Development stage - consultation report
Stage 2 Consultation Report
Presenting LTP4 development stage consultation report
These pages present the Local Transport Plan 4's stage 2 (development) consultation report.
Please use the contents and/or index links on the left to navigate around the document. Content links take you to individual chapters, and the index links take you to sections within that chapter.
Should you have any queries, please contact the Local Transport Plan team via email at LocalTransportPlan@EastSussex.gov.uk or by telephone (0345 60 80 190) and ask for the Local Transport Plan Team.
1. Executive Summary
LTP4 Stage 2 Consultation Report
The Local Transport Plan 4 (LTP4) Stage 2 engagement and consultation focussed on seeking views on the development of the draft strategy, draft Investment Plan and supporting documents.
This was alongside a public consultation which was undertaken between Monday 27 November 2023 and Sunday 25 February 2024 via the East Sussex County Council Citizen Space (online consultation hub) with paper versions also available.
The consultation was informed by the lessons learnt following the Stage 1 consultation (Autumn 2022), which included exploring further opportunities with groups where these was a lower response rate (e.g. businesses and young people).
The purpose of the Stage 2 - Engagement was to:
- Develop a strategy with input from a range of stakeholder representatives.
- Establish stakeholder support for the vision, objectives and outcomes.
- Identify whether the schemes within the draft implementation plan would support the vision and objectives.
The draft strategy involved continuous engagement with over 100 representatives, through three key stakeholder groups including:
- an East Sussex County Council Member Reference Group, comprising of cross-party members of the Place Scrutiny Committee,
- internal East Sussex County Council officers and
- local stakeholders.
Regular workshops were held enabling input into the draft strategy, investment plan and supporting documents.
Stage 2 – Public consultation
The consultation was promoted to all key county wide stakeholders and was shared by East Sussex County Council Members and by officers involved in the development of LTP4 to their respective networks. The consultation was also promoted via the council’s social media and communication materials in all Council libraries and other council public facing offices.
Officers were available at drop-in sessions at all council libraries on weekdays, with the larger and busier libraries also visited on a Saturday. Over 200 conversations were had at the library drop-in sessions. In addition two workshops were held with young people who represent the Councils Youth Cabinet and Special Educational Needs and Disabilities (SEND) Ambassador groups to seek their views.
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 postal responses.
- 67 responses by email.
- 216 conversations at libraries.
Response to engagement and consultation
The engagement with the East Sussex County Council cross party Member Reference Group, internal officers and local stakeholders, resulted in the development of a draft LTP4 for consultation that was reflective of the range of views of all those participating and the groups that they were representing, culminating in agreement to the draft LTP4, prior to publication for consultation.
Where completed, the ‘about you’ analysis indicated that the type of respondents broadly matched the profile for East Sussex with a few exceptions (age, religion or belief, sexual orientation and geographical distribution).
The review of the survey questions responses demonstrate support for the LTP4, with suggestions and concerns raised in the open questions.
Feedback has been collated and this report provides a response to this and actions or recommendations that have been taken in further updates to LTP4.
2. Introduction
Introduction
This report provides an overview and analysis of the engagement undertaken as part of Stage 2 – development of the East Sussex Local Transport Plan 4 (LTP4).
The purpose of the Stage 2 engagement was to:
- Develop a strategy with input from a range of stakeholder representatives.
- Establish stakeholder’ support for the vision, objectives and outcomes.
- Identify whether the schemes within the draft implementation plan would support the vision and objectives.
In order to understand these key questions, the Stage 2 engagement encompassed:
- Strategy development with three key groups (January 2023 to November 2024). 1) Member representatives – working as a reference group comprising members of the Place Scrutiny Committee. 2) Officer representatives –from across the directorates and service areas within the Council. 3) Local Stakeholder representatives – including local authorities, user groups, operators and service providers.
- Project Board – senior officers to oversee the development of LTP4.
- Targeted engagement with East Sussex County Council members and officers and key local stakeholders (e.g. operators, active travel groups etc.) to inform strategy development.
- A 13-week public consultation on the draft strategy (27 November 2023 to 25 February 2024)
After the public consultation, engagement continued with Members, officer representatives and Project Board from March to August 2024 providing updates on the outcomes of the consultation and recommended changes to the draft strategy in response to the consultation outcomes.
3. Lessons and actions from Stage 1 Consultation
Lessons and actions
The Stage 1 consultation (October-December 2022) report identified a number of lessons learnt and proposed actions for future engagement. This report recaps on those lessons and suggested actions. This is alongside the actions undertaken at Stage 2.
| Lesson learnt | Proposed action | Actions undertaken for stage 2 | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Participation in engagement with Business owners. Very low levels of response on the OEP from respondents identifying as business owners (1%) . |
Key organisations representing the business sector to join LTP4 Stage 2 – Strategy Development – Local Stakeholder Group – to help inform strategy development. Further attendance at TES – to request input on how East Sussex County Council should engage with business on consultation of draft LTP4 Strategy, to maximise input from the business sector. Attendance at other Business Forums (Chambers of commerce etc.) in the County – closer to the consultation/or during the consultation on the draft LTP4. |
Invited 3 representatives from the business sector to be on our Local Stakeholder Group that informed strategy development. LTP4 Team attended TES (May and December 2023), including asking the question of how best to engage with the sector and offer attendance at other events during consultation if required. |
|
| Participation in engagement with Younger people (including young adults). The majority of responses to the online engagement platform were from those ages 35-74 with very little engagement from those under 35 with no under 18s responding, only 1% of respondents aged 18-24 and 5% from those aged 25-34. |
Re-engagement with East Sussex County Council’s Youth Council – to identify priorities for transport and input on how best to engage with young people on the draft LTP4 strategy. Engagement with East Sussex County Council Special Educational Needs and Disabilities (SEND) Ambassadors - identify priorities and barriers in relation to transport and input on how best to engage with young people on the draft LTP4 strategy. Consider cross generational consultation event (young people and older people) on the draft LTP4. Identify influencers from the East Sussex County Council ‘s Youth Council – to promote the LTP4 consultation to young people through social media - format to be agreed. Promote the LTP4 consultation through East Sussex County Council Children Services – Virtual School Bag. |
In person workshop with Youth Cabinet in December 2024, looking at how ‘Young People travel’, why people choose one mode over another and reviewing proposed schemes within the investment plan and any gaps? 45 minute virtual workshop with SEND Ambassadors in February 2024, looking at their experiences of travelling and reviewing the proposed schemes in the investment plan –and identifying any gaps. LTP4 was promoted through Children’s Services and their networks including the virtual school bag and at Family Centres. |
|
| Underestimating set-up times for school engagement sessions. | Incorporating longer set up time into lesson plans. | No direct school engagement done as part of stage 2, beyond promotion through virtual school bag. | |
| The range of age of students in some sessions made it difficult to provide engaging sessions for all students for the duration of the session. This was more apparent in primary schools. | Further engagement should target subgroups of children closer in age to ensure material can be well tailored to their capabilities. | No direct school engagement done as part of stage 2, beyond promotion through virtual school bag. |
4. Strategy development engagement & draft strategy consultation planning
Engagement and consultation planning
Throughout the development of the draft LTP4 strategy we worked with stakeholder representatives, totalling around 100 people, as follows:
- Elected Member representation – reference group comprising members of the Place Scrutiny Committee
- County Council Officer representatives – cross directorate representation of directorates and services
- Local Stakeholder representation, representatives of local stakeholders including:
- Districts, Boroughs, National Park Authority and Sub National Transport Body – Transport for the South East.
- Transport operators and infrastructure providers.
- Business, culture and voluntary sectors.
- User groups.
In addition to the regular series of workshops with the above stakeholder representatives we also presented to other stakeholder groups on progress and key aspects emerging from the strategy development.
We also sought input on engagement approaches with stakeholders during the public consultation period and to promote the consultation as the public consultation period launch date approached. Such engagement included the following group types:
- Business representatives.
- Community groups and partnerships.
- Young people.
- Disability Groups.
- District, Boroughs and South Downs National Park.
- Transport operators.
- Other East Sussex County Council teams who would disseminate information to their networks (e.g. Public Health).
5. Strategy consultation - engagement
Overview
As part of the consultation we have undertaken engagement with a range of stakeholders and groups using different methods. This section sets out these engagement activities alongside the key themes and feedback arising from the engagement. Throughout we encouraged individuals, groups and organisations to respond to the consultation via our online consultation hub – Citizen Space (or postal survey).
Presentations
Prior to the launch of, and during the draft LTP4 consultation itself, the LTP team presented at various groups to promote the consultation and to start/continue conversations about transport in the county. Presentations were given to the following:
- East Sussex County Council Councillors.
- Local authorities (districts, boroughs, South Downs National Park and Transport for the South East).
- Team East Sussex (business community representatives from East Sussex).
- Culture East Sussex (culture community representatives from East Sussex).
- Youth Cabinet.
- SEND Ambassadors.
- Transport operators and infrastructure providers.
- User groups.
- Southeast Community Rail Partnership (SCRP) Lines in East Sussex.
- Southeast Community Rail Partnership Stakeholder Advisory Board.
- Tourism organisations.
Emails
Emails were sent to stakeholders during week commencing 27 November 2023 advising that the public consultation period had started. The email also provided online links to the draft strategy and supporting documentation, and asked people to share this information more widely with their networks.
Further emails were also sent to stakeholders in early February 2024 reminding that there were three weeks until the end of the consultation period. Similar to the November 2023 email, the reminder email contained links to the draft strategy and consultation. It also thanked those who had already responded.
A high level summary of the groups included in our November 2023 and early February 2024 emails:
- Regional and Local government (e.g. district, borough, town and parish councils)
- Sub-regional government and organisations
- Transport operators and infrastructure providers
- Community and user groups
- Groups and organisations representing the business and culture sectors
- Members of the public
- Other East Sussex Council teams in different directorates and services.
Social media
Our Communications Team created and shared information across social media channels publicising the consultation and how people can get involved. Posts were created and shared/posted throughout the period of the consultation.
A press release was also issued at the start of the consultation period.
Other promotion activity
A number of posters were created and displayed (for example in all County Council libraries, on Cuckmere Buses, South Downs National Park Authority - Seven Sisters Visitors Centre).
Specific engagement events held as part of the consultation process
Public - Library drop-in sessions
To make the team and consultation as accessible as possible to groups and the public, LTP4 drop-in sessions were held in every East Sussex County Council library across the county.
Each library was visited on a weekday and five larger or busier libraries were also visited on a Saturday.
These included:
| Date | Location and times |
|---|---|
| Thursday 12 December 2023 | Bexhill Library. 10am to 12.30pm and 1.30pm to 4pm. |
| Thursday 14 December 2023 | Seaford Library. 10am to 6pm. |
| Thursday 04 January 2024 | Eastbourne Library. 10am to 6pm. |
| Wednesday 10 January 2024 | Wadhurst Library. 10am to 1pm. |
| Thursday 11 January 2024 | Hastings Library. 10am to 1.15pm and 2pm to 6pm. |
| Saturday 13 January 2024 | Lewes Library. 10am to 5pm. |
| Monday 15 January 2024 | Heathfield Library. 10am to 1pm. |
| Friday 19 January 2024 | Rye Library. 10am to 12.30pm and 1.30pm to 4pm. |
| Saturday 20 January 2024 | Crowborough Library. 10am to 3pm. |
| Tuesday 23 January 2024 | Battle Library. 10am to 12.30pm and 1.30pm to 4pm. |
| Friday 26 January 2024 | Peacehaven Library. 10am to 1pm. |
| Friday 26 January 2024 | Newhaven Library. 1.30pm to 4.30pm. |
| Saturday 27 January 2024 | Uckfield Library 10am to 3pm. |
| Monday 29 January 2024 | Forest Row Library. 2pm to 5pm. |
| Thursday 01 February 2024 | Uckfield Library. 10am to 6pm. |
| Saturday 03 February 2024 | Eastbourne Library. 10am to 3pm. |
| Monday 05 February 2024 | Hampden Park Library 10am to 1pm. |
| Monday 05 February 2024 | Hailsham Library 1pm to 4pm. |
| Tuesday 06 February 2024 | Crowborough Library. 11am to 3pm. |
| Saturday 10 February 2024 | Hastings Library. 10am to 3pm. |
| Thursday 15 February 2024 | Lewes Library. 2pm to 4.30pm. |
| Tuesday 20 February 2024.. | Hollington Library. 11am to 3pm |
In total across all library drop-in sessions 216 engagements and views were provided with people who attended specifically for the event or who saw us and stopped for a discussion.
A summary of the outcome of conversations held during the library drop-in events can be found in the key findings section of this report.
Members and Officers
No specific events for Members or officers were held during the consultation period. Before the consultation period, events were held in mid-November 2023 to summarise the strategy for Member Reference Group and all County Council Members.
Young People
Our stage 1 consultation indicated that younger people were a demographic group that were under-represented in providing feedback at the stage 1 consultation.
As such additional engagement was undertaken during the Stage 2 consultation and engagement with both the Youth Cabinet and SEND Ambassadors as representatives for their peer group within East Sussex through the following:
- Attendance (in-person) at a Youth Cabinet meeting (December 2023) – 1 hour workshop
- Attendance (virtual) as a SEND Ambassador meeting (February 2024) – 1 hour workshop
For both Youth Cabinet and SEND Ambassadors a number of activities were prepared, that enabled discussion around the draft LTP4 Strategy and Implementation Plan. These activities were designed to get feedback from the young people in attendance and encourage them to think about how they use transport.
The young people in attendance at both events were also encouraged to respond to the consultation and to let their peers know about LTP4 and how they can get involved.
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).
7. Actions following feedback
Introduction
This section summarises the Councils responses to the feedback received during the stage 2 consultation.
A summary of the key changes to the strategy and Implementation Plan are summarised below.
Key changes to the strategy
- Relocated and strengthened the reference to ‘decide and provide’ approach set out in the strategy.
- Improved references to engagement and communication, specifically around scheme development.
- Improved references relating to different users (people walking, wheeling and cycling, equestrian users).
- Strengthened references regarding travel behaviour change.
- Improved references to accessing healthcare.
- Highlighted that the opportunities for infrastructure and service improvements, specifically for active travel and buses, will be included as part of the review of the Bus Service Improvement Plan (BSIP) and the Local Cycling & Walking Infrastructure Plan (LCWIP).
- Strengthened the references to sustainable development and links to recent updates to district and boroughs Local Plans.
- Reviewed highway maintenance and links to active travel.
- Strengthened references to coastal management and flooding and links to transport infrastructure.
- Strengthened reference to biodiversity net gain and the local nature recovery strategy.
- Referenced emerging strategic priorities – new national government
Key changes to the Implementation Plan
- Amended name to an ‘Investment Plan’ and restructured document. This change reflects the aspirational nature of the LTP, the unsecured funding status of interventions and the title aligns with that used by the Transport for the South East.
- Highlighted LTP4 is an aspirational strategy that will be used to secure investment (but needs to demonstrate ambition to help secure funding).
- Deliverability, strengthen references to the availability of funding (especially in the current financial climate) and that the plan is subject to the ability of East Sussex County Council and their partners in seeking and securing funding.
- Strengthened text focussed on scheme scale (i.e. localised measures or strategic schemes) and likely types of funding that will be required to be secured.
- Strengthened explanation of the roles and responsibilities in delivering the plan, with a separate section
- New sub section covering engagement and consultation to demonstrate the approaches that may be required to bring schemes forward that align with a stronger policy context relating to the decarbonisation of transport.
- New sub section on the governance of the LTP4 in terms of the management of the delivery and the continued engagement with officers and stakeholders who have supported the development of LTP4.
- Renamed monitoring and evaluation section to ‘measuring success’ to potentially include specific indicators to enable monitoring (but not targets as the plan is subject to funding being secured).
Appendix A - Survey questions on the strategy
Overview
The questions asked during the consultation are presented below. Sections A and G questions have been summarised. All other sections have the questions written in full.
Closed questions are those where the respondent ticks the appropriate answer. In this survey all closed questions in sections B, C, D, E and F had response options of:
- Strongly agree
- Somewhat agree
- Neither agree or disagree
- Somewhat disagree
- Strongly disagree
- Do not know
- Do not wish to answer
Open questions are where a respondent can write their own response. The online survey had a limit of 3,000 characters for these questions.
Section A – Respondent information
- A1 – What is your name?
- A2 – What is your email address?
- A3 – What is your main mode of travel for everyday journeys?
- A4 – Who are you responding on behalf of?
- A5 – What is the name of your business, organisation or group?
- A6 – Please identify whether you are [an elected representative].
Section B – Vision and objectives
- B1 - How strongly do you agree or disagree with our vision for East Sussex? (Closed question)
- B2 - Does objective 1 and its outcomes support our vision? (Closed question)
- B3 - Does objective 2 and its outcomes support our vision? (Closed question)
- B4 - Does objective 3 and its outcomes support our vision? (Closed question)
- B5 - Does objective 4 and its outcomes support our vision? (Closed question)
- B6 - Does objective 5 and its outcomes support our vision? (Closed question)
- B7 - Does objective 6 and its outcomes support our vision? (Closed question)
- B8 - Do you wish to explain or add detail to any responses for questions in section B? (Open question)
Section C – Principles and policies
- C1 - How strongly do you agree or disagree with the principles that underpin LTP4? (Closed question)
- C2 - Do the policies in Theme A support objectives 3 and 4 (assuming sufficient funding)? (Closed question)
- C3 - Do the policies in Theme B support objective 2 (assuming sufficient funding)? (Closed question)
- C4 - Do the policies in Theme C support objective 1 (assuming sufficient funding)? (Closed question)
- C5 - Do the policies in Theme D support objectives 5 and 6 (assuming sufficient funding)? (Closed question)
- C6 - Do you wish to explain or add detail to any responses in section C? (Open question)
Section D – Implementation Plan
- D1 - How strongly do you agree with the proposed interventions in the Implementation Plan that will deliver Theme A? (Closed question)
- D2 - How strongly do you agree or disagree with the proposed interventions in the Implementation Plan that will deliver Theme B? (Closed question)
- D3 - How strongly do you agree with the proposed interventions in the Implementation Plan that will deliver Theme C? (Closed question)
- D4 - How strongly do you agree with the proposed interventions in the Implementation Plan that will deliver Theme D? (Closed question)
- D5 - Have we missed any interventions that will deliver on Themes A, B, C and D? (Open question)
Section E – Supporting assessments
- E1 - Do you have any feedback on the Integrated Impact Assessment? (Open question)
- E2 - Do you have any feedback on the Health Impact Assessment? (Open question)
- E3 - Do you have any feedback on the Strategic Environment Assessment? (Open question)
- E4 - Do you have any feedback on the Habitats Regulation Assessment? (Open question)
- E5 - Do you have any feedback on the Equalities Impact Assessment? (Open question)
Section F – Overall support / further comments
- F1 - To what extent do you support or not support the East Sussex draft Local Transport Plan? (Closed question)
- F2 - Do you have any further comments, not covered in the previous questions, that you wish to make? (Open question)
Section G - 'About you’ equalities monitoring questions.
- G1 – What age are you?
- G2 – What is your gender?
- G3 – Is the gender you identify with the same as your sex registered at birth?
- G4 – What is your ethnic group?
- G5 – Which of the following best describes your sexual orientation?
- G6 – What is your religion or belief?
- G7 – Do you have any physical or mental health conditions or illness lasting or expected to last 12 months or more?
- G7b – Do any of your conditions or illnesses reduce your ability to carry out day-to-day activities?
- G7c – if ‘yes’ please state the condition or illness.
- G8 – Please tell us your postcode.