Scoping stage - consultation report

1. Introduction


1.1 This report provides an overview and analysis of the engagement undertaken as part of Stage 1 – Scoping for the development of the East Sussex County Council (ESCC) Local Transport Plan 4 (LTP4). The purpose of the Stage 1 engagement was to understand:

  • stakeholders’ priorities for travel and transport,
  • the key issues people encounter in relation to travel and transport, and
  • what opportunities there are for improving travel across the County

1.2 In order to understand these three key questions, the Stage 1 engagement encompassed:

  • targeted engagement with ESCC members and officers and key local stakeholders (e.g. operators, active travel groups etc)
  • targeted young person’s engagement with primary and secondary schools and further education colleges, and a
  • public consultation

1.3 The overall engagement programme was undertaken between September 2022 and January 2023, with the public consultation specifically available between 31 October 2022 and 9 December 2022.

Structure of document

This report covers the activities which took place during the stage one engagement phase for the ESCC LTP 4 development. The report includes:

  • Chapter 2: Engagement methodology
  • Chapter 3: Officers, members and stakeholder meetings: an overview of the items raised at targeted meetings with specific stakeholders.
  • Chapter 4: Online consultation: an overview and analysis of outputs from the online consultation, hosted on the online engagement platform;
  • Chapter 5: Young person’s engagement: an overview of the activities undertaken with young people;
  • Chapter 6: Key findings and lessons learned: summary of the findings of the Stage 1 engagement, both in terms of the what the LTP should focus, but also the areas of engagement that should be improved upon in later engagement stages.

2. Engagement methodology

2.1 This chapter sets out the engagement methodology which was undertaken as part of the Stage 1 scoping for the development of the LTP. The three main audiences which were targeted as part of Stage 1 engagement were:

  • ESCC members and officers;
  • Key local stakeholders;
  • Young persons at local primary, secondary and further educations colleges; and
  • The general public.

Targeted engagement with ESCC members, officers and key local stakeholders

2.2 The following groups or organisations were engaged:

  • ESCC members
  • ESCC Officers
  • Stakeholder organisations/groups 
    • District & Borough Councils
    • Transport User Group
    • Bus Operators Group
    • Gatwick Airport
    • Sustrans
    • Newhaven Port Authority
    • Network Rail
    • National Highways
    • Attendance at business sector and voluntary sector groups

2.3 Meetings were held either online or ESCC officers attended meetings of the stakeholder group in person. At each meeting the stakeholders were presented with the progress and potential direction of the new LTP. A Q&A session was also held enabling attendees to ask questions and provide additional information from their perspective.

Targeted young person’s engagement with primary and secondary schools and further education colleges

2.4 The aim for the young person’s engagement was to engage with students from 2 primary schools (one urban and one rural), 2 secondary schools (one urban and one rural) and 2 further education colleges (one urban and one rural).

2.5 Two sets of lesson plans were developed, a lesson plan for primary schools and a lesson plan for secondary schools and further education colleges with the aim of understanding any current issues with travel in County at the moment, what their travel behaviour motivations are and what they’d like to see in the future. Further detail on each activity for each lesson plan is provided in Chapter 5 of this report.

2.6 Sessions were run with the following schools and further education colleges:

  • Hurst Green Primary School;
  • Gildredge Park Primary School;
  • Seaford Secondary School;
  • Uckfield College Secondary School; and
  • East Sussex College (Lewes and Eastbourne Campuses).

Public engagement

2.7 To engage with all stakeholders in the County (including residents), a public consultation was held via an Online Engagement Platform (OEP) which was accessed through the responders’ internet browser. The OEP enabled respondents to:

  • Provide comments on the proposed themes;
  • Identify transport related issues and opportunities through open questions and placing pins on a map.

2.8 To note: Where pins were located in the sea or in areas outside of East Sussex were identified on the map, checks were made to see if they were referring to a specific location or area wide feedback. Those which were relating to more general items were retained for analysis.

Engagement analysis

2.9 The methodology undertaken for analysing the results from the OEP involved closed and open question analysis.

2.10 Open questions were analysed through the use of code frames and assigning each issue or opportunity raised by respondents in their response a code. The use of coding allows the same issue or opportunity 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 issue or opportunity was made by respondents.

2.11 Where respondents answered questions with closed (discreet) answer options, these questions are summed and presented without further analysis, beyond that included within this report.

3. Engagement with ESCC Members, officers, and key stakeholders

3.1 As part of the management of the LTP4 project, the governance included the establishment of various groups represented by specific stakeholders, with their role being to both inform and challenge the review of the LTP4 Strategy.

3.2 These included the establishment of the following:

  • LTP4 Member Reference Group (Place)
  • LTP4 ESCC Officer Group
  • LTP4 ESCC Stakeholder Group(s)

3.3 During the consultation period engagement was undertaken with ESCC members, officers, and specific stakeholder groups. The engagement is set out in the following sub sections.

ESCC Members

  • LTP4 Member Reference Group (established from members of the County Council’s Place Committee to support the development of the plan) – meetings held with the Reference Group in October & December 2022
  • Briefings/Q&A for all ESCC members – October and November 2022


  • LTP4 Cross Authority Officer Group established - briefing – October & December 2022 with representatives from:
    • Adult Social Care;
    • Asset Management;
    • Childrens Services;
    • Economic Development;
    • Electric Vehicle Infrastructure;
    • Environment;
    • Equalities;
    • Infrastructure Planning & Place;
    • Highways;
    • Libraries;
    • Major Projects;
    • Public Health;
    • Road Safety;
    • Tourism and Culture;
    • Transport Development Control; and
    • Transport Hub (Passenger Transport).

Stakeholder Groups

3.4 For the purposes of Stage 1 of the development of the plan, engagement was undertaken with the following specific stakeholders:-

District & Borough Councils

  • District and borough council officers could also opt for individual meetings to discuss their early views.

Strategic Transport Partners

  • Transport User Group (including local walking, access, cycling, bus and rail groups) - November 2022
  • Bus Operators Group (Stagecoach, Brighton & Hove Bus Company and Cuckmere Buses (who attended to represent small bus operators) – November 2022
  • Gatwick Airport – December 2022
  • Sustrans – November 2022
  • Newhaven Port – November 2022
  • Network Rail – November 2022
  • National Highways – January 2023

Business sector

  • Team East Sussex (TES) (which is the local federated board for the South East Local Enterprise Partnership, and is made up of business, local authority, social enterprise and education representatives from across the county) - to promote the public consultation event – November 2022

Voluntary Sector

  • ‘Big Sparks’, county wide voluntary sector event in Eastbourne – November 2022
  • South East Community Rail Partnership meetings to promote the public consultation – November 2022
  • Eastbourne Disability Involvement Group meeting – November 2022

Other Stakeholders

  • All other stakeholders, were invited to participate in the public consultation, with further details included in Chapter 4 of this report.

Summary of engagement results

3.5 A total of 53 different comments were received from the meetings with these stakeholders. The comments which were raised have been sifted into three broad themes for ease:

  • Suggested areas for intervention,
  • Suggested supplementary documents for review; and
  • Suggested way to develop the LTP.

Suggestion of areas for intervention

3.6 Under this theme there were 30 points raised across the meetings with the above stakeholders, some the points raised under this theme included requests following:-

  • electric vehicle charging points programme,
  • mobility hubs,
  • road safety improvements,
  • alternative modes of travel to work from the car amongst others,
  • Focus on place,
  • Transport it important for food movement,
  • Global supply of materials for electric vehicles,
  • Protect nature,
  • Reflect national focus locally,
  • Funiculars as a form of transport,
  • Focus on taxis/ private hire,
  • Environmentally thoughtful forms of transport,
  • Faster journey times to town centres,
  • Joined up tourism offer,
  • Progressing exist6ing schemes with no delay,
  • Accessibility for all,
  • Alternative fuels,
  • Lift sharing programmes,
  • Building new roads will encourage more vehicles,
  • Road user charging,
  • Reduce dependency on cars,
  • Introduce parking controls,
  • Less road space to reduce congestions,
  • Free parking,
  • Support smaller bus operators to transition to zero-emission vehicles,
  • Support staff and passengers to get to LGW by sustainable modes,
  • Carbon assessments,
  • Schemes outside East Sussex will also benefit travel to and from the area,
  • Access for all stations.

Suggested supplementary document.

3.7 In addition to the LTP it was suggested that an Investment Plan which sits alongside the LTP will be important in ensuring the delivery of the LTP in East Sussex.

Suggestion on how to develop the LTP

3.8 Under this theme there were 22 points raised across the meetings with the above stakeholders, some of the comments raised under this theme include:

  • Creating an LTP which is future proof,
  • Plans for investment to deliver a decarbonised network,
  • link into local plans,
  • LTP and TfSE Strategy relationship,
  • Focus on demographics of travel,
  • Use locally available data,
  • Local collaboration on scheme development,
  • Objectives that not too optimistic,
  • Consider tourist trips,
  • Localised small scale interventions,
  • Aspirations on the quality of alternative modes,
  • Look at corridors and modes together,
  • The LTP to hold elected members to account to deliver change,
  • Don’t look at funding or schemes in isolation,
  • LGW access to hinterlands and the coastal communities,
  • Health, air quality, sense of place and local growth are key themes,
  • Review LCWIP to align with LTN1/20,
  • Update BSIP,
  • Multimodal approach to demonstrate integration,
  • Quietways to use mobility guidance.

3.9 A more detailed list of the comments received at meetings with stakeholders is provided in Appendix B. As we move into Stage 2 of developing the LTP, we will be taking this feedback and incorporating it into the development of the strategy.

4. Public engagement


4.1 To inform the development of the Stage 1 scoping phase of the development of the plan a critical element was engaging early with the public, to identify their key priorities, issues and opportunities for transport in the County.

4.2 Our approach was a digitally led option that involved the use of an online engagement platform (OEP) available via web browsers.

4.3 The OEP contained the following sections:

  • Introduction to LTPs and background information (including links to other documents);
  • About you questions;
  • Survey questions; and
  • Interactive map allowing respondents to place pins with issues or opportunities across the county and associate these with the listed themes.

4.4 Paper versions of the questions were also made available for those unable to access the OEP. These were made available in all ESCC libraries and from the LTP team upon request by phone or email to the ESCC LTP Team.

4.5 The ESCC LTP Team held targeted engagement sessions with key stakeholders (via virtual meetings) to discuss issues, challenges and opportunities were also held. All attendees were also encouraged to feedback through the OEP.

4.6 To help promote the consultation to the wider public, and particularly groups with protected characteristics, a number of events were attended, as outlined in paragraph 2.3.

4.7 The OEP went live on 31 October 2022 and the engagement period ended on 9 December 2022.

OEP/paper version questions

4.8 On the OEP, respondents were asked to answer the following four specific questions:

  • Which themes do you feel are most important?
  • Which other themes do you think we have missed?
  • What are the main issues in East Sussex?
  • What are the main opportunities in East Sussex?

4.9 In addition to the above specific questions, the OEP also provided a mapping tool where respondents could drop a pin and provide a comment for specific locations and categorise it under one of the following seven themes:

  • Accessibility, equity and social inclusion - East Sussex is striving to develop a transport network that is accessible and affordable for everyone and connects people to the places they need and want to go.
  • Safety, health and air quality - Creating safe travel for all modes and enabling individuals to walk and cycle will improve air quality and people’s health and wellbeing. Thereby, making the county a more attractive place to live, work, and visit.
  • Community and sense of place - Transport and measures which improve places (including neighbourhoods and local centres) are vital in connecting people to local services, supporting businesses, forming communities and creating a sense of place to enhance the overall quality of life for local people.
  • Climate change and its impacts - The transport sector is one of the biggest contributors to greenhouse gas emissions in the UK, encouraging modal shift to sustainable travel and reducing the number of private vehicles on the roads will be key components in achieving these climate goals.
  • Our local environment and biodiversity - New transport development can result in the loss of habitats and species or create indirect negative impacts through pollution and general disturbance. This will be a key consideration in scheme delivery which will look to either remove or minimise any impacts on the natural environment.
  • Sustainable economic development - A comprehensive and accessible transport network is an important enabler of economic growth, connecting people to education, training, employment and housing.
  • Innovation through technology - New technologies can and are transforming our daily lives and the way we travel (from planning to undertaking the journey). For example, innovations in electric vehicle technology and ‘green’ Hydrogen, demand-responsive transport services and improved digitalisation (e.g., high quality broadband).

4.10 In total there were 490 responses to the OEP or paper surveys and 30 emails submitted from stakeholders, organisations, business and residents during the consultation period.

Demographics of respondents

4.11 Respondents were first asked a number of demographic (“about you”) questions. These were optional questions, and the graphs below include the percentage of respondents who did not state a response. Respondents were asked their age, gender, race, and religion. In addition, respondents were asked to select in what capacity they were responding to the consultation; as a resident, business, elected member or in another capacity. This section reports on the responses to these demographic questions.

Respondent type

4.12 The key results for type of respondent are:

  • The majority of respondents (395) identify as resident.
  • 18 people identify as elected members;
  • 4 people identify as business owners; and
  • 7 people (10%) specified other, which includes Parish Council, community group; residents group and people who work and study in the area.

Ages of respondents

4.13 Key results are:

  • Most people responding to the surveys are aged between 35 and 85;
  • 110 (23%) respondents are aged 65-74;
  • The second highest age ranges were 45-54 and 55-64 (90 respondents within each age range); and
  • 10% of respondents (49 people) declined to identify their age range.

Gender of respondents

4.14 Key results are:

  • Most people responding to the survey identify as female (230 people (50%). Other key results include:
  • 189 people identify as male (41%);
  • 2 people identify as non-binary; and
  • 69 people (15%) declined to answer this question.


4.15 Key results are:

  • The majority of respondents (399 people (81%)) to this question identified as “White English / Welsh / Scottish / Northern Irish / British”.
  • 27 (6%) respondents answered ‘any other white background’; and
  • 11% (50 respondents) declined to answer to this question.


4.16 The key results are:

  • 221 (45%) of respondents identify as having ‘no religion’.
  • A third of respondents (165 people) identify as Christian;
  • 11 people (2%) identify as having a philosophical belief; and
  • 78 (16%) people declined to answer the question.

Analysis of responses on themes, issues and opportunities

4.17 On the engagement platform respondents were asked four specific questions:

  • Which themes do you feel are most important?
  • Which other themes do you think we have missed?
  • What do you think are the main issues in the area?
  • What do you think are the main opportunities in the area?

Important themes

4.18 Respondents were asked which themes they felt were the most important to them; respondents could select as many of the seven themes as they wanted.

4.19 472 people chose to answer this question. ‘Safety, health and air quality’ and ‘accessibility, equity and social inclusion’ were selected by more than three quarters of respondents (366 and 356 number of people respectively).

4.20 All themes except ‘Innovation through technology’ were selected by more than half of respondents.

4.21 The results of import themes are (472 responses):

  • Safety, health and air quality = 79%
  • Accessibility, equity and social inclusion = 77%
  • Climate change and its impacts = 68%
  • Our local environment and biodiversity = 64%
  • Community and sense of place = 60%
  • Sustainable economic development = 51%
  • Innovation through technology = 33%

Other missed themes

4.22 Respondents were asked what themes they thought had been missed in the seven themes. 266 people responded; people could enter more than one theme.

4.23 The top ten responses regarding missed themes were (241 respondents, 528 comments across 90 codes):

  • Promotion of active transport (8.1%)
  • Information provision for public transport (7.5%)
  • Concern about availability for public transport (6.3%)
  • No other themes (4.0%)
  • Reduce traffic (3.8%)
  • Affordability of public transport (3.5%)
  • Access to education and employment (3.5%)
  • Preserve natural environment (2.9%)
  • Reduce car dependency (2.7%)
  • Improve social inclusion and mobility (2.7%).

4.24 Key results include:

  • Public transport occurs the most, with respondents noting three distinctly different sub areas (information [39 comments, 7.5%], more public transport [33 comments, 6.3%] and affordability [18 comments, 3.5%]);
  • Other key themes highlighted include promotion and the need for a reduction in transport.
  • Themes concerning the natural environment and socio-economic (access to education and jobs and social inclusion) areas are also seen as missing.

Issues raised in East Sussex

4.25 Respondents were asked what they believed were the main transport issues in East Sussex, with respondents able to write an open text response to this question.

4.26 An open question coding method has been used in the analysis of this question.

4.27 A total of 520 different points within all the open responses were made, which were coded into 67 different issues.

4.28 The key results are:

  • 6 out of the top 10 codes relate to distinct issues regarding public transport with a (total of 262 comments [50.5%]);
  • Other issues include congestion in urban areas and high car dependency and (82 comments [15.8%] and 44 comments [8.5%] respectively);
  • A lack of active travel infrastructure has also been identified (68 comments [13.1%]);
  • Speeding is the third highest issue for respondents (50 comments [9.6%]).

Opportunities raised in East Sussex

4.29 Respondents were asked what they believed were the main transport opportunities in East Sussex, with respondents able to write an open text response to this question.

4.30 An open question coding method has been used in the analysis of this question.

4.31 520 comments were made, which have been coded into 70 different opportunities.

4.32 The key results are:

  • Five of the top 10 opportunities relate to public transport (310 comments [59.6%])
  • Opportunities for active travel modes (walking, wheeling and cycling) also feature prominently (3 out of the top ten opportunities [170 comments -32.9%]);
  • The only other top 10 opportunity identified concerns the opportunity to reduce traffic congestion and reduce pollution (32 comments [6.0%]).

Responses by theme

4.33 In addition to the specific questions asked, respondents were also able to identify and describe any transport-related issues and opportunities on a map, pinned to a location in East Sussex. Respondents selected one of the seven themes of the LTP to associate their comment with.

4.34 Analysis of these responses involved an open question coding method.

4.35 To note some responders have included comments which do not necessarily relate to the specific theme. However, these have been reported as stated by responders, as set out below.

Accessibility, equity and social inclusion

4.36 270 pin comments were provided on the map relating to accessibility, equity and social inclusion. The majority of pins are clustered in the larger towns in the county – Eastbourne, Hastings, Bexhill. Uckfield, Crowborough and Lewes. In addition, there are pins dropped in rural areas across the county – there is no significant pattern which can be deduced from these.

4.37 From the comments for all pins placed in relation to this theme, 63 different codes were created.

4.38 The key results are:

  • Three of the five top codes relate to public transport provision (102 pins, 37%); and
  • The remaining top five codes relate to active travel (82 pins, 30%).

Safety, health and air quality

4.39 461 pin comments were provided on the map relating to safety, health and air quality. The majorty of these are clustered in the larger towns. In addition, there are clusters of comments along some of the main routes in the county and focus on the towns of Eastbourne, Bexhill, Hastings, Lewes, Peachaven, Newhaven and Seaford. From the comments for all pins placed in relation to this theme, 84 different codes were created.

4.40 The key results are:

  • Safety of active travel users appears in three of the top five codes (189 pins, 41%); and
  • The remaining two top five codes related to high traffic speed and support for traffic calming (146 pins, 32%).

Community and sense of place

4.41 76 pin comments were provided on the map relating to community and sense of place. There are clusters of comments in Eastbourne, Hastings, Lewes and Crowborough.

4.42 From the comments for all pins placed in relation to this theme, 37 different codes were created.

4.43 The key results are:

  • Three out of five of the top codes relate to traffic speed, traffic calming and road infrastructure (30 pins, 39% of codes);
  • Active travel is also seen as something that impacts communities and sense of place (7 pins, 9% of codes); and
  • Community facilities also make the top five codes (8 pins - 11%).

Climate change and its impacts

4.44 41 pin comments were provided on the map relating to climate change and its impacts. There are clusters of comments in Eastbourne, Hastings and Crowborough.

4.45 From the comments for all pins placed in relation to this theme, 11 different codes were created.

4.46 The key results are:

  • Two out of five of the top codes relate to active travel (22 comments - 53%);
  • The remaining top five codes relate to public transport (9 comments - 22%) and safety (safer road network designs (4 comments – 10%) and reduced speed limits (2 comments - 5%).

Our local environment and biodiversity

4.47 20 pin comments were provided on the map relating to community and sense of place. Spatially, most of the pins are found in Lewes District and the Eastbourne/South Wealden part of the county.

4.48 From the comments for all pins placed in relation to this theme, 12 different codes were created.

4.49 The key results are:

  • A fifth of comments (4 pins -20%) highlight concerns related to harm of conservation areas and locality; and
  • Two out of the four codes relate to concern over traffic and speeding (8 pins -40%).
  • The final top four code relates to active travel, (2 pins -10%).

Sustainable economic development

4.50 36 pin comments were provided on the map relating to sustainable economic development. Spatial distribution is across the county, with small clusters in towns (e.g. Hastings and Rye).

4.51 From the comments for all pins placed in relation to this theme, 63 different codes were created.

4.52 The key results are:

  • 42% of codes (15 pins) related to an improvement in public transport integration;
  • 28% of codes (10 pins) suggested improved car parking and the road network;
  • 17% of codes (6 pins) would like to see improved active travel infrastructure; and
  • The final top four code relates to concern over increased road traffic and pollution (2 pins - 6%).

Innovation through technology

4.53 8 pin comments were provided on the map relating to innovation through technology. Whilst there was a limited number of responses (8) it is harder to conclude any spcial patterns in the distribution of the pins; the majority of pins placed are located in the south of the county.

4.54 From the comments for all pins placed in relation to this theme, 5 different codes were created.

4.55 The key results are:

  • The two highest top five codes related to improved road network and public transport (improved public transport network (3 pins - 38%) extended road network (2 pins - 25%).
  • The other top three code relate to improved active travel infrastructure, e-bike and e-scooter provision, with one response unclear (1 pin, 13%).

5. Young people engagement

5.1 As the fourth Local Transport Plan will impact young people the most (with the plan up to 2050), specific engagement activities were undertaken with young people within educational settings to understand more about transport in their local areas and what they would like to see in the future.

5.2 Engagement sessions were conducted with two primary schools, two secondary schools and a further education college (students from two campuses) within both urban and rural areas.

Primary school engagement

5.3 Two sessions were undertaken with:

  • Hurst Green primary school in Hurst Green (12 students, aged 6 to 11) and
  • Gildredge Park school in Eastbourne (12 students, aged 7 to 11).

Session aim

5.4 The sessions aimed to understand how the children currently travelled to school and included four main activities.

  • Get moving;
  • Investigating activity;
  • Circle time;
  • Drawing activity.

Activity 1 – Get moving

5.5 Posters indicating the different modes of transport were stuck around the classroom (walk, cycle, scooter, car with friends, park & walk, bus, taxi, train, car). In the first activity the following questions were asked, and the children went to stand by the poster showing the mode which represented their answer:

  • Q1: How did you travel to school today? Just under half the students ‘walked’ or ‘park & walk’, with the remainder coming by ‘car’.
  • Q2: How do you normally travel to school? Half the students ‘walked’ or ‘park & walked’, with the other half travelling by car.
  • Q3: How would you like to travel to school? Most students would live to walk, cycle or scooter to school, followed by public transport (bus, train and taxi) with just one student wanting to travel by ‘car’.
  • Q4: What’s the best way to travel to help the environment? Students responded by identifying ‘walking’ or ‘cycling’ with one student responding ‘bus’ and another responded ‘park & walk’.
  • Q5: What’s the most fun way to travel? ‘Scooter’ and ‘train’ returned the most results, with students also answering ‘cycle’, ‘car with friends’ and ‘park & walk’.
  • Q6: What’s your least favourite way to travel? ‘Car’ was the most frequent answer, but responses also included ‘walk’, ‘cycle’, ‘scooter’, ‘car with friends’ ‘park & walk’, ‘ taxi’ and ‘train’

‘Activity 2 – Investigating activity

5.6 Children were given a question and sent around to ask others for responses. Questions included:

  • What do you like about how you travel to school?
  • Why do you travel to school the way you do now?
  • Who decides how you travel?
  • What’s the best way to travel & why?
  • What do you not like about travelling to school?
  • Why do you travel?
  • Who do you travel with to school?

5.7 The majority of children travelled to school with their parents. Some of the key thoughts across both schools were that:

  • Students like cars and trains but they pollute the environment;
  • Driving is easier if you live further away; and
  • They enjoy travelling, although this is dependent on where they are going.

Activity 3 – Circle time

5.8 In a group setting the following questions were asked:

  • Would you like to change anything about how you travel?
  • If there’s one thing you could change about how you travel, what would it be?

5.9 In this discussion children identified the following means of travelling which they would prefer use:

Means of travel:

  • Cycles
  • Electric car
  • Motorbike
  • Rail (e.g. Eurostar)
  • Scooter

Other suggestions:

  • Cheetah
  • Dirt bike
  • Flying (superpowers)
  • Flying donut
  • Giant axolotl / axolotl (amphibian) in an iron man suit
  • Go-kart
  • Hoverboard
  • Jet pack
  • Magic chair or carpet
  • Moving gaming chair and table
  • Quad bike
  • Surfboard
  • Time travel

Activity 4 – Drawing activity

5.10 Finally, in smaller groups, the children drew a comic strip story based on the following questions:

  • What would a good journey to school be like?
  • What would a bad journey to school look like?

Secondary school and College engagement

5.11 Two secondary school sessions were run with Seaford Secondary School and Uckfield College. The sessions were run with 15 students aged 13-15. A session was also run with students from East Sussex College’s Eastbourne and Lewes campuses (aged 16-18). As with the primary school engagement, the sessions aimed to understand how students currently travelled to school or college and for leisure as well as what motivated their travel choices. The sessions included 3 main activities:

  • Travel behaviours and motivation;
  • How the way people move around is affected by the environment; and
  • Designing a street.

Activity 1 – Students’ travel behaviour and motivation

5.12 The questions below were asked on Mentimeter, an online interactive survey that requires input from students.

  • How did you travel to school today? Just over of students responding ‘walked’, followed by ‘passenger in a car’. Low numbers ‘cycled’, ‘scooted’ or ‘took the bus’,
  • Was there anything in particular you noticed on your journey that you liked or didn’t like? Students liked ‘walking and talking with friends’, along with responses of ‘fresh air’ and a ‘big hill to ride down’. Students disliked crowding, the highway surface and cars (volume and speeds (“rushing”))
  • In an ideal world, what method of transport would you have taken to school? Most students responded ‘other’ (unspecified mode), with a small number wanting to ‘get dropped off in a car’ and low numbers wanting to walk, cycle, scoot, bus, taxi or train to school.
  • When you visit your friends at the weekend or after class, how do you usually travel to meet each other? Most students ‘walked’, with some ‘cycling’ or getting ‘dropped off in a car’
  • What are the key influences on your choice of transport? The most common answers include ‘quick’, ‘easy’/’easier’ and ’fresh air’

Activity 2 – How people move around is affected by their environment.

5.13 In groups, students were assigned an area, asked to think about and discuss in the class the different transport issues, challenges and opportunities in each of these areas:

  • Large urban area
  • Town
  • Rural village

Activity 3 – Design a street using the website Streetmix

5.14 In their same groups students were asked to design a street that reflects the ways they would like to travel whilst aiming to address some of the challenges for each area talked about in the session.

6. Key findings

6.1 Key findings are combined into three stakeholder groups: 

Key stakeholders (ESCC Members, ESCC Officers and Local Stakeholders); 

  • Good engagement with key stakeholders through meetings with specific user groups or one-to-one meetings. 
  • Range of issues and opportunities raised across three broad themes of area for intervention (e.g. EV charging, road safety), supplementary documents (e.g. Investment Plan) and ways to develop the LTP (e.g. future proof). 

Public engagement (via the online engagement platform (OEP); 

  • Lower engagement levels from young people.
  • Engagement from business was low (1% of respondents).
  • Important themes include ‘safety, health and air quality’ and ‘accessibility, equity and social inclusion’.
  • Public transport was a missed theme (with three distinct sub areas), along with node shift away from car.
  • Congestion is the largest single identified issue, followed by lack of active travel infrastructure. Of all identified issues over half of comments (50.5%) relate to public transport.
  • 60% of all opportunity comments relate to public transport and a third (33%) concern active travel.

Young people

  • Most students travel to school via sustainable modes. And dislike busy roads dominated by cars. 
  • Students acknowledge that cars cause pollution but are modes they like. 
  • Shared transport (e.g. buses) are not favoured preferred modes of transport by primary aged students.  
  • Secondary and college students don’t always identify sustainable travel modes within potential street designs, with cars requiring road space 


7. Lessons learnt

7.1 There are some key observations and recommendations from the engagement period which can be used to inform and benefit the formal consultation on the draft LTP4 to be held in the autumn 2023. These are summarised below in Table 7.1.  

Table 7.1: Summary of key findings, lessons learnt and proposed actions for Stage 2 
Lesson learnt Proposed action
  • Participation in engagement -  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 ESCC 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.
  • Participation in engagement - Younger people and 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 ESCC’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 ESCC Special Educational Needs (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 ESCC’s Youth Council – to promote the LTP4 consultation to young people through social media -  format to be agreed. 
  • Promote the LTP4 consultation through ESCC Children Services – Virtual School Bag. 
  • Underestimating set-up times for school engagement sessions 
  • Incorporating longer set up time into lesson plans. 
  • 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.