Consultations in East Sussex

1

Retain existing bridge

In the short term whilst funding for the new bridge is being secured, the existing bridge will be retained and this may involve some repair works to the structure.

However the ongoing maintenance liability over a longer period with no improved arrangement for pedestrians or vehicles is not desired.

Retaining the existing bridge will not offer the benefits to non-motorised users that the replacement bridge would provide, such as a footway on the south side of the bridge avoiding crossing the carriageway twice.

Significant maintenance works would be required to keep the existing bridge in operation for the long term.  A long road closure, likely lasting months, would be necessary to carry out these works safely and this is not considered viable.

2

Install traffic lights and keep one-way operation

Traffic lights are being considered as an interim measure whilst funding for replacing the bridge is secured.

Whilst it is recognised that the recent provision of traffic lights did ease traffic congestion, they would not provide the long term resilience that a two-way bridge would offer. 

Funding for the replacement bridge is dependent on the proposals providing long term congestion relief.

Installing traffic lights alone would not provide the benefits to non-motorised users that the replacement bridge would provide, such as a footway on the south side avoiding crossing the carriageway twice.

3

Against the scheme based on the assumption that traffic will increase.  Concerned about the potential negative effects on local lanes and communities, i.e. Littlington and Alfriston

Traffic will increase nationwide over the next ten years irrespective of any improvements which are made at Exceat.

Any increase in traffic along the A259 and the connecting roads as a result of the improvements will be cancelled out by the A27 improvements which Highways England are currently progressing. 

4

Concern that air pollution will increase

Air pollution is not expected to increase given there will be less queuing traffic. A study is being commissioned to assess this.

5

Concern over not providing pedestrian islands

Significant consideration has been put towards the provision of pedestrian crossings.   The reasons for not providing new pedestrian refuge islands is as follows:

A recent survey identified a large number of bicycles and buggies being used around the pub and bridge. It would be unsafe for these users to use standard width refuge islands meaning that extra wide islands would be required.

Further carriageway widening required to accommodate wide pedestrian islands would either significantly affect a residential property or prevent the existing bridge remaining open during the works.

Furthermore, widening the carriageway would also further encroach the hill on the western side of the carriageway and would result in a taller and longer retaining wall – which would alter the fragile landscape.

Road safety engineers have confirmed that it would be safer for pedestrians to wait slightly longer on the side of the road, than become stranded in the middle of the road with passing traffic either side.

Analysis of pedestrian wait times will be made available as part of the planning application, however traffic modelling confirms that the increase in wait times is marginal.

6

Not providing a pelican crossing

Protecting the rural landscape is a key consideration. The provision of a pelican, or any controlled crossing, would spoil the natural landscape, in particular at night.  Detailed assessments confirm that the uncontrolled crossing points, which will have significantly better visibility than the current provision will be safe and suitable for all pedestrians.

7

The eastbound bus stop being moved further away from the pub

The eastbound bus stop (west of the bridge) has been moved further up the hill towards Seaford. Given the frequent service and regular usage of the bus stop, the highway layout needs to allow for vehicles to safely pass a stationary bus. The positioning of the bus stop has been done to improve visibility for both drivers of vehicles as they approach the bridge and pedestrians using the pedestrian crossing immediately to the west of the bridge. Visibility for all road users is significantly better than the current provision. 

8

No proposals for improvements outside the Visitors Centre

This project is limited to replacing the bridge over the river Cuckmere and providing improved pedestrian facilities in the immediate vicinity. Improved pedestrian crossing facilities outside the Visitors Centre is not included in this project however the South Downs National Park and East Sussex County Council have agreed to support each other in exploring options as part of a separate scheme.

9

No proposals to upgrade the footpath along causeway (stretch of road between the bridge and the Visitors Centre)

The footway along the Causeway is not affected by the new bridge and therefore works to improve it are not included in this project. Improvements to the footway may be considered at a later date.

10

Perceived lack of facilities for walkers, cyclists, horse riders & bus travellers

The scheme provides a reduction in the number of occasions pedestrians will need to cross the A259 as the footway on the southern side of the bridge will connect to the existing footways either side of the river.

The footpath on the southern side of the bridge will be a shared facility to accommodate both pedestrians and cyclists  which opens up a future opportunity to provide a more continuous shared facility across the Cuckmere valley.

Cycle stands near to the pub will also be considered.

The bus stops are being improved through better signposting and higher kerbs.

No equestrians were recorded in a recent survey monitoring behaviour and usage at the bridge. The lack of off-carriageway equestrian routes means that it is unlikely equestrians will use the bridge or footways. 

11

Reducing the speed limit to 20mph or 30mph

Reducing the speed limit from the national speed limit of 60mph to 30mph is included in the proposals.

Reducing the speed limit further to 20mph is not suitable for the road classification being part of the major road network.

12

Use of Manual for Streets (design guide) for a more balanced design favouring non-motorised users

Manual for Streets is being applied to the highway design.

13

Redesignation of road status to B Road

Redesignation of the A259 which is part of the major road network would not be appropriate and is does not form part of the project.

14

Parking may occur in shared space outside pub

Parking restrictions on the shared space outside the pub will be considered.

15

There is a perceived negative impact on biodiversity

An Environmental Statement and an Ecosystems Services assessment will form part of this planning application.

The ongoing design aims to avoid impacts as far as practicable.

Where impacts are unavoidable, the mitigation strategy will be in line with National Planning Policy Framework and Environmental regulations.