14% of respondents neither agree or disagree that it supports the vision, which is the highest rate across the six objectives.
Question B7 asked people about the draft LTP4 objective 6 (‘strengthen the resilience of our transport networks’) and how strongly they agreed or disagreed with it.
Response | Percentage of respondents |
---|---|
Strongly agree | 51.5% |
Somewhat agree | 23.4% |
Neither agree or disagree | 9.4% |
Somewhat disagree | 5.3% |
Strongly disagree | 9.0% |
Do not know | 1.5% |
Number of respondents – 680 (excl. ‘Not answered’, ‘Do not wish to answer’)
Key results:
- 74% of respondents thought that objective 6 and its outcomes support the vision.
- 14% of respondents indicated that they take issue with some aspect of objective 6 and its outcomes;
- 51% of respondents strongly agree that it supports the vision which is the highest rate across the six objectives.
Respondents were then given the opportunity to explain or add detail to their previous responses (question B8). An open question coding method has been used in the analysis of this question. A total of 919 different points were made within all the open responses, and these were coded into 81 different response themes.
Top ten response themes | Number of responses |
---|---|
Concern about the efficiency and reliability of bus services | 50 |
Support for public transport improvements | 48 |
Concern about the quality of roads / road surfaces | 46 |
Concern regarding costs | 38 |
Concern about deliverability of objectives | 36 |
Suggestion for greater maintenance of existing infrastructure (roads, lighting) | 31 |
Concern about the vision lacking substance and specificity | 30 |
Support for active travel improvements | 30 |
General support for objectives | 28 |
Support for more affordable public transport | 28 |
Number of respondents – 382 (excl. ‘No comment’, ‘Out of scope’ etc.)
Key results:
- As the first opportunity to provide an open text response, there were more responses to this question covering a range of issues.
- In addition to general comments on LTP4, respondents expressed particular concern about bus services and the need to improve public transport.
Section C - Principles and policies
Respondents were asked closed questions about how strongly they agreed or disagreed with the draft LTP4 principles and the policies included in its thematic chapters on a five point scale from ‘Strongly agree’ to ‘Strongly disagree’. They were then given the opportunity to explain or add detail in an open question at the end of the section.
Question C1 asked respondents how strongly they agreed or disagreed with the principles that underpin LTP4.
Response | Percentage of respondents |
---|---|
Strongly agree | 48.5% |
Somewhat agree | 31.1% |
Neither agree or disagree | 7.2% |
Somewhat disagree | 5.2% |
Strongly disagree | 6.6% |
Do not know | 1.4% |
Number of respondents – 573 (excludes ‘Not answered’ and ‘Do not wish to answer’)
Key results:
- 70% of respondents agree with the principles that underpin LTP4.
- 12% of respondents indicated that they disagree to some extent with the principles.
Question C2 asked people about the draft LTP4 Theme A (‘tackling climate change and enhancing our local environment’) and whether it supports objectives 3 (‘decarbonise transport and travel’) and 4 (‘conserve and enhance our local environment’).
Response | Percentage of respondents |
---|---|
Strongly agree | 41.8% |
Somewhat agree | 29.0% |
Neither agree or disagree | 8.0% |
Somewhat disagree | 7.7% |
Strongly disagree | 10.3% |
Do not know | 3.1% |
Number of respondents – 572 (excludes ‘Not answered’ and ‘Do not wish to answer’)
Key results:
- 71% of respondents think that the policies in Theme A support objectives 3 and 4 (assuming sufficient funding).
- 18% of respondents disagree to some extent that the policies in Theme A support objectives 3 and 4.
Question C3 asked people about the draft LTP4 Theme B (‘safer, healthier and more active travel’) and whether it supports objective 2 (‘support healthier lifestyles and communities’).
Response | Percentage of respondents |
---|---|
Strongly agree | 42.9% |
Somewhat agree | 30.5% |
Neither agree or disagree | 7.7% |
Somewhat disagree | 6.7% |
Strongly disagree | 9.6% |
Do not know | 2.6% |
Number of respondents – 571 (excludes ‘Not answered’ and ‘Do not wish to answer’)
Key results:
- 73% of respondents think that the policies in Theme B support objective 2 (assuming sufficient funding).
- 17% of respondents disagree to some extent that the policies in Theme B support objective 2.
Question C4 asked people about the draft LTP4 Theme C (‘integrated and accessible transport for all’) and whether it supports objective 1 (‘deliver safer and accessible journeys’).
Response | Percentage of respondents |
---|---|
Strongly agree | 44.9% |
Somewhat agree | 25.8% |
Neither agree or disagree | 8.2% |
Somewhat disagree | 7.4% |
Strongly disagree | 11.6% |
Do not know | 2.1% |
Number of respondents – 570 (excludes ‘Not answered’ and ‘Do not wish to answer’)
Key results:
- 71% of respondents think that the policies in Theme C support objective 1 (assuming sufficient funding).
- 19% of respondents disagree to some extent that the policies in Theme C support objective 1.
Question C5 asked people about the draft LTP4 Theme D (‘keeping East Sussex connected’) and whether it supports objectives 5 (‘support sustainable economic growth’) and 6 (‘strengthen the resilience of our networks’).
Response | Percentage of respondents |
---|---|
Strongly agree | 35.2% |
Somewhat agree | 31.1% |
Neither agree or disagree | 9.8% |
Somewhat disagree | 7.7% |
Strongly disagree | 12.0% |
Do not know | 4.1% |
Number of respondents – 582 (excludes ‘Not answered’ and ‘Do not wish to answer’)
Key results:
- 66% of respondents think that the policies in Theme D support objectives 5 and 6 (assuming sufficient funding).
- 20% of respondents disagree to some extent that the policies in Theme D support objectives 5 and 6.
- This question attracted the least support from respondents across the Section C closed questions.
Respondents were then given the opportunity to explain or add detail to their previous responses (question C6). An open question coding method has been used in the analysis of this question. A total of 574 different points were made within all the open responses, and these were coded into 84 different response themes.
Top ten response themes | Number of responses |
---|---|
Concern about the loss of green space / need to protect wildlife | 42 |
Concern regarding costs | 38 |
Concern about the Uckfield Bypass proposal | 35 |
Concern about deliverability of objectives | 24 |
Concern about noise and air pollution levels | 24 |
Support for active travel improvements | 19 |
Concern about plans for more housing developments | 19 |
Support for public transport improvements | 16 |
Concern about the impact of the Uckfield rail line on Hamsey village | 15 |
Concern about level of information provided | 13 |
Number of respondents – 250 (excl. ‘No comment’, ‘Out of scope’ etc.)
Key results:
- Respondents most frequently expressed concerns around the potential loss of green space, as well as protection of wildlife.
Section D - Implementation Plan
Respondents were asked closed questions about how strongly they agreed or disagreed with the interventions included in the Implementation Plan on a five point scale from ‘Strongly agree’ to ‘Strongly disagree’, including options for ‘d o not know’ and ‘do not wish to answer’. They were then given the opportunity to identify any missed interventions in an open question at the end of the section.
Question D1 concerned the proposed interventions and Theme A (‘tackling climate change and enhancing our local environment’).
Response | Percentage of respondents |
---|---|
Strongly agree | 33.2% |
Somewhat agree | 27.9% |
Neither agree or disagree | 12.1% |
Somewhat disagree | 7.4% |
Strongly disagree | 12.5% |
Do not know | 6.9% |
Number of respondents – 552 (excludes ‘Not answered’ and ‘Do not wish to answer’)
Key results:
- 61% of respondents agree with the proposed interventions in the Implementation Plan that will deliver Theme A.
- 20% of respondents disagree to some extent with the proposed interventions in the Implementation Plan that will deliver Theme A.
Question D2 concerned the proposed interventions and Theme B (‘safer, healthier and more active travel’).
Response | Percentage of respondents |
---|---|
Strongly agree | 34.4% |
Somewhat agree | 28.5% |
Neither agree or disagree | 12.4% |
Somewhat disagree | 6.5% |
Strongly disagree | 12.5% |
Do not know | 5.6% |
Number of respondents – 550 (excl. ‘Not answered’, ‘Do not wish to answer’)
Key results:
- 63% of respondents agree with the proposed interventions in the Implementation Plan that will deliver Theme B.
- 20% of respondents disagree to some extent with the proposed interventions in the Implementation Plan that will deliver Theme B.
Question D3 concerned the proposed interventions and Theme C (‘integrated and accessible transport for all’).
Response | Percentage of respondents |
---|---|
Strongly agree | 34.6% |
Somewhat agree | 31.4% |
Neither agree or disagree | 11.5% |
Somewhat disagree | 8.4% |
Strongly disagree | 8.0% |
Do not know | 6.0% |
Number of respondents – 547 (excludes ‘Not answered’ and ‘Do not wish to answer’)
Key results:
- 66% of respondents agree with the proposed interventions in the Implementation Plan that will deliver Theme C.
- 16% of respondents disagree to some extent with the proposed interventions in the Implementation Plan that will deliver Theme C.
Question D4 concerned the proposed interventions and Theme D (‘keeping East Sussex connected’).
Response | Percentage of respondents |
---|---|
Strongly agree | 35.4% |
Somewhat agree | 28.3% |
Neither agree or disagree | 15.0% |
Somewhat disagree | 6.6% |
Strongly disagree | 8.8% |
Do not know | 5.9% |
Number of respondents – 545 (excludes ‘Not answered’ and ‘Do not wish to answer’)
Key results:
- 63% of respondents agree with the proposed interventions in the Implementation Plan that will deliver Theme D.
- 16% of respondents disagree to some extent with the proposed interventions in the Implementation Plan that will deliver Theme D.
Respondents were then given the opportunity to identify any missed interventions (question D5). An open question coding method has been used in the analysis of this question. A total of 374 different points were made within all the open responses, and these were coded into 82 different response themes.
Top ten response themes | Number of responses |
---|---|
Concern about deliverability of objectives | 26 |
Support for active travel improvements | 17 |
Support for public transport improvements | 16 |
Concern about level of information provided | 15 |
Support for speed reductions / measures to tackle speeding | 15 |
Concern about the efficiency and reliability of buses | 14 |
Concern about survey design | 11 |
Support for upgrades to the A259 | 9 |
Support for improved rail connectivity | 9 |
Support for modal shift away from cars | 9 |
Number of respondents – 183 (excl. ‘No comment’, ‘Out of scope’ etc.)
Key results:
- Respondents most frequently indicated support for further active travel and public transport improvements;
- Some respondents expressed concerns around the deliverability of the Implementation Plan, as well as its level of detail.
- In terms of specific interventions, support for upgrades to the A259 / A27 was the most common response.
Section E - Impact assessments
Respondents were asked open questions about their feedback on the Integrated Impact Assessment and its constituent parts (Health Impact Assessment, Strategic Environmental Assessment, Equalities Impact Assessment, Habitats Regulation Assessment). The response rate for this section was significantly lower than other sections of the consultation.
Integrated Impact Assessment (IIA)
Respondents were given the opportunity to provide feedback on the Integrated Impact Assessment (question E1). An open question coding method has been used in the analysis of this question. A total of 110 different points were made within all the open responses, and these were coded into 49 different response themes.
Top response themes | Number of responses |
---|---|
Concern about delivery of objectives | 11 |
Concern about the loss of green space / need to protect wildlife | 7 |
Concern about the efficiency and reliability of buses | 6 |
Concern about the quality of roads / road surfaces | 6 |
Concern about level of information provided / concern about survey design / provision of documents | 5 |
Number of respondents – 66 (excluding ‘No comment’, ‘Out of scope’ etc.)
Key results:
- Feedback on the IIA most frequently related to concerns around the delivery of its objectives;
- Please note that in some instances respondents expressed transport-related concerns that were not directly related to the IIA itself here, e.g. buses not being on time.
Health Impact Assessment (HIA)
Respondents were given the opportunity to provide feedback on the Health Impact Assessment (question E2). An open question coding method has been used in the analysis of this question. A total of 130 different points were made within all the open responses, and these were coded into 51 different response themes.
Top response themes | Number of responses |
---|---|
Support for active travel improvements | 12 |
Concern about noise and air pollution levels | 10 |
Support for speed reductions / measures to tackle speeding | 8 |
Concern about delivery of objectives | 7 |
Support for modal shift away from cars | 7 |
Number of respondents – 59 (excluding ‘No comment’, ‘Out of scope’ etc.)
Key observations include:
- The top themes of feedback on the HIA are largely public health-related, e.g. active travel, noise and air pollution and road safety issues;
- Some respondents also linked this to modal shift away from cars.
Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA)
Respondents were given the opportunity to provide feedback on the Strategic Environmental Assessment (question E3). An open question coding method has been used in the analysis of this question. A total of 69 different points were made within all the open responses, and these were coded into 38 different response themes.
Top response themes | Number of responses |
---|---|
Concern about the loss of green space / need to protect wildlife | 7 |
Concern about level of information provided / concern about survey design / provision of documents | 5 |
Concern about congestion levels | 4 |
Number of respondents – 49 (excluding ‘No comment’, ‘Out of scope’ etc.)
Key results:
- Feedback on the SEA most frequently related to the potential loss of green space, as well as protection of wildlife.
- Some respondents indicated that the SEA was missing from the consultation materials or that they couldn’t find it.
Habitats Regulation Assessment (HRA)
Respondents were given the opportunity to provide feedback on the Habitats Regulation Assessment (question E4). An open question coding method has been used in the analysis of this question. A total of 53 different points were made within all the open responses, and these were coded into 22 different response themes.
Top response themes | Number of responses |
---|---|
Concern proposed construction will impact habitats | 9 |
Suggestion to be sensitive to the habitat | 5 |
Concern that habitats have already been destroyed | 4 |
Support for active travel improvements | 3 |
Concern about plans for more housing developments | 3 |
Number of respondents – 44 (excluding ‘No comment’, ‘Out of scope’ etc.)
Key results:
- Feedback on the HRA mostly relates to proposed construction from transport interventions, housing developments etc. and concerns around the impact this will have on habitats.
Equalities Impact Assessment (EqIA)
Respondents were given the opportunity to provide feedback on the Equalities Impact Assessment (question E5). An open question coding method has been used in the analysis of this question. A total of 57 different points were made within all the open responses, and these were coded into 34 different response themes.
Top response themes | Number of responses |
---|---|
General support for improved equality | 3 |
Concern about equality in rural areas | 2 |
Concern about needs of blue badge holders | 2 |
Number of respondents – 41 (excluding ‘No comment’, ‘Out of scope’ etc.)
Key results:
- There was limited open response feedback on the EqIA, mostly advocating the prioritisation of older and / or disabled people.
- Some respondents indicated that since EqIA was incomplete / yet to be finalised, they felt unable to provide substantive feedback at this stage.
Section F - Overall support / further comments
Respondents were asked a closed question (question F1) about their overall support for the draft LTP4 on a five point scale from ‘Strongly agree’ to ‘Strongly disagree’, inclsuing options for ‘do not know’ and ‘do not wish to answer’. They were then given the opportunity to provide any further comments at the end of the section.
Response | Percentage of respondents |
---|---|
Strongly agree | 25.4% |
Somewhat agree | 32.8% |
Neither agree or disagree | 11.1% |
Somewhat disagree | 10.4% |
Strongly disagree | 12.5% |
Do not know | 7.7% |
Number of respondents – 737 (excluding ‘Not answered’ and ‘Do not wish to answer’)
Key results:
- 58% of respondents support the East Sussex draft Local Transport Plan 4.
- 22% of respondents do not support the draft Local Transport Plan 4;
- 19% of respondents answered either ‘Neither agree or disagree’ or ‘Do not know’.
Respondents were then given the opportunity to provide any further comments (question F2). An open question coding method has been used in the analysis of this question. A total of 644 different points were made within all the open responses, and these were coded into 81 different response themes.
Top ten response themes | Number of responses |
---|---|
Concern about deliverability of objectives | 44 |
Concern regarding costs | 30 |
Concern about the efficiency and reliability of buses | 26 |
Concern about the quality of roads / road surfaces | 24 |
Concern about level of information provided | 24 |
General support for objectives | 23 |
Concern about survey design | 22 |
Concern about road safety | 22 |
Support for more, safer cycle routes | 20 |
Support for more public transport connections to isolated rural areas | 18 |
Number of respondents – 325 (excl. ‘No comment’, ‘Out of scope’ etc.)
Key results:
- Further comments most frequently related to the delivery of objectives / LTP4 and associated costs.
- Concerns around the consultation itself account for two of the top ten themes;
- The rest of the top ten themes are transport modally focused
Section G – ‘About You’
Analysis methodology
Respondents had the opportunity to opt out and not respond to any of the ‘About You’ questions.
The responses analysed are based on the 744 online and postal submissions.
Some responses have been removed from individual questions analysis. These include responses to questions in this section that cannot be grouped into a reported category and inappropriate, rude or offensive responses.
Age
Respondents had an open text box to input their age, for ease of reporting ages have been grouped into ranges. Of the responses 24 have been removed and 3 respondents did not answer the question.
Age group | Percentage of respondents (survey) | East Sussex (Census) |
---|---|---|
Under 18 | 0.5% | 18.8% |
18 to 29 | 3.6% | 11.1% |
30 to 39 | 7.3% | 10.7% |
40 to 49 | 16.7% | 11.6% |
50 to 59 | 19.1% | 14.9% |
60 to 69 | 19.8% | 13.2% |
70 to 79 | 23.2% | 12.3% |
80 to 89 | 5.6% | 6.0% |
90 and over | 0.0% | 1.5% |
Not answered / removed | 4.1% |
Sources: LTP4 survey and East Sussex in Figures
The key results are:
- Young (under 30) and younger (30-39) people are underrepresented in responding to the consultation. However, the analysis does not include the young people involved in the Youth Cabinet or SEND Ambassadors workshops.
- There were no responses from people aged 90 or over.
- There was a higher proportion of people aged 40-79 who responded to the survey, compared to the age profile of the county.
- The number of people aged 80-89 who responded is equivalent to the proportion of this age range within the county’s age profile.
Gender
Respondents had a number of tick boxes to respond to the question, including an open box for those who prefer to self-describe. Off the responses 1 has been removed, 116 respondents prefer not to say and 17 respondents did not answer.
Gender | Percentage of respondents (survey) | East Sussex (Census) |
---|---|---|
Female | 44.4% | 52.0% |
Male | 38.0% | 48.0% |
Non-binary | 0.3% | Data not captured |
Prefer to self-describe | 0.0% | Data not captured |
Prefer not to say / not answered / removed | 17.3% |
Sources: LTP4 survey and East Sussex in Figures
Note 1: The number of people who identify as non-binary in East Sussex is 280 (and 0.31% of respondents who identify as non-binary responded to the survey), and this East Sussex figure has been taken from data on sexual orientation, and the 2021 Census did not include ‘non-binary’ as a response option to the question of “What is your sex?”. Therefore, not data on gender that includes non-binary or other self-described options is available to analyse.
The key results (of respondents who identified their gender) are:
- More people who identify as female than male completed the survey, which is the opposite of the gender split in the county.
- 0.3% people who identify as non-binary also completed the survey.
The about you questions also asked whether the respondents gender they identify with is the same as their sex registered at birth. In analysing this question. 3 responses have been removed, 115 respondents preferred not to say and 34 respondents did not answer.
Is the gender you identify with the same as your sex registered at birth | Percentage of respondents (survey) | East Sussex (Census) |
---|---|---|
Yes | 80.2% | 99.6% |
No | 0.1% | 0.4% |
Prefer not to say / not answered / removed | 19.6% |
The key results (of respondents who answered yes or no) are:
- 99.84% of respondents’ gender is the same as their sex registered at birth. This is slightly higher than the East Sussex profile.
Ethnic Group
Respondents had a number of tick boxes to respond to the question, including an open box for those whose wish to identify an ethnic group option not provided. Of the responses, 2 have been removed, 160 preferred not to say and 34 respondents did not answer the question.
Ethnic group | Percentage of respondents (survey) | East Sussex (Census) |
---|---|---|
White English / Welsh / Scottish / Northern Irish / British | 72.6% | 88.3% |
White Irish | 0.6% | 0.8% |
White Roma | 0.1% | 0.1 |
Any other White background | 3.5% | 4.5% |
Mixed White and Black Caribbean | 0.3% | 0.5% |
Mixed White and Asian | 0.6% | 0.7% |
Any other Mixed or Multiple Background | 0.1% | 0.6% |
Asian or Asian British Indian | 0.4% | 0.6% |
Asian or Asian British Pakistani | 0.1% | 0.1% |
Any other Asian background | 0.3% | 0.8% |
Caribbean | 0.1% | 0.2% |
Any other ethnic group | 0.3% | 0.7% |
Prefer not to say / not answered / removed | 20.9% |
Sources: LTP4 survey and East Sussex in Figures
Note1: Only ethnic groups with a response of 1 or more have been included.
Note 2 East Sussex in Figures reports ‘White Roma’ alongside ‘White other’ in a category known as “White Other, including Roma”
Key results (of respondents who identified their ethnic group) are:
- Overall, the profile of respondents who responded with their ethnic group is similar to the ethnic group profile of East Sussex.
- The survey had a slightly higher proportion of respondents who identified their ethnic group who identify as ‘White English/Welsh/Scottish/Northern Irish/British’ compared to the East Sussex profile.
- A number of ethnic groups did not have any representation in the LTP4 survey (together they represent 1.99% of the East Sussex population). These groups are ‘White Gypsy/Irish Traveller’, ‘Mixed White and Black African’, ‘Asian or Asian British Bangladeshi’, ‘Asian or Asian British Chinese’, ‘African background’, ‘Any other Black, Black British or Caribbean Background’ and ‘Arab’
Sexual Orientation
Respondents had a number of tick boxes to respond to the question, including an open box for those whose wish to self-describe their sexual orientation. Of the responses, 1 has been excluded, 222 respondents preferred not to say and 36 respondents did not respond.
Sexual Orientation | Percentage of respondents (survey) | East Sussex (Census) |
---|---|---|
‘Straight’ / Heterosexual | 67.2% | 96.39% |
Bisexual | 0.8% | 1.32% |
Gay or Lesbian | 2.6% | 1.96% |
Prefer to self-describe | 0.6% | 0.32% |
Prefer not to say / not answered / removed | 28.8% |
The key results (of respondents who identified their sexual orientation) are:
- More people who identify as ‘Gay or Lesbian’ responded to this question, compared to the East Sussex profile. This resulted in a slightly lower proportion of people who identify as ‘’Straight’ / Heterosexual’.
- The LTP4 survey also had a slightly higher proportion of people responded who prefer to self-describe their sexual orientation. Self-described sexual orientations included ‘Asexual’, ‘Pansexual’ and ‘Queer’.
Religion or Belief
Respondents had a number of tick boxes to respond to the question, including an open box for those whose wish identify as a religion or philosophical belief not listed. Of the responses, 2 have been excluded and 162 respondents preferred not to say and 39 respondents did not answer.
Religion or belief | Percentage of respondents (survey) | East Sussex (Census) |
---|---|---|
No Religion | 37.7% | 47.81% |
Christian | 32.0% | 49.04% |
Buddhist | 0.6% | 0.5% |
Hindu | 0.1% | 0.4% |
Jewish | 0.5% | 0.2% |
Muslim | 0.3% | 1.2% |
Sikh | 0.0% | <0.1% |
Any other religion | 0.9% | 0.8% |
Philosophical Belief | 1.6% | Data not captured |
Prefer not to say / not answered / removed | 26.2% |
Sources: LTP4 survey and East Sussex in Figures
Note 1: The census data does not include an a ‘Philosophical Belief’ option.
The key results (of respondents who identified their religion or belief) are:
- The majority of respondents identify either as ‘Christian’ or having ‘No Religion’. For the survey, more respondents identified as having ‘No Religion’ than the profile of East Sussex. The opposite is seen for people who identify as ‘Christian’.
- No-one who identifies as ‘Sikh’ responded to the survey.
- The number of respondents who identify as one of the other identified religions are generally similar to the proportion of East Sussex residents.
Health and disability
Respondents had a number of tick boxes to respond to the question. Of the responses, 2 have been excluded, 177 respondents preferred not to say and 34 did not answer the question.
Do you have a physical or mental health conditions or illnesses lasting or expecting to last 12 months or more? | Percentage of respondents (survey) |
---|---|
Yes | 21.1% |
No | 55.8% |
Prefer not to say / not answered / removed | 23.1% |
The key results (of respondents who answered yes or no) are:
- Over a quarter of respondents have a physical or mental health condition that affects their day-to-day activity.
Those who responded that they have a physical or mental health conditions or illnesses lasting or expected to last 12 months or more were invited to self-identify whether any or their conditions or illnesses reduce their ability to carry out day-to-day activities. Of the 163 ‘yes’ responses to the previous question, 0 have been excluded and 3 respondents prefer not to say.
Do any of your conditions or illnesses reduce your ability to carry out day-to-day activities? | Percentage of respondents (survey) |
---|---|
Yes, a lot | 28.8% |
Yes, a little | 53.4% |
Not at all | 16.0% |
Prefer not to say / not answered | 1.8% |
Sources: LTP4 survey
The key results are:
- 53% of respondents selected that their day-to-day activities are impacted a little.
- 29 % of respondents selected that their day-to-day activities are impacted a lot.
- The remainder of the respondents selected that their day-to-day activities are not impacted.
Spatial geographical distribution
Respondents had an open box to respond to the question. Of the responses, 1 was removed, 10 had a postcode that spans one or more district or borough within East Sussex and 162 are unknown (respondents preferred not to say, did not answer or the provided postcode is not recognised).
Spatial Distribution of responses (districts/boroughs or outside county) | Percentage of respondents (survey) |
---|---|
Eastbourne | 4.8% |
Hastings | 15.5% |
Lewes | 14.0% |
Rother | 10.2% |
Wealden | 29.7% |
Outside East Sussex | 2.5% |
Postcode split across districts | 1.3% |
Unknown postcode / not answered / removed | 22.1% |
Sources: LTP4 survey
Note 1: Split district is where the postcode information provided spans two or more district and/or borough authority areas within East Sussex.
Spatial distribution of responses (East Sussex districts/boroughs) | Percentage of respondents (survey) | East Sussex (Census) |
---|---|---|
Eastbourne | 6.4% | 18.6% |
Hastings | 20.9% | 16.7% |
Lewes | 18.8% | 18.3% |
Rother | 13.8% | 17.1% |
Wealden | 40.1% | 29.3% |
Sources: LTP4 survey and East Sussex in Figures
Excludes postcodes in East Sussex split across two or more local authority areas, unknown postcodes of postcodes outside East Sussex.
The key results (of identified postcodes) are:
- Majority of respondents live in East Sussex (97%).
- Some respondents live outside the county (3%) or have an unknown postcode.
- Of East Sussex postcodes, respondents from Eastbourne are under-represented whilst respondents from Wealden are over-represented when compared to the population profile of the county.
Library drop-in sessions topics
216 people attended our library drop-in sessions. During these sessions a range of topics were discussed. These are summarised below.
Active travel
- Cycling infrastructure (require more).
- Cycle parking.
- Cycle signage.
- Cycle quiet routes.
- Health benefits.
- Public rights of way materials.
- Public rights of way routes.
- Routes (suggestions and require more).
- Rural challenges for cycling.
Buses, Bus Service Improvement Plan and community transport
- Affordability (can be viewed as expensive, £2 single fares welcomed).
- Bus Service Improvement Plan proposals (general discussion).
- Bus Service Improvement Plan service enhancements (positive and negative).
- Bus stop infrastructure (including bus stations).
- Bus priority.
- Community transport offer and community needs.
- Electric buses.
- English National Concessionary Travel Scheme (ENCTS) passes.
- Flexibus (positive and negative experiences and journey queries).
- Frequency and timings of buses (including express buses).
- Interchanging between services and other modes.
- Partnership working.
- Park and ride opportunities.
- Passenger information (offline network maps and timetables).
- Presentation of vehicles (dirty and bespoke liveries).
- Pushchair and vehicle accessibility.
- Real-time information (unreliability and new locations).
- Reliability of services.
- Routing of buses (positive, negative and suggestions (including express buses)).
- Services turning short of and starting later than destination/origin due to late running – not helpful if you don’t know area and bus service is not a turn up and go frequency (i.e. every 10-15 minutes).
- Timetable integration with rail.
- Wheelchair and vehicle accessibility.
Highway/road
- Congestion and slow vehicle speeds (local roads and main corridors).
- Historic proposals.
- Junctions.
- Maintenance.
- Markings.
- Rat running.
- Road pricing.
- Road safety – general.
- Road safety – speed limits (including lower and 20mph).
- Roadworks (including impact of).
- Parking (including pavement parking and parking standards).
- Pavement widths.
- Pedestrian crossings.
Rail
- Acceptance of bus tickets during disruption.
- Affordability (expensive).
- Electrification.
- Impact of level crossings (congestion).
- Interchanging between services and other modes.
- Reinstating historical connections and alignments.
- Timetables at stations (printed on display).
- Timetable integration with buses.
Local Transport Plan 3
- Review of LTP3 (published alongside LTP4).
Local Transport Plan 4
- Draft Implementation Plan proposals.
- Funding.
- Priorities.
- Sensitivity testing strategy.
- Stakeholder engagement for individual schemes.
- Targets.
Other
- Air quality.
- Aviation and Gatwick Airport.
- Coastal erosion.
- Community pride.
- Cross county boundary schemes.
- Current scheme proposals.
- Demographics and geography of the county.
- E-scooters.
- Electric vehicles.
- Local Plans, development and access.
- Meridian Centre redevelopment and accessing alternative stores.
- Potential for vandalism.
- Publicity to generate modal shift.
- Safe spaces.
- School travel.
- Taxis (fewer of them).