East Sussex walking and cycling schemes move forward

Lead member for transport Claire Dowling gave the go ahead to explore seven walking and cycling schemes, which would be paid for by phase 1 of the Emergency Active Travel Fund – a £250m pot announced as part of the government’s Covid-19 recovery plans in May.

The seven proposals come from 15 possible schemes, which were put out for a short consultation process during lockdown. 

The consultation process had proven contentious, however, with several groups calling on the council to be more ambitious, while some of the proposed schemes received “significant negative feedback”.

Cllr Dowling said: “Not surprisingly, since the fund was announced back in May, the expectation in the county has been extremely high. 

“We have received hundreds of emails and letters from walkers, cyclists, individuals, businesses, disability groups, local councils and many, many other organisations, either in favour or against the schemes that are being proposed.

“There has actually been quite a bit of misunderstanding about what the emergency active travel fund is actually about; the fact that these are temporary schemes not permanent schemes [and] the criteria and type of timeframes we have had to follow.”

Criticism of the consultation process (and its results) were raised by Seaford South Cllr Carolyn Lambert.

Cllr Lambert said: “I’d like to thank you Cllr Dowling for acknowledging that the way in which this funding process has been carried out has reputational damage to the county council. There is no question about that.

“Huge amounts of effort and time have been put in by volunteers and people are just feeling that the work they’ve done has been frankly ignored and bypassed by the county council.”

Cllr Lambert added that she feared the exercise could damage the council’s wider walking and cycling plans by deterring members of the community from taking part in later consultations.

She also said she could not see why temporary speed restrictions – a popular proposal in several areas of the county – could not be put in place.

Labour group co-leader Godfrey Daniel took a slightly different view, putting the blame on central government.

He said: “This is a government scheme which, like most government schemes these days, is ill thought out and ill-planned. I think if anybody is trying to fail it is the government and they will probably blame local government for not enacting it.

“It is fundamentally too little money to achieve a great deal and I don’t think this is the best use of any money. Having little schemes, for a very short time so I’m not going to attack council officers for this, I think they’ve done their best at a difficult time.”

Cllr Dowling also commented on the national context for the schemes. She said: “Normally we are aware of what is coming down the line, so we have some indication. [But] May 9 was the first time anyone heard about the proposal. We didn’t even see the guidance until the following day.

“This was in May when we were all in lockdown. The world has moved on since then [and] restrictions have been relaxed, we all know that, and there is still very much a need. But the guidance we have to go by is the guidance we had in May. 

“The problem we are up against, is that the government has produced more guidance on cycling, more guidance on social distancing, more guidance on shared spaces on top of our guidance.

“Our guidance is very clear  and a lot of what has come forward [during consultation] is people who have picked up on everything else that has happened since then and are demanding that we [take account of it]. 

“You are right Carolyn about reputational damage, but it is not due to us. It is due to what we are having to work with”.

Cllr Dowling added that the council’s own walking and cycle infrastructure plan (for permanent schemes) is going out to public consultation in the near future. The proposals and ideas that emerged in response to the active travel fund could be considered again as part of it, she said.

Initially the council was looking at 15 temporary schemes, but most are not to move forward to a detailed design and consultation as a result of either technical difficulties or a negative consultation response.

SCHEMES IN EACH AREA: 

Bexhill:

One of the schemes is in Bexhill. It could see a wider footway temporarily put in place underneath the railway bridge in Buckhurst Place. The narrow existing path had proven to be a pinch point where it was difficult to maintain social distancing. 

Other proposals to widen footways in Devonshire Road, High Street and Western Road were abandoned, however,  in light of a significant number of negative responses. These were mostly from businesses who would lose parking as a result.

The decision not to proceed with these schemes saw concerns voiced at the meeting by Cllr Kathryn Field, who is Rother District Council’s lead member for environment, as well as a county councillor.

She said: “Wide pavements and the ability to social distance are essential in trying to tackle and control this virus.

“The fact that this [would be] temporary is actually extremely helpful, because it gives us the opportunity to see on the ground what happens when controversial schemes are implemented. 

“Once the temporiness has been implemented then you can assess how successful it has been, then tweak it or abandon it or make it permanent at that point. 

“This gives us the opportunity to really look at ways of enhancing cycling and walking, enhancing pedestrian safety and also enhancing the environment for people using the town centre.”

She added: “I really hope you reconsider some of this.”

Eastbourne: 

Three of the schemes to move ahead are in Eastbourne.

The first is a temporary closure of Terminus Road, between Grand Parade and Trinity Trees.

The other two are for cycle paths: one along the seafront between the Wish Tower and Fisherman’s Green; and another on Royal Parade between the Langney roundabout and Princes Road.

While the cycle path proposals are due to go out for further consultation, concerns were raised by a number of Eastbourne councillors.They included Cllr David Tutt, who is leader of Eastbourne Borough Council as well as a county councillor. 

Commenting on the seafront scheme, he said: “One of the opportunities that the lockdown for covid has given to me has been to do some tidying in my home office [and] I found some papers on this very subject dated 1994!

“It has been around a long time and if there had been an easy solution it would have happened a long time ago. I really do sympathize with our highways engineers in trying to find something which meets all of the requirements of all the stakeholders. It is an unenviable task.

“Looking at the proposals that have come forward today we have to make sure that what we do is safe. I have to say I don’t think these proposals are safe.”

Cllr Tutt said his concerns were due to the number of road junctions along the proposed cycle path and argued the path should be put on the other side of the road.

Not doing so, he said, could risk the future of any permanent cycle path scheme.

Hastings:

In Hastings, the council is to look at widening the footway along the A259 between The Stade and Pelham Place.

A similar scheme for footway widening on the A259 between Warrior Square and London Road was considered to be unnecessary, as it would only cover a short distance.

The proceeding scheme saw little support from Cllr Daniel, however, who said he didn’t believe it would “make much difference”. 

He said: “I would much rather see money put into permanent schemes where we can really achieve things.”

Lewes:

None of the schemes which are moving ahead are within Lewes District.

Three schemes within the district had been considered, including: a widened footpath on the A259 between Bishopstone and Marine Drive in Seaford; a temporary cyclepath between Peacehaven and Newhaven; and footpath widening along School Hill and the High Street in Lewes town centre.

Wealden:

In Wealden district, the county council will move ahead with a scheme to limit vehicle access to Hailsham High Street and widen its footway. 

It will also move ahead with a scheme to install additional signage pointing the way to the Cuckoo Trail.

The High Street scheme saw some concerns raised by Hailsham New Town councillor Gerad Fox. He said: “This is a very challenging time for small traders, who risk their entire capital in many cases and employ local people.

“Many of the businesses in Hailsham are just about breaking even. It is natural that any proposed changes to High Street access will tend to worry them [and] the outcomes are pretty much uncertain. 

“The idea that footfall is low due to the lack of capacity for social distancing in Hailsham runs counter to local businesses’ subjective experience, because the high street is generally not full.”

Concerns from traders, Cllr Fox said, included fears of deterring existing trade and  increased traffic congestion in other parts of the town centre.

Cllr Fox added that he would want the council to defer its decision on the scheme until Hailsham Town Council could again meet to discuss the proposals. 

Cllr Dowling opted to move ahead with the proposals, but asked officers to take account of the town council’s views during the next stages.