We Asked, You Said, We Did

Below are some of the issues we have recently consulted on and their outcomes.

We asked

East Sussex County Council and its partners are working together to reduce and prevent childhood unintentional injuries. In East Sussex, the rate of hospital admissions due to unintentional and deliberate injuries in children aged 0-4 years continues to remain significantly higher than the England average, with Hastings and Rother having some of the highest admission rates in the South East. Often, we think of ‘accidents’ as events that are unintended, or things that just happen and therefore there is nothing we can do about them. However, the reality is that accidents are predictable events and are frequently preventable.

As part of our programme of work to reduce unintentional injuries in the under 5s within the home, we carried out a survey with local parents, asking them how they receive and access information about child safety. The survey has a range of questions which were designed to help us understand this topic further.

You said

Survey responders were required to state what parenting and family topics they thought about the most. The top two were ‘my role as a parent’ and ‘my child’s development’. Interestingly, ‘reducing child accidents in the home’, although important, was slightly less important compared to other topics.

Respondents stated and/or agreed with the following:

  • They receive information and advice about child safety from a very wide range of sources, including NHS professionals and family members.
  • Health Visitors were stated as their preferred source of child safety information, followed by parenting websites and other family members.
  • Parents don’t routinely, or only rarely, look for accident prevention and child safety information online.

Responders also stated and were more likely to agree with the following:

  • They want to learn about dangers in their home which could lead to accidents and unintentional injuries.
  • They want to understand how they can prevent accidents and unintentional injuries at home.
  • They want to look for practical advice on how to make their homes a safer environment for children.
  • They want to understand what their children are capable of at their age and stage of development.

Who took part

98 parents completed the survey. 90% were female and over 70% of responders had one child under 5 years old. 25% of responders had attended hospital with their child because they had an accident. 87% were White British, 5% were from other White backgrounds, and 3% didn’t answer the question. 93% were heterosexual and 3% were bisexual. 23% of responders stated they had physical or mental health conditions or illnesses lasting or expected to last 12 months or more.

We did

We have learnt several key insights relating to how parents receive and access information relating to child safety in the home. We will use some of these insights, alongside the published evidence, to further develop our programmes to support families to reduce child accidents. This may include updating our child safety campaigns, and promoting the Start for life website and its free email subscription service.


We asked

One You East Sussex helps residents to eat well, manage their weight, move more, quit smoking and drink less. The contract for the service ends in March 2024. We asked what you thought about our plans to change the service model in future. 

You said

The majority who took part agreed with the proposed change. You said that targeting those most in need is sensible and that the proposed approach is cost effective.

For the third of people who disagreed there were some clear themes when it came to your concerns, some of which were also shared by those who agreed or were neutral. The main feedback was:

  • It is vital to have a range of contact methods.  
  • Retain some flexibility around the type of support offered irrespective of whether an individual is in the target groups for the service.
  • Those who cannot access online will be excluded.
  • The approach should be led by individual need.

You also provided feedback on how we spend any budget saved from the changes and which programmes you think are most important. Your top choice for any money freed up by making the change was for it to be reinvested in providing mental health support that aids health-related behaviour change, while being more physically active and mental health to aid behaviour change were the programmes that were most important to you.

We did

The proposed change to the service has been approved and will apply from 1 April 2024 when the new contract starts. All your comments and feedback have been reviewed and we have identified a number of requirements we can add to the new contract to address your main concerns and feedback.

It was always our plan that the provider would be able to be flexible in how they worked with people. In response to your feedback, we will make this clearer in the service model by making personalised care to meet an individual’s identified need one of the key principles of the service. The provider would also be expected to review decisions made about people’s support needs in the early stages to ensure they were correct. This would allow the provider to be flexible around contact methods, how support is offered and meeting people’s individual needs. It’s important to note though that people’s needs might be different to their preferences.

We will include a requirement for the new provider to help tackle digital inclusion, both through the work they do directly with people and through putting people in touch with other providers. This might include offering skills training, helping people to access technology and tackling barriers to digital inclusion such as motivation, trust and useability. 

The new service will include a focus on helping people to make behaviour changes by offering mental wellbeing support to those experiencing low to moderate anxiety, stress and depression. When it comes to physical activity, we will expect the service to develop a good knowledge of local health and wellbeing opportunities. This will mean that its staff can tell people about local opportunities that will help them to make and sustain changes to their behaviour.

We asked

We consulted between September and October 2021 with both registered and non-registered users of the East Sussex Health Promotion Resources Service on stopping the provision of hard copy health promotion resources. A total of 15 people took part in the consultation, with the majority having a mixed or negative view on the proposal. The main concerns centred on future access to only downloadable resources, and  we have been working since the consultation closed to explore the impact of our proposal in more detail through the completion of an Equality Impact Assessment (EqIA). This was discussed at the Inclusion Advisory Group and shared with the Senior Management Team. They made the decision to go ahead with our plan, due to the resource implications of continuing to provide hard copy resources that are infrequently ordered and have limited use. 

What we were proposing

Before 1 April 2022, registered users of the East Sussex Health Promotion Resource Service (HPRS) have been able to order free hard copy health promotion resources across a range of subject areas for delivery.

Our proposal was that, from that date, we stop offering hard copy health promotion resources to registered users, and instead only offer resources in online access or download formats – with exceptions for hard copies of locally produced fuel poverty resources, as these continue to be ordered in large numbers. 

These proposals were based on:

  • changes in how society accesses information and resources since the HPRS was introduced in 2014;
  • increased use by health promotion professionals of signposting to online information, downloadable resources, and social media;
  • a consistent decrease, since 2018/19, in the number of registered users placing orders and the number of hard copy resources they have ordered; and
  • the ongoing challenge of hosting a hard copy health promotion catalogue whose resources are kept up-to-date as national guidance and evidence changes.

You said

A public consultation on the proposed changes was conducted in September 2021. Of the 15 responses received, most (12) were submitted by registered Health Promotion Access Catalogue (HPAC) users.

Although the number of respondents was small, it was clear that people’s preferences were varied. Asked how they typically shared health promotion information and resources with the people they worked with, the most common method selected by respondents was to ‘give or post them hard copy resources’. However, ‘signposting by email to online/downloadable resources’ was the respondents’ preferred method of sharing health promotion information with people.

Things were similarly mixed when people were asked about the proposal itself. Of 15 who answered, 3 were positive, 5 had mixed views, 6 viewed it negatively, and 1 was neutral. In addition, opinion was split evenly between those who felt their health promotion work would be affected either negatively by the proposal, and those who had mixed views or felt neutral.

Concerns from current service users centred on how easy it would be to share resources with clients or patients who may have limited or no digital access, including older people and those with disabilities. Positive comments reflected how some services had already changed the way they share health promotion information by not giving out hard copy leaflets, working in a much more ‘online-focused’ way. Should they need to, these services could download and print off downloadable material for specific individuals.

We did

The consultation findings were shared in December 2021 with the Inclusion Advisory Group (IAG). In doing so, it was noted that 12 HPAC users took part (out of a total of 225 individually registered who were invited). The IAG summary report also noted a consistent decrease in the number of registered users placing orders, and in the number of hard copy resources being ordered (other than for locally produced fuel poverty resources). Mitigating actions were included in relation to the potential impact on older people, those with a disability, those whose first language is not English, and those who may have limited or no digital access.  IAG did not raise any direct concerns and endorsed the proposal.

Following the IAG meeting a paper was presented to the Senior Management Team and the decision made to move ahead with the proposed service changes, including the mitigating actions   

Since 1 April 2022, ordering of hard copy resources has stopped for registered HPAC users., with the exception of locally produced fuel poverty resources, and a small selection of leaflets aimed at older people which are still available to order via the HPAC website.

The HPRS catalogue has been reviewed and appropriate validated downloadable resources have been added as alternatives to replace the removed hard copy resources. The catalogue will continue to list a collection of high quality, validated, health promotion resources in download or web access format to support health promotion work.

To address the concerns raised in the consultation, our Equality Impact Assessment recommended that we:

  • Encourage HPACT users to continue placing orders for hard copy health promotion resources up until 31 March 2022. Subject to availability, additional orders could be placed during this period.
  • Ensure HPAC catalogue listings will include (where available from validated sources) current, evidence-based resources suitable for people with disabilities, including British Sign Language, links to audio books, videos, podcasts, and easy read downloads. 
  • Provide descriptions of downloadable or web accessible resources on HPAC to indicate whether the information is available in other accessible formats or languages.
  • Retain a small selection of the top 3 resources listed and ordered from HPAC which particularly focus on topics/issues specific to older people. Monitor the orders (by organisation and volume) over a period of 3 months to determine the level of demand for these resources and whether there is a viable business case to continue their provision.

We asked

East Sussex County Council worked with a range of health, care and voluntary sector partners, to conduct a joint strategic needs assessment (JSNA) for our lesbian, gay, bisexual, trans, queer and other sexual and gender identity minorities (LGBTQ+). We wanted to understand LGBTQ+ local people’s experiences of health, accessing local services and about how COVID-19 has impacted them.

The findings from the survey that formed part of the needs assessment will help us improve services locally.

We did

The JSNA made a wide range of recommendations. These included further engagement with LGBTQ+ communities, to increase the knowledge and uptake of a range of services and to collect further insight on how these communities experience these services. A number of recommendations are also outlined, aimed at increasing inclusion and awareness of LGBTQ+ people and their needs in a wide range of health and care services. The report also made five specific recommendations on Trans healthcare. Finally, recommendations were made in relation to increasing the monitoring and data collection of LGBTQ+ people in services.

We asked

Over the summer we consulted on our plans for sexual health services in East Sussex ready for the new contract in October 2022.

The aim was to make sure that the proposed service model would provide easy access to services that meet people’s needs. It was important to hear people’s views as the service model has changed significantly in the last few years due to digital innovation and COVID-19.

You said

People were concerned that some groups of people may find it more difficult to access the service. 

We did

In response to the consultation feedback, the service specification has been adapted to allow two drop-in triage clinics for all ages at each clinic site in Hastings and in Eastbourne. This is in recognition of people who are digitally excluded, do not have phones, or rely on limited phone credit or are genuinely unable to access their GP.

We asked

East Sussex County Council’s SEND team commissioned a Joint Strategic Needs Assessment (JSNA) of the local area to find out what was going well for children, young people and their families and what could be improved. The outcome of the review will help the team, working with partners, to develop a strategy for 2022-24 which puts in place improvements and build on the successes.

We did

After reviewing the current position across education, health and social care provision and services, the JSNA made recommendations for improvements including prioritising prevention, early identification and intervention; improving processes and capacity of services with the longest waiting time for assessment and treatment; and improving access to, and increasing provision for mental health support. The report also highlighted areas where the ISEND service can build on successes including the continuing efforts to ensure the involvement of children, young people and their families in the development of provision and SEND training in schools.

As well as informing the SEND strategy, the outcome of the JSNA will help East Sussex County Council and partners set joint commissioning priorities, ensuring the appropriate support is in place for children and young people across East Sussex.

We asked

We asked if the LCWIP networks connected the right places in the County, alongside asking you about your cycling or walking activity and whether there were any barriers.

You said

You raised several general issues; these are summarised as follows:

  • Strategy – not in alignment with recent DfT guidance, needs greater consideration of disabled people’s needs, links should be made to local plan development sites, the plan should be linked to adjoining authority LCWIP’s.
  • Infrastructure & scheme delivery - shared cycling and walking schemes are generally not supported, road space should not be allocated to active travel due to the risk of causing increased congestion, would like to see more traffic calming and 20mph speed limits, consideration should be given to equestrian users.
  • Safety & training – greater regulation of cyclists, greater training for drivers in relation to consideration of cyclists, more cycle training for people of all ages.
  • Document specifics – maps difficult to read and document too long.

You raised concerns in relation to specific geographic locations.

  • A259 Newhaven – Rottingdean - concerns about the re-allocation of road space to cycling and walking infrastructure on this corridor.
  • Croft Road, Crowborough – concerns raised about the options for pedestrianisation and impact on potential bus routing/bus stop access, deliveries, and traffic flow displacement.
  • Broad Street, Seaford – concerns raised about potential pedestrianisation and impact on access for deliveries to shops and businesses


We did

A summary of the updates to the final LCWIP are: -

  • Greater emphasis on walking 
  • Greater links to Local Plans 
  • Links with Neighbourhood Plans (NP’s) 
  • Commitment to investigate inclusion of schemes that meet with new government strategies and guidance (Gear Change Strategy & LTN 1/20)
  • More emphasis on electric cycles, e-cargo bikes, and cycle parking (especially for electric cycles) 
  • Greater consideration to people with physical and hidden disabilities 
  • Links with leisure and tourism and open space 
  • Inclusion of maintenance for footways/cycleways
  • Additonal information on funding the LCWIP 

We asked

The consultation asked stakeholders and the public for feedback on the proposal to replace the existing bridge at Exceat with a new two-lane, two-way bridge which will ensure the free flow of traffic and include safer crossing points for pedestrians, whilst taking into consideration the landscape and environmental sensitivities of the area.

You said

Thank you to all those who took the time to respond to the consultation, we received over 1000 responses. Overall feedback was in support of the project with 79% in favour of replacing the current bridge and 83% supporting the proposal of creating 2 way traffic flow on the bridge. A straight parapet was the preferred design option, whilst opinion towards the viewing platforms was split.

We did

The response to this consultation is being used to inform ongoing discussions with the South Downs National Park Authority to take forward and agree the bridge proposals. We received a lot of feedback on the use of traffic lights at the bridge and this option is being considered as an interim measure.

A number of concerns or alternative suggestions were made in response to the Public Consultation.  These have been reviewed and categorised into themes and responses to each of these are provided in the table below.


Theme No.

Theme Issue




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.




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.



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. 




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.




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.




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.




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. 




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.




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.



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. 




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.




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.



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.




Parking may occur in shared space outside pub


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



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.



We asked

This consultation asked stakeholders and the public for feedback on proposals for Phase 2 of the Eastbourne Town Centre Movement & Access Package. The proposal focuses on the section of Terminus Road between Bankers Corner, Bolton Road and Langney Road. Public feedback was sought on:

• The scheme objectives

• What respondents thought of the key aspects of the proposals

• How the proposed civic space could be used

You said

Overall, public and stakeholder feedback was in favour of the proposals with 63% of respondents supporting or strongly supporting the proposals. The majority of respondents felt that the plans would achieve the scheme objectives and were positive about how they would improve the Town Centre.

We did

On 22 April 2020 the Lead Member for Transport & Environment approved the publication of the Eastbourne Town Centre Movement & Access Package – Phase 2 public consultation report, and; approved Phase 2 entering detailed design and construction stages as set out within the 2020/21 Capital Programme of Transport Improvements.

A full breakdown of responses can be found in LMTE 22 April 2020 Eastbourne Town Centre Movement Access Package Phase 2 Appendix 2 (item 44 - appendix 2).

We asked

Schools, parents/carers and other interested parties to give their views on the proposed school holiday and term dates for 2020/2021.  Thank you to all those who responded.

You said

During the consultation period 307 responses were received.  The feedback was generally positive.   

We did

The Local Authority is currently responsible for setting school term and holiday dates for local authority maintained schools.  Foundation, trust and voluntary aided schools and academies are responsible for setting their own school term and holiday dates. Following consultation the school holiday and term dates for 2020/2021 have been agreed and are available on the East Sussex County Council website.

We asked

For views on the proposed admission arrangements to Community and Controlled Schools for the 2020/21 school year. The main change was to amend the the definition of 'previously looked after children' so that it may include children from outside of the UK.

Views were also sought the co-ordinated admission schemes and on the Proposed Admission Numbers at all schools but in particular to increases at Buxted CE Primary School, Danehill CE Primary and Willingdon Community School.

You said

There were a total of 7 responses. Not all respondents answered every question.  

80% of respondents were in favour of amending the definition of previously looked after children. This was agreed by Lead Member.

A full breakdown of responses can be found in the Lead Member report 26 February 2019

We did

The Co-ordinated schemes were agreed and so were the changes to the admission numbers at Buxted and Danehill. At Willingdon Community School, the request to increase the PAN was deferred until 2021/22 as the number of children transferring to secondary school in Eastbourne in September 2020 is less than previously forecast.

The changes that were agreed will come into force for September 2020 onwards.

We asked

For views on the proposed reduction in the admission number from 20 to 15.

You said

375 responses were received. 365 opposed the reduction in the published admissions number.

The Council listened carefully to concerns raised during the consultation period and has reconsidered the decision previously taken to stop the project to replace some of the classrooms.  The Council has concluded that as the project was originally agreed under an earlier capital programme that had wider ambitions and supported projects beyond the Council’s statutory duties, the project should be completed.

We did

The Lead Member agreed that 20 should be the Published Admission Number for Ninfield CE Primary School.

We asked

Schools, parents/carers and other interested parties to give their views on the proposed school holiday and term dates for 2019/2020.  Thank you to all those who responded.

You said

During the period of the consultation 505 responses were received.  368 (73%) were in favour of the proposals whilst 137 (27%) disagreed.

We did

The Local Authority is currently responsible for setting school term and holiday dates for all Community and Voluntary Controlled Schools.  In the case of Foundation, Voluntary Aided Schools and Academies, Governing Bodies are responsible for setting their own term dates. Where possible we have taken into account feedback received during the consultation period including aligning dates with neighbouring authorities. Following consultation the school holiday and term dates for 2019/2020 have been determined and are available on the East Sussex County Council website.

We asked

For views on the proposed admission arrangements to Community and Controlled Schools for the 2019/20 school year. The main changes were

  • To make a change to the community area for Hankham and Stone Cross primary schools so that the current discrete areas are merged to form one shared community area;
  • To include the community area formerly served by Rodmell CE Primary School in the community area for Iford & Kingston CE Primary School following the agreed closure of Rodmell CE Primary School;
  • To include the villages of Ditchling and Streat in Chailey Secondary School’s community area to create a shared area with Priory School.

Views were also sought the co-ordinated admission schemes and on the Proposed Admission Numbers at all schools but in particular to increases at Ditchling St Margaret’s CE Primary School, Polegate School and  Robertsbridge Community College and decreases at Forest Row CE Primary and Uplands Community College.

You said

41 people completed the online survey. A further 30 responded to the issue of raising the admission number at Robertsbridge Community College which was an addendum to the original survey.

92.7% of respondents were in favour of the change to the Hankham and Stone Cross community areas (primary)

85.4% of respondents were in favour of the change to the Rodmell and Iford and Kingston Community areas (primary)

87.8% of respondents were in favour of the change to the Community area for Chailey School (secondary)

The changes to the admission numbers were agreed. A full breakdown of responses can be found in the Lead Member report 19 February 2018. (item 37)

We did

The changes that were agreed will come into force for September 2019 onwards.

We asked

For views on the proposed admission arrangements to Community and Controlled Schools for the 2018/19 school year. The main changes were

  • To extend the definition of ‘looked after children’ in priority 1 of the admissions criteria;
  • To change the Eastbourne primary community area due to the  of the home to school distance tie-break from shortest walking route to straight line;

Views were also soughton the Proposed AdmissionNumbers and co-ordinated admission schemes.

You said

8 people completed the survey.

87.5% of respondents were in favour of the change to the definition of ‘looked after children’ in the admissions criteria.

75% of respondents were in favour of the change to the Eastbourne primary community area.

A full breakdown of responses can be found in the Lead Member report 28 February 2017. (item 29 - appendix 6)

We did

The changes were agreed and will come into force for September 2018 onwards.

We asked

We asked what you thought about our plan to change the way we provide residential and day services in the Crowborough area.

You said

Most people are very positive about our plans. Some people are worried about things changing. People had lots of ideas for how we could help them to prepare (see results section above).

We did

We will work closely with people and their relatives and carers to get used to the changes. We will use your ideas to help people prepare. We will also involve everyone in the improvement work at Hookstead.

We asked

We wanted your views on how we were proposing to make the savings in Adult Social Care. 

You said

The vast majority of people who responded to the consultation were concerned about the long-term harm that would be caused to people and the services that support them.


We did

Following the consultation, the proposed savings were amended to take account of the additional money that would be raised by the social care precept for Council Tax and what people told us through the consultation. For some services this meant not going ahead with the saving or revising the amount we were planning to save.

We asked

For your comments on 6 proposed cycle routes in Eastbourne

You said

There was a high level of support for all 6 routes (over 73%) but some further work was required on some of them.

We did

We have agreed the following: (1) To progress the following routes to detailed design and construction in 2014/15 - University to Town Centre/Seafront - Town Centre to Seafront - Horsey Way Section 1 (2) To progress the following routes to detailed design only in 2014/15 with construction after 2014/15 - Seafront route - Horsey Way Section 3 (3) For the Town Centre to Hospital route further feasibility work would be carried out in 2014/15..

We asked

For your comments on proposals for pedestrian, cycling and bus improvements in Newhaven and Peacehaven.

You said

There was a high level of support for all the proposals.

We did

We have agreed to take forward all the proposals to detailed design.

We asked

For your views on proposals along a central stretch of Marina between Sackville Road and Devonshire Road to improve the economic vitality of the town centre area by improving access for pedestrians and bus users as well as improvements to the traffic management arrangements.

You said

The results show that Phase 1, the proposed improvements to Marina Court Avenue, received a mixed level of support. The majority of comments received were about the perceived reduction in pedestrian safety that respondents felt would occur if the centre island was removed and if the zebra crossing was relocated closer to the Devonshire Road junction. Comments were also received about the loss of green space adjacent to the De La Warr Pavilion that would result from closing the access to the car park to create a turning area and new parking. The results show that Phase 2, the Marina pedestrian and bus stop improvements, received support. The results show that Phase 3, the changes of layout to Sackville Road roundabout, received support.

We did

At the April 2014 Lead Member for Transport and Environment meeting the Lead Member noted the results of the consultation and authorised the progression through detailed design and construction, to include modifications identified during the consultation exercise, as part of the 2014/15 Capital Programme for Local Transport Improvements the following measures: (a) the changes of layout to Sackville Road roundabout; (b) the widening of the footways and introduction of a 20 mph speed limit on Marina from Sackville Road roundabout to its junction with Devonshire Road; (c) the introduction of the bus stop build-out on Marina; and (d) the improvements to the existing zebra crossing on Marina in the vicinity of the Devonshire Road junction. In addition, the Lead Member authorised that the proposed changes to Marina Court Avenue should be reviewed in light of the feedback from the public consultation and a further set of revised proposals be developed for implementation as part of a future year’s capital programme.

We asked

If you supported the measures being proposed in Wivelsfield and Wivelsfield Green to help support the introduction of a 30mph speed limit.

You said

The measures were generally well supported by the majority of the residents that returned their questionnaires.

We did

We will now meet with the Parish Council to discuss the consultation results in more detail and finalise the measures that will be introduced in Wivelsfield and Wivelsfield Green to help support the lower 30mph speed limit.