BHLR – Local Transport Plan 3 – Campaign Pointers for 2016 – A Range of Measures

The opening of the Bexhill to Hastings Link Road took place in late December – precisely 7 years after the initial date predicted by East Sussex County Council (ESCC), and at £120.8 million, exactly five times the originally estimated 2002 costs of £24m. The costs may yet rise further. The real reasons for the delay are explained in our previous post (scroll down to read). The original 2004 timetable for delivering the completed BHLR shows as December 2008 the road ‘open to traffic’ . (see  bhlr-tt-2004-rt-size-2 ) From the word ‘go’ in 2004, the public consultation document offered only road schemes, despite being titled ‘Future Travel Options’.   (bhlr-consultation-2004) The conditional approval for the BHLR in that year required close cooperation with government’s own statutory conservation bodies – English Heritage, Natural England, Environment Agency. Nearly three years later all objected (two formally) to the BHLR at the planning application stage. It also required that contributions were sought from the private sector. None ever came. The costs were required to remain unchanged: they didn’t; and ‘value for money’ assessment by the Department for Transport ended dramatically at ‘poor/medium’. It stays a speculative and risky scheme that materially affects future travel and development patterns. We have to campaign in this new environment.

The stories behind the March 2012 green light from Chancellor Osborne to fund the road must continue to be told as a warning and an example of how a series of conclusive reviews and analyses (including the government’s own doubts) advising against a course of action to fund and build it, can be overturned at a stroke:  the most powerful government minister, in charge of prudent use of funds in times of supposed austerity, came to fund the  road scheme in England with the worst value for money and highest climate change gas emissions.

Now, as then, we have major financial commitment to new roads, £15m for the Queensway Gateway Road (QGR) and an almost certainly depressed figure of £5m for the North Bexhill Access Road (NBAR). Given the history of BHLR costs, these figures will surely rise, paid for by………….

These new roads spawned by the BHLR scheme are now at varying stages of development. The Queensway Gateway Road has been approved by Hastings Borough Council planning committee; the North Bexhill Access Road has received £200,000 from ESCC for ‘development’, but the planning application has been deferred, possibly because  no business case has been written yet, possibly through fear of a legal challenge on ‘air quality’ grounds. (for further information on these and other matters, see Combe Haven Defenders | Stop Osborne’s Roads to Nowhere: Stop )

Both roads would have significant negative environmental impacts, and housing and commercial/industrial developments would be difficult to serve by means other than the private car. The ever expanding car parks and inadequate or threatened public transport services to/from the Conquest Hospital are likely to be reflected at these developments. We are in car county, where land use, transport and health policies are applied in a seemingly haphazard way. CBT – East Sussex has objected to both schemes.(see nbar-obj-final-2 and qgr-objection-3).

So, what follows?

Most recently, and as  for the past 30 years, we have responded to the invitation by ESCC, the statutory transport authority, to comment on the latest stage of the Local Transport Plan process (LTP3). We believe our comments represent a positive vision that would sit comfortably with many UK local authorities’ positions on best practice in ‘transport and land use planning’,  and a move away from ‘car based’ perspectives. Transport choices other than the car are too frequently absent as we close our front doors behind us to face the challenges, opportunities and joys of a new day. A significant shift is required to restore this imbalance. View ESCC LTP3 ‘Implementation Plan’ here: ltp-draft-2016-20

The day ahead.....

The day ahead…..

…and the response from CBT – East Sussex here: ltp3-implement-final-3

We believe the submitted attachments to our response amplify the points made in our response. A brief explanation follows each one below:

Unsafe routes to school

Unsafe routes to school

Cars reversing over pavements would not induce parents’ confidence when considering allowing children to take their first steps to independence by walking or cycling to school. In addition, the biodiversity loss and increased risk of flooding should be of concern to all of us. The research into flood risk caused by loss of gardens to ‘hard standing’ for cars on a massive scale  carried out in Southampton will be of interest. Many gardens along the Bexhill Road (A259) have also been lost : front-gardens-to-car-parks-2

The relationship between ‘parking availability’ and aspirations to reduce levels of traffic is well known and usually ignored by politicians anxious not to upset ‘the motorist’. This leads many of them to set aside, or at least relegate, concerns on public health and healthy modes of transport, the environment, local accessibility and the availability of ‘walkable/cycleable’ services and shops – all essential components of a pleasant neighbourhood. It also impacts on the rights of children, the elderly and those who would choose high quality alternative modes of transport if they existed.  The following two attachments show how parking policy could be used to create better town centres and at the same time save huge sums of public funds – and solve the housing crisis:

TRL 5 Cities Graphic Grabbed

(The TRL research was published by a rather more enlightened Conservative administration of 1996 as a formal contribution to the Transport Debate – ‘Transport – The Way Forward’ April 1996.)


Jacobs consultant John Siraut (Director, Economics) presents a slide show offering an interesting and expert view on better use of scarce town centre space. Jacobs have carried out work for ESCC, though not in the field of economics.


A further example of  better use of town centre space is illustrated in the example in the link below where car parking spaces have been removed and cycle storage, lockers and showers installed instead. Hastings FE college car parking could be usefully and similarly replaced:

London’s first underground cycle vault in Bloomsbury Square

Weather protected storage at  Lewes station

Weather protected storage at Lewes station


LTP3 SHOULD BE: A POSITIVE CONTRIBUTOR TO A BETTER QUALITY OF LIFE FOR THIS AND THE NEXT GENERATION: And we will continue to campaign for a reversal of priorities in favour of alternatives to the current procession of expensive big road schemes. These should be replaced through an integration of transport policies with policies on land use, health, environment and support for local urban and rural economies. Transport measures appropriate for creation of more easily accessible and attractive town and district centres would flow from this policy integration, creating healthier town and village environments and populations, and stronger more resilient local economies. The starting point should not be the latest ‘traffic generating’ road scheme (exclusive) but expansion of choices from everyone’s front door (inclusive). That would be a step change!

See response from cycling campaign group Bricycles here: ltp3-bricycles-respnse-2


Adoption of the whole available range of traffic demand management measures, imaginatively and fairly applied, and including workplace travel plans (wtp) including ‘personalised travel planning’ (information from consultants Steer Davies Gleave  here.); parking restraint; affordable, reliable, comprehensive and attractive public transport services; 20mph residential speed limits; 40mph limits on rural lanes; workplace parking levies to support sustainable transport investment; putting walking and cycling first in street design and maintenance (DfT; Manual for Streets); good value fares for young people on the cusp of independence.

Adequate evening, Sunday and Bank Holiday public transport services in the coastal towns and rural East Sussex, including restoring key services where there are none, such as Bodiam Castle and Batemans whose busiest days are Sundays: 287,000 visitors per year – loads of traffic – no Sunday buses. Reinstatement of cross border Kent – Sussex links. Quality advertising/marketing to be carried out in respect of ‘supported services’ There is often ignorance about their availability and local authority tourist guides don’t ‘champion’ them. Cycle carrying buses to be explored on appropriate routes in East Sussex e.g. High Weald AONB; South Downs National Park.

Specifically, pressure on Stagecoach to improve poor or non-existent Sunday, Bank Holiday and Christmas period bus services: Boxing Day and New Year’s Day saw no services at all. Brighton and Hove buses (which serve parts of Eastbourne well) ran on both days. Stagecoach should move with the times.

Seamless connections on bus services to the Conquest Hospital from Bexhill using the BHLR. Passengers are currently left waiting at Hollington Tesco for up to half an hour. Public transport links from communities to hospitals according to clinical need and convenience of visitors, and the needs of all working at the hospitals.

Enhanced bus services along the A259 corridor between Barnhorn (west of Little Common) and Ore: first proposed in LTP1 in 2000, it’s needed now.

Confirmation by ESCC of a February start to construction of bus lanes and priority measures on the A259 Bexhill Road, and improved levels of service before the traffic grows back after BHLR opening. This scenario of a steady increase in traffic is predicted by ESCC itself.

A realisation of the potential of rail to meet public needs and offer a good alternative: station plans for Glyne Gap, St Leonards – West Marina, Stone Cross to be reviewed with the Willingdon Chord installed. Provision of a new London – Sussex Coast link via Lewes – Uckfield – Tunbridge Wells. Enhanced levels of Coastway services. To protect the National Park – a stunning and priceless asset – abandonment of any ‘new A27’ proposals.

Part time railway season tickets – promised in the current government manifesto – have yet to be offered. High rents in London and high fares for part time workers are a toxic combination resulting in difficulties for a newly qualified highly talented student of 24; a housing officer of 40 priced out of London accommodation but now having to travel from the coast for 3 of 5 working days and home working for 2; a hard working and talented carpenter unable to seek work in London or elsewhere because of the lack of a part time season ticket arrangement. The lack of part time season tickets closes down opportunities for hard working and talented individuals.

As a young man, this technician first examined the sign 8 years ago. It has never worked.

As a young man, this technician first examined the sign 8 years ago. It has never worked.

A new funicular rail link to be examined capable of carrying cycles/wheelchairs from Pier/White Rock to Hastings Museum and offering access to all through ‘gradient transfer’. Together with the existing East and West Hill lifts enhancing accessibility for all, these would operate from 7.00a.m. and into the evenings and be an important tourism asset. The Ebbw Vale system, recently installed, could be a model.

Real Time Passenger Information for bus users –  system to be accelerated please: the Eastbourne system was installed 8 years ago but has never been switched on. Clearly not a priority. Hastings and Bexhill are currently being added to the system and we look forward to seeing it at work. (Photo)

A step change in public transport links between Hailsham – Polegate – Eastbourne Hospital/Colleges and Town Centre equal to the best in the UK. Complementary cycle/pedestrian improvements to enhance their safety and status, along with essential traffic demand management measures (see above). Enhanced 98 and 99 bus services to take advantage of Hailsham – Eastbourne upgrades.

A renewed campaign to challenge aggressive, careless and inappropriate driving styles in urban and rural environments which daily threaten and harm pedestrians, cyclists – and considerate motorists. This impacts on childrens’ freedom and persuades those who would like to allow their children to walk or cycle to ‘get in the car’. Unfair, unhealthy; inhumane.

Packages of measures such as those alluded to in this blog would automatically flow from proper analysis of transport problems and can be sifted and tested for their efficiency, appropriateness and positive/negative impacts. The resulting mosaic of measures is much more likely to deliver the wide range of accessibility, health, environmental, social and economic objectives than the often speculative ‘big scheme’ approach beloved of politicians. They become objectives. They are not. In stark contrast, the package approach is certainly a better way of reducing CO2 emissions than pursuing the ‘big new roads’ agenda now threatening East and West Sussex along with the consequent growth in often short private car trips. These emissions are growing in the transport sector, in contrast to a fall in other sectors. We therefore welcome Secretary of State Amber Rudd’s recent commitment to challenge the Department for Transport on this matter of growing emissions and look forward to her withdrawal of support for the Queensway Gateway Road and other ‘traffic generating’ schemes which have constantly crippled all alternatives to the private car. rudd-ltt-art-5

A fuller appreciation of the major health benefits of reducing ‘car dependency’ and sedentary lifestyles expressed through ‘active travel’ measures – easily delivered and with  benefits quickly discernible in the improving health of our communities. Five hundred people or more die prematurely in the county through poor air quality. Tackling mental and physical health problems through active travel measures would bring massive benefits to our quality of life – and almost immediately reduce pressure on the NHS. These opportunities must be grasped with urgency.

Derrick Coffee.

(County Officer, Campaign for Better Transport – East Sussex)

Posted in Uncategorized | 1 Comment


There has been a long time lapse since the last update – apologies for that. This is a quick update and will be followed in the next two weeks with latest news and also comment on transport issues in Hastings, Bexhill and the wider county.

The saga of the BHLR continues. With the county council website behind events and still displaying information on the 10k running event for the 20th September, we have since seen elsewhere in the news revelations of delay, apologies, blame and staggering multi-million pound costs increases.

The latest information we have is:

  • the road will open on or around the 2nd November
  • there will be a new bus service operating between Bexhill – Tesco – Hastings. It will be an extension of the current 21 route with three vehicles available
  • bus lane construction along the existing A259 will begin in February 2016

All of this is, of course, subject to confirmation and possible revision, and  no details of frequencies of the proposed bus service were given. Will it happen on November 2nd?

The recent televised apology for the delay made by county council leader Cllr Keith Glazier was tempered by an assertion that ‘protestor action’ had been a significant cause. It may have delayed construction by a few weeks, but the years of delay are due to the mis-management of the scheme, with a gap of three years (2004-7) due to legally required consultation meetings with government ‘environment protection bodies’ to devise measures to mitigate (make ‘less worse’) inevitable environmental damage.

The meetings must have been less than effective, because all three government Statutory Environmental Bodies ( SEBs: Environment Agency, Natural England and English Heritage) raised serious doubts about the quality of the planning application for the Link Road scheme when it was submitted to the county’s own planning committee: the first two objected formally and the third raised questions about the size of the budget to conserve for the nation the archeological treasures already known, and those judged almost certainly  present – but yet unknown – in the Combe Haven valleys.

It took until 2009 to determine the planning application and then came the Public Inquiry late in that year. The inspector’s report didn’t appear for a further two years.

The government’s ranking of the Link Road in the ‘value for money’ league table for all English local authority road schemes was bottom of 23 and the worst for CO2 emissions: the environmental impact of the road was calculated by the Department for Transport as incurring a cost of between £77m and £123m. Nevertheless, our ‘prudent’ austerity conscious chancellor, George Osborne, ignored that, as well as the Department for Transport analysis that the jobs claimed to follow the road were grossly inflated by a factor of 3.5, and awarded East Sussex County Council £56m. Local taxpayers have been and are liable for the continuing cost overruns with the bill now standing at £65m.

See this link to the published Observer letter of 28th August, 2015:

Council is to blame for delays – Hastings and St. Leonards Observer

While the Observers published our concerns over the latest £4.4m cost increase:

H Obs Art Latest

The appetite for further road building goes on and shows no sign of abating: valued accessible, attractive and ecologically important countryside on the urban fringe is under threat of insensitive and inappropriate development. The nature of that development is highly likely to be ‘car dependent’ and therefore unsustainable and unhealthy, ignoring the needs of the next generation. Alternatives to that failed model of planning have been tried and tested in other locations and shown to deliver a better quality of life: nothing less is acceptable. The Queensway Gateway Road – recently quashed after a High Court action for its failure to properly consider air quality infringements, will be back before the Hastings Borough planning committee before long (objection advice  here). While the Bexhill Northern Access Road planning application has been lodged with Rother District Council. That unnecessary scheme would have major negative environmental impacts on presently quiet rural areas bordering Bexhill and Sidley

We believe that this poses serious problems for quality of the urban developments that will certainly follow. Details from the Seachange development company  website can be seen here. Objections may still be made to Rother District Council (Planning Application: RR/2015/2260/P)

This post concludes with two images taken on 6th September of the formerly intimate, tranquil Decoy Pond Stream Valley showing the BHLR separating Decoy Pond Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) and Little Bog Wood (left of the road site). Silent no more, Little Bog wood is classified as ‘Ancient’ and along with Decoy Pond Wood is visible on maps from the 1700s but existed in medieval times. Decoy 6 9 15 B

Decoy Pond Stream Valley, September 2015

Decoy Pond Stream Valley, September 2015

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment


So much is wrong with the Bexhill to Hastings Link Road (BHLR) that it would be very fertile ground for a film, play – or comic opera. One aspect of the saga is the ever rising cost, so where better to start than with a telling graphic:

Link Road costs inc gateways 2015The BHLR, originally costed at £24m in 2002, now comes in at £116.4m. That’s bad enough, but we’ve added the costs of the two links to the BHLR as described by the promoters, creating a total of £136.4m. for new road capacity in Bexhill and Hastings. This is just one of many negative consequences of their relentless pursuit of road schemes to the exclusion of sustainable and healthy alternative transport measures. It’s a taxpayers’ rip-off! To see what’s happening right now, follow this link to a report by CBT’s Sian Berry on the ‘rip-up’ of the countryside around Hastings…

LEP Watch: a tour of the destruction around Hastings

Described by the Department for Transport in 2012 as offering ‘low to poor value for money’,  the BHLR was originally intended by East Sussex County Council (ESCC) to open in late 2008. The considerably later May 2015 opening date has now slipped and there is currently no revised date.  The eventual cost to local council taxpayers is also unknown but continues to rise.

‘Official’ reasons for delays to the Link Road (followed by our comment in italics) are given by the promoters as:

Extensive evidence of Bronze Age and Iron Age communities, Romans, Saxons, Norman and medieval folk  known to have been active in, or to have settled in the valleys – leaving evidence acknowledged by experts some years ago as being of national importance;

Weather conditions leading to flooding and a difficult working environment on unstable ground; the valleys are subject to sustained floods every year

Protestors protesting; it would be very bad news indeed if they hadn’t

Dormice and badgers demanding attention; it’s an appealing PR driven idea to give them a headline billing suggesting that they and a few other species are being ‘cared for’, but  the bigger questions of habitat loss, ecological damage and landscape degradation have been marginalised or ignored, suggesting that these locally valued assets were considered expendable in order to chase a fantasy job creation scheme   

The fundamental reasons for delays:

A poorly thought through, error laden planning application in 2007 by ESCC

A failure to recognise the high quality of the landscape, heritage and natural environments that would be damaged and destroyed, leading to prolonged negotiations with government bodies

Recognition by the Department for Transport (DfT) in 2011 that it was the worst local road scheme in England in terms of value for money

Recognition by the DfT that it was unclear to them whether a package of alternatives had been fully examined by ESCC, as required according to government guidance issued to local authorities – we know that alternatives were wilfully and resolutely ignored by ESCC

Early conclusions of DfT analysts and others that the new jobs claims made by ESCC relating to the BHLR were highly inflated and based on highly questionable assumptions

Construction difficulties due to geological/hydrological conditions, including previously undetected fissures beneath the road’s foundations

The Result?

Chancellor Osborne ignores all the experts’ doubts and gives the BHLR the go-ahead in any case, before the DfT analysts had finished their work. Funding was announced in the 2012 Budget Statement. Rising costs and the damage to the ecological, archeological and landscape riches will have further reduced the ‘value for money’ of this expensive vanity scheme.

Did Ministers for Transport disagree?

When we asked the DfT what recommendations to ministers  were ‘on the table’ immediately prior to the 2012 Budget Statement, we were denied that information. We appealed to the government’s independent ‘Information Commissioner’, asking that the recommendations be revealed by the DfT. Almost a year later, the Commissioner upheld our appeal and instructed the DfT to reveal  the ‘redacted’ recommendations. (see links below). As we suspected, these included an option to provide £56m of funding towards the BHLR; they also included another option to fund a package of alternative measures that would benefit Bexhill and Hastings: it was this option that was hidden from the public.

A credible public transport based alternative was therefore available that would have avoided the risky, damaging, unhealthy and speculative ‘car based’ path determined by Chancellor Osborne, and cheered on by ESCC, Hastings Borough Council, Rother District Council and the local MPs. There was therefore no prior ministerial agreement from the DfT.

29_Dodgy Doc 1 The redacted (concealed) recommendation to ministers

30_Dodgy Doc 2 The disclosed information

For citizens who will have to live with (and pay for) all of this, there is still vagueness about the ‘complementary’ transport measures claimed to be planned by the transport authority, ESCC.

With 15 years to conceive, plan and deliver bus, rail, pedestrian and cycle networks  little has happened: there is no current plan. Whatever concoction of  ‘sustainable’ transport we end up with, it will follow some way behind the traffic generating Link Road and simply be ‘bolted on’ to the core car-based strategy given primacy by the promoters. Those depending on, or who would choose and enjoy high quality alternatives if they were available, are not given consideration. The whole package of healthier alternatives that could have been delivered would have cost a fraction of the Link Road and benefits would have been enjoyed by all members of the community. In the medium to long term,  pressure on A&E departments would reduce.


There is no predicted opening date for the £116.4m (latest) BHLR

Opportunity for a new station at Glyne Gap (Ravenside Retail Park) has been missed due to a flawed study and a failure to marshall support and evidence necessary to make a ‘business case’ that would attract funding. It has always been a very popular aspiration for the public, has been identified in two transport studies as viable, and has appeared for many years as an aspiration in local transport policy statements. The (incomplete) study, commissioned by Rother District and East Sussex County Councils, cost local taxpayers £30,000

New ‘state of the art’ buildings on Queensway lie empty despite promises of hundreds of new jobs being attracted. In 2012, Hastings Borough Council hosted an international conference on managing ‘climate change’ in one of the buildings – an edge of town location with no bus links. How was this ever an acceptable venue? What did delegates from other countries make of such an embarrassingly unsuitable choice ?

New ‘real time passenger information’ signs are being put in place in Hastings and Bexhill – two cheers for that – but we’ve waited many years for that promise to be fulfilled and in the meantime, services have been cut. If the brand new information display tells a passenger that there are no buses, it will make any claim of availability of a comprehensive and integrated transport service look very hollow indeed. It will also cause upset, annoyance and sadly, for those who have a choice, rejection of the sustainable and healthy option. Even conventional timetables have failed to appear in Hastings on the first day of the new Stagecoach summer services.

The cuts referred to above were intended to save ESCC £1.79m. Against the sums being thrown at the Link Road, this looks a tiny amount indeed.

The richness of archeological finds in the four valleys* being sacrificed to the road and interests of the motor trade in general, and the destruction of a beautiful succession of tranquil valleys within which the historical assets might have been enjoyed by future generations, is an appalling comment on the values of those promoting the road.

*Combe Haven; Watermill Stream; Powdermill Stream; Decoy Pond Stream valleys  

Watermill Stream Valley as it was

Watermill Stream Valley as it was

Watermill Stream - start of construction

Watermill Stream – start of construction

Huge machines arrive, to be followed by countless thousands more

Huge machines arrive, to be followed by countless thousands more

Decoy Stream Valley 1Above: Decoy Stream Valley, once peaceful.

Below: Greylag goose in Decoy Stream Valley, alongside wood in above photo, left.

Decoy Valley Greylag

Adams NEW

Above: Combe Haven looking west from From Adams Farm

Below: Combe Haven Valley before earthworks

From Adams Farm 3For further news on BHLR and related topics, please see the link to the comprehensive CHD’s website:

Combe Haven Defenders | Stop Osborne’s Roads to …


Now standing at £7.6m, the funds ‘borrowed’ from the county council’s contingency fund to pay for the Link Road have been added to the balance sheet. This fund is primarily for emergencies such as the Lewes floods in 2000, when flooded out families had to be rescued and re-housed.

We think that during the latest episode of dangerously poor air quality along the coast  affecting Hastings and Eastbourne (see map below), a proper use of contingency funds would have been to provide free public transport and apply a speed limit to all motorised traffic during the period to reduce exhaust emissions. In northern France – similarly affected – a speed limit was applied in the area around the town of Boulogne. Here, nothing happened. The contingency fund should certainly not be used to underpin a poor value for money road scheme such as the BHLR. Here’s a reminder of what happened as we experienced exceptional air pollution:


Air Quality Map jpeg April 15The map defines Eastbourne, Bexhill and Hastings – including much of Wealden District and Rother – as having ‘very high’ levels of pollutants. The situation was described in a Guardian article of 10th April, link below:

Guardian Air Pollution jpeg26 4

The irony is of course that if we had a comprehensive set of alternative measures, with incentives to use them, at least we’d be heading in the right direction in rendering the air quality problem less acute. Building and planning big new road schemes and going slow on walking, cycling, bus and rail improvements is bad for your health!

The matter is being raised at the next Health and Wellbeing Board on April 28th


Tremendous pressure was exerted by various groups and individuals on the County Council asking that the proposals to cut supported bus services in the county be withdrawn.( See previous post).The full council gave their backing to this but was overruled by the all powerful Cabinet. We and many councillors think this undemocratic. In the end, some services were taken on by bus operators but some have been lost. We joined demonstrations (below) and had several dialogues with county councillors and officers. Below is a link to a letter to a county councillor:

Bus Cuts Barnes Letter

Lewes Demo 1Lewes, November 8th – march to County Hall: strong opposition to the attack on the bus network, following a similar demonstration in Hastings.

In Hastings, two services have been maintained with funding from the parking surplus. No such thing is possible in Wealden or Rother, where parking is overwhelmingly free and plentiful, thus undermining the bus services which benefit everyone – including tourists and visitors and the associated tourism economy so important to East Sussex. Battle Abbey, Bodiam Castle and Batemans receive around 374,000 visitors a year yet public transport access is poor. There is a train to Battle (half a mile walk to the Abbey) but the Sunday buses (304) have been withdrawn; there is no Sunday bus to Bodiam (349), even on Sundays during Bank Holiday weekends; there is no Sunday bus serving Batemans and has not been for many years.

Today (23rd April, 2015) we had a definitive confirmation of the above from East Sussex County Council:

‘For the dates in 2015, a Sunday level of service will be provided on the 254/304 and 349 on:

  • Monday 4 May – May Day holiday
  • Monday 25 May – Spring Holiday
  • Monday 31 August – Summer Holiday
  •  No service will be provided on the 254/304 and 349 on any Sundays’.

There will be confusion and disappointment among tourists and day-trippers who rely on public transport, especially on the Sundays within the Bank Holiday weekends. Access to the High Weald Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) by public transport will therefore be diminished. It seems the AONB is protected for all members of the public except those without access to a car. The objective to protect the AONB is contradicted by a policy to reduce bus services and increase traffic. Good for car sales!

Links to ESCC changes are available via the links below:

Rother District – Changes to bus services April 2015 final

Wealden District – Changes to bus services April 2015

A piece of good news came from Uckfield/Heathfield/Burwash/ Etchingham and Hurst Green where the daily mid-day east west service was saved from reduction to a two days a week service. It will now run 6 days a week (not Sundays). Generally, connections with trains at Etchingham from Heathfield/Burwash are available, but to Tunbridge Wells/Charing Cross much less so. The printed timetable issued ahead of the new service operated by Sussex Bus doesn’t give train connection times. This would be most helpful. Check Traveline for times.

Notably, the Hastings Arrows services are left unscathed. The successful, well used services are the result of the Quality Bus Partnership (QBP) proposed and implemented by East Sussex County Council between Hastings/central St Leonards and Hollington in the early noughties. The other two proposed QBP routes – one serving The Ridge and the other West St Leonards, Bexhill and Little Common –  were proposed by the county council in 2000 but never taken forward but surely would have attracted large numbers of passengers and would very likely have played a part in reducing congestion and improving air quality. The reason for their abandonment? Well, quite possibly, the obsession with the Link Road is to blame: the new bus routes (plus Glyne Gap station and a decent cycle route) might have been too successful!

Hastings Borough – Changes to bus services April 2015

For further public transport developments, please also see the very useful and well informed www.travelloglewes.co.uk

These cuts and uncertainties around bus services will discourage any shift away from car dependency and towards the bus. Steady improvement of services and incentives to use them, with a clearly stated intention to carry this out over a number of years into the future , are the only way to allow the bus service to make its full potential contribution to meeting the accessibility needs of individuals and communities, and making a useful contribution to reducing climate change gas emissions.


These services, though useful and well used, could do with a re-think – we think! Over the past few years things have improved, with new buses introduced just prior to the Olympics. And over the same few years, we have often suggested the following improvements (at the Rother Transport Action Group quarterly forum):

  • The Eastbourne/Bexhill/Hastings 99 service – three per hour in the daytime – could be upgraded to four per hour
  • The Hastings/Rye/Lydd 100 service – hourly daytime – could be upgraded to two perhour
  • Sunday/Bank Holiday 99 services, currently hourly, could be upgraded to two per hour
  • Sunday/Bank Holiday 100 services, currently two hourly, could be upgraded to hourly
  • With trains running parallel to the 100 route late into the evening, while buses finish earlier, a useful facility would be a combined bus/rail ticket enabling ‘bus out-train back’ options, useful for tourists and day trippers
  • For the benefit of those patients and visitors wishing to access either of the two major hospitals at Eastbourne (DGH) and Hastings (Conquest), and for those who work there, a 99X limited stop service should be introduced.
  • Here’s what we think about the absence of public transport links between the hospitals and the communities that rely on them (link):Hospital Transport Links Presser.


Every 10 years or so, the ‘south coast motorway’ idea pops up, with politicians fuming over the length of time it takes people to drive from Folkestone to Devon (it’s always a single journey – they must settle there!). This is usually followed by a study which discovers that no-one actually drives, or wants to drive from Folkestone to Devon and, in fact, any congestion hot-spots are connected with much shorter trips – themselves associated with daily journeys to work, major hospitals or the school run. The last official study (South Coast Multi-Modal Study, 2002) found: ‘little justification for a long distance strategic south coast route’.

The latest proposal for a study on the A27 came from the Department for Transport as part of its Road Investment Strategy (RIS). It was a hastily conceived proposal (election time drawing close!) which caught the Highways Agency (now Highways England) by surprise. This haste led to very short timeframes,  short notice given to stakeholders prior to meetings, and lack of clarity as to who should attend: a bit of a shambles. The SCATE website will give you more detail of the proposals for the A27 between Chichester and Pevensey.

South Coast Alliance for Transport and the Environment …

Here is a very brief summary of the ‘east of Lewes’ situation:


That’s it! For now anyway, and it’s not controversial. Our position was that:

A major new road and effects of its extra traffic would degrade the South Downs National Park;

Would conflict with the Hailsham – Eastbourne Sustainable Transport Corridor scheme;

Could not be built before upgrading rail services on the parallel line;

Would conflict with policy and increase climate change gas emissions;

Its proposals appear to accept a ‘back of a fag packet’ figure for new job creation east of Eastbourne, close to that discredited by the Department for Transport’s analysts. (3,500 as against a DfT figure of 900 – 1,000, many of which would go to workers from outside the area).

The Secretary of State for Transport, Patrick McLoughlin, was invited to a meeting at Eastbourne Town Hall on 28th January by Eastbourne Chamber of Commerce to meet those clamouring for the major new highway between Eastbourne and Lewes. Derrick Coffee of Campaign for Better Transport, East Sussex was able to present him with counter arguments and to respectfully suggest that to visit Eastbourne to discuss a road scheme – as opposed to transport strategy –  was missing the more important issues of first tackling congestion and air quality and securing a good quality of alternative and sustainable modes of transport in the immediate travel to work area. The railway line parallel to the A27 had seen new signalling installed, and could now accommodate more trains – let’s have them please. Sec of State response suggested that buses need better roads: I pointed out that the big boon to car commuting resulting from a multi-million road scheme (A22 new route/Polegate by-pass of 2002) had still not been accompanied by a step change in bus services 13 years later, thus firmly entrenching the car habit. Another boost for car sales!

Ebne Demo SoS and MeSecretary of State for Transport accepts a press release from Campaign for Better Transport – East Sussex.


Dependence on private motorised transport – overwhelmingly the car – has huge impacts on everyone’s quality of life. The greater the dependence in a given town or city, the harder it is to challenge it. The graph below produced by Transport Research Laboratory (TRL) in 1994 for the then Conservative government shows some interesting results. It followed an investigation (‘5 Cities’) into the most effective means by which public transport usage could be increased and car usage reduced:

TRL 5 Cities Graphic GrabbedThe pressure of traffic on urban environments and its negative impact is widely accepted. Poor air quality (see above) has long and short term health impacts; pedestrian and cycling conditions are often unpleasant (including for those who drive into town); childrens’ independence and opportunities for play are curtailed or stopped; hazards for children walking or cycling to school induce parents to drive their children, making the trip for those who continue to walk more dangerous; otherwise pleasant, attractive and  historic town spaces become heavily trafficked; public transport is held up; and pressure on green spaces increases – reducing opportunities to transform our towns through public art and planting schemes, and to offer tranquil refuges to our residents and visitors. Reducing traffic where possible is a key to addressing some of the above problems.

The chart above illustrates the complexity of the issues around parking

  • Reducing the amount of space given to parking is by far the most effective way of increasing bus/rail/tram use and reducing traffic
  • Cordon charging (as in London) is next best
  • Doubling parking charges comes next
  • A 50% fuel increase and 50% reduction in bus/train fares come 4th and 5th in the effectiveness ranking

Since 1994, walking and cycling have received much attention as further ways to reduce traffic but local authorities and twitchy politicians, scared stiff of the reaction of car drivers and vociferous business spokespeople, have failed to tackle the issue of parking and its role in degrading everyone’s quality of life and town centre economies. And an excellent public transport offer, 7 days a week, has worked well in Brighton and Hove, with services operating at good frequencies until at last 10,p.pm – and that includes links to/from every residential area and the main hospital.

One other notable exception has been the city of Nottingham where a path has been successfully pursued against all the odds to challenge the ‘free parking everywhere for ever’ lobby, very strong in Eastbourne, Hastings and adjacent rural areas of Wealden and Rother.

Nottingham’s answer lies in the principle that the city’s public transport system would be better with an investment stream derived from car parking spaces. This is in the form of a levy on each space where each firm with 11 or more parking spaces pays a levy of £362 per space: all the income for this is ring-fenced for public transport improvements and has enabled an extension to the city’s tram network and underpinned its future usage.  By contrast, owners of off street private non-residential parking in Eastbourne and Hastings pay nothing towards offsetting the congestion impact of their ‘free parking’; public transport provision remains patchy, especially in the evenings and on Sundays. It is less than adequate.

Despite strong opposition at first from Boots – who threatened to move their 3,000 parking places outside the city – no firm in Nottingham has failed to comply with the levy and the number of firms moving into Nottingham has been greater since the levy than in the 5 years before it began. Boots did not carry out their threat.

In its three years of operation, and with other initiatives in the city designed to expand walking and cycling provision ,  the ‘workplace parking levy’ (wpl) has also enabled Nottingham to adequately fund its ‘supported’ bus services.

It should not be written off as a joint option for Eastbourne and Hastings, and could provide a funding source to new railway stations at Stone Cross, Eastbourne, and Glyne Gap (Ravenside), Bexhill. If it is serious about tackling congestion and the effects of climate change gas emissions and air quality improvement, East Sussex County Council should have a look at it. In the case of Eastbourne, wpl could also underpin the success and ‘value for money’ of the Hailsham – Polegate – Eastbourne  ‘Sustainable Transport Corridor’ scheme which is rumoured to be heading our way.


Lots of fodder in all the above to get you fired up on possible questions for candidates – and here’s a link to Campaign for Better Transport’s suggestions:

http://t.co/aBQ5ap0JBz http://t.co/ZHUr37IFNx

Image | Posted on by | Leave a comment



There has been a massive response to the County County consultation on its proposed cuts, though there’s a high probability that the complex design of the questionnaire will have deterred many from attempting to fill one in. Even so, those who have made their objections clear number thousands rather than hundreds – with a petition of 7,000 signatures from Hastings and St Leonards among the responses. With an election round the corner, sitting MP for Hastings Amber Rudd and the Labour prospective candidate have both been drumming up support for the campaign to roll back the cuts as they affect Hastings,  as well as their own electoral chances. And both favour the BHLR with its capacity to persuade people to drive rather than take a sustainable bus, thus undermining public transport in general. Shame about that. To date, some Hastings services have been reprieved through Stagecoach ‘adopting’ them as ‘commercial services’  – but there’s the prospect of serious hardship ahead for those dependent upon services still under threat. Sundays, Bank Holidays and evenings would still see poor levels of service – even if nothing changed at all.

Meanwhile, in Lewes, opposition has also been vocal with the ‘Love Your Bus’ campaign packing public meetings and providing information about the nature of cuts in Lewes – Newhaven – Seaford district.

See LINK to ‘Lewes Travelog’ latest Newsletter and note the 8th November event in Lewes:


Campaign for Better Transport – East Sussex has also played a part with a submission to the County Council and some distribution of questionnaires on two threatened rural routes: the 318 (Heathfield – Burwash – Etchingham – Hurst Green) and the 349 (Hastings – Sedlescombe – Bodiam – Hawkhurst).  See LINK to submission here:

ESCC Bus Cons Final v1Derrick Coffee


The crowd on the 12.07 318 from Heathfield to Hurst Green on Friday 3rd October look pleased to be on board their bus. What will they do when this service is cut back?

And below, the family from Edinburgh on a short visit to Hastings would not have been able to make this Sunday journey on the 349 to Bodiam for a castle tour and steam train ride on the KESR preserved railway. (Photos Below)

318 - Bound for Broad Oak, Burwash Common, Burwash Weald, Burwash, Rtchingham station, Hurst Green...318 – Bound for Broad Oak, Burwash Common, Burwash Weald, Burwash, Etchingham station, Hurst Green…all ages (baby hidden from view).

318 - linking Heathfield and High Weald villages

318 – Linking Heathfield and High Weald villages – a future weakened link?

Sunday Trip - By 349 to Bodiam Castle and the KESR Heritage Railway

Sunday Trip By 349 to Bodiam Castle and the KESR Heritage Railway. Impossible next year? The Edinburgh family on holiday.

It is clear that if carried out, the cuts would hurt significant numbers of people who rely on the bus, and remove the opportunity to promote the bus as a useful and attractive alternative to the car: that’s if the County Council takes the trouble to advertise the bus services we all pay for: at present, there is little if any promotion.

*****Excellent article on East Sussex situation by Andrea Needham in the Guardian:

see LINK:




In the last post (July 2014) we spoke of an approach to East Sussex County Council (the transport authority) to find out if there were any plans to meet transport needs of patients (and their friends and relations) in the reorganized world of clinical services. Although clearly an obvious issue to address before the changes took place, these needs have been overlooked for some time now and individuals are having to use taxis from Eastbourne to get to Hastings and vice versa. A taxi fare can be anything between £32 – £38 according to the time of day or night. We think this situation is unacceptable. The reply from ESCC:

‘The changes to clinical services between Eastbourne and Hastings hospitals, with the transport access issues which may result, does raise concerns. This really is a matter for the East Sussex Hospitals NHS Trust to address’.

We would point out that ESCC also now has a responsibility for public health. In any event there is an urgent need for a dialogue and there appears to have been none.

The matter of choices of alternatives to the car available from day one of BHLR opening, and the need for an exhibition to explain these to the public, was also raised. Well, with bus cuts threatened, Glyne Gap station plans removed by Rother District and ESCC from policy, and a general vagueness about what alternatives will exist in May 2015 (ESCC’s opening date for BHLR), we received confirmation that there is no exhibition planned because alternative transport measures are ‘still in development’. Sustainability is certainly not at the core of ESCC transport policy. Cars first. Alternatives? Sometime, maybe – but why are they incessantly, relentlessly, ignored, delayed or suppressed? They will NOT be there as the Link Road opens.


Our June Post includes background information about the report commissioned by Campaign for Better Transport – East Sussex into the feasibility of a new station at Glyne Gap. LINK: Glyne Gap station review JRC 644 Final

The report also reviewed the earlier report upon which Rother District Council, with tacit support from ESCC, based its decision to remove the station from its development plans.

In late July, we received notification from the Planning Inspectorate that in their view, Rother District Council was justified in removing a new Glyne Gap station from the Core Strategic Plan because put simply, there was no chance of funds being made available within the plan period.

We were extremely disappointed in this because the decision demonstrated a failure on the part of two local authorities to build a case for the station, and also because the case for its removal presented by Rother District Council – with backing from the transport authority, ESCC – was seriously flawed. We shall take the opportunity to re-present our case at some time in the near future.

Incredibly, the local authority’s case completely ignored the £multi-million new signalling system, installed and about to go ‘live’. Rother’s and ESCC’s case had predicted just one train per hour because the old signalling system could not permit more trains than this to call at a new station. The new system could have accommodated two trains per hour, helping local people to access their daily needs without the need for a vehicle. It seems as if the £30,000 study commissioned by Rother DC and ESCC was not examined and interrogated by those responsible for its commissioning.

The shorter rail trips originating and ending at smaller stations on the Coastway are just as important as the longer distance commuter trips much talked about recently by Amber Rudd, MP. We are convinced, and our commissioned study shows, that Glyne Gap station would be a success – not least in the function of removing  short car commute trips (the cause of congestion and poor air quality) from the roads at a cost of under £10m. The £113+ Link Road will simply help to fill the roads up by promoting just such carbon emitting  car trips while undermining public transport, walking and cycling and getting in the way of tradesmen and women who need a vehicle to carry out their work.

In other local authority areas, the financial case would have been made and the trains would already be calling at the new station. ‘Excellence’ in terms of high quality alternatives to the car are a long time coming: threatened bus cuts suggest that a decline in public transport for Bexhill and Hastings is acceptable to politicians at all levels. Pressure mounts for those who can afford it to switch to the car. Those who can’t don’t seem to matter.

*Unlike Bexhill College students and local shoppers at Glyne Gap, students at Sussex Coast College campus at Ore College and local residents are flocking to use the trains. There’s a station! In one year, following the full opening of Ore Campus, trip numbers to/from Ore station rose by 97,442. There are 2/3 trains per hour. The opening of M&S store at Glyne Gap/Ravenside would have been the moment to open the new station.


Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged | Leave a comment



Bexhill to Hastings Link Road (BHLR) ‘Complementary Measures’ – Offsetting Environmental Destruction – Real Time Bus Information – Access to Hospital, or not – Glyne Gap Station – Bus Service Cuts – Challenging £multi-million South Coast Road Building:Launch of SCATE (South Coast Alliance for Transport and the Environment).


Car users can happily rehearse how they will make use of the Link Road from day one of opening in May 2015 (current ESCC prediction) – maybe doing new journeys, or switching back to their cars from sustainable, healthy alternatives. Those without access to a car, are unable to drive, or who choose not to, can only guess at the promised improvements to alternatives to the car. These were always described by East Sussex County Council (ESCC) as ‘complementary’ to the Link Road. Remember, alternatives were never fully examined: there was a resolute refusal to do so. But what? When? Where?

In our view there should be advance publicity around this issue, and a prospect of delivery of ‘high quality’ healthy and sustainable transport coinciding with opening of the Link Road rather than a confused picture of what to expect, and a ‘managed decline’ in bus services now offered through impending cuts.

It is grossly unfair that after 14 years of planning the road, there is almost complete silence on the nature of those ‘complementary measures’ we were led to expect, and what exactly non-car users can look forward to as the Link Road opens. This group of the electorate – plus young people – clearly matter less than habitual car drivers. Time for an urgent dialogue between ESCC and Stagecoach – it might be fruitful.

We have formally asked ESCC to hold exhibitions showing what will be in place on day one of Link Road opening for non-car users. We have heard nothing. A failure to set in place high quality alternatives to the car at that point in time will simply promote the ‘car habit’ and increase traffic congestion, making it much harder to promote or achieve a high take-up of ‘active travel’ – walking, cycling and public transport. This has serious implications for public health and doesn’t comply with ESCC policy, or health policies in general. Once again, it seems that alternatives will lag behind provision for the car, struggling to play catch-up.


Sure does – but what and where are the plans?

To borrow a phrase, here is a list of the known unknowns:

The bus service to The Conquest from Bexhill may, or may not run on the Link Road. The last we heard, it would run to Tescos where passengers would need to change for the Conquest. Good for the supermarket, but not for those wishing to get to and from the hospital. Evenings, Sundays and Bank Holidays would be excluded. The proposed frequency is unknown.

Eastbourne, Hastings, Bexhill

The wider issue around access from communities to their local hospital, or newly reallocated clinical services, is also unresolved, with Eastbourne District General Hospital (DGH) better connected to its local communities than is Hastings, but no improvement in sight for public transport access to either hospital from their more distant ‘catchments’ eg Hastings Conquest from Hailsham/Eastbourne, or DGH from Bexhill/Hastings. How needs of patients, visitors and staff will be met is unknown. There has been no forward planning, over recent years, simply never ending car park extensions which generate more traffic and undermine the bus market and make walking and cycling unpleasant. It’s crazy!

Those with access to a car are fine. But a taxi from one to the other costs £34. There is not a comprehensive bus service – and there are no signs of one appearing. The Royal Sussex in Brighton offers a good practice example for bus access until late evening, should anyone be interested – and they should be.

Real Time Passenger Information

Funding for Real Time Passenger Information signs (RTPI) intended for Hastings and Bexhill – indicating how long until the next bus arrives – was a casualty of funding the Link Road. These signs have long been in operation in Brighton, including inside the station  where people can clearly see what buses are due at stops outside the station.



Government funding for these was withheld because ESCC had received millions of pounds for the Link Road. ESCC are going to provide the signs eventually but there is confusion over how many, and where they’ll be. We heard recently that they would not be provided at Hastings Station/Bus Interchange. Clearly, at that location they would be welcome. Inside hospital foyers and the FE colleges in Bexhill and Hastings, and the university would be other obvious locations. Then ideally there would be displays at bus stops over the wider area, including Battle and Rye (and Heathfield and Hailsham). At present, there is no information about information. Public transport works better with clear and prominent information displays but the installation of the displays mentioned has got off to a disastrous start in East Sussex coastal towns. This, plus open talk of cuts to come, does nothing for public confidence in the bus service, and relegates the status of the bus. It’s a subliminal advert for the car.

Glyne Gap Station/Packed and Inadequate Trains

We wait, and wait, for a decision from the Planning Inspectorate on the controversial proposal from Rother District and East Sussex County Council to remove a plan for new station at Glyne Gap (Ravenside) from Rother District Plan and the County’s Local Transport Plan 3. We objected to the local authorities’ proposal  and campaigned hard for its retention and funded a study which showed that the proposals to ‘delete’ the station plan and the £30,000 report on which it was based were flawed. The station would serve the large traffic generating retail park at Ravenside on the A259, the FE college nearby and local residents. We need a new station. We need more trains!



G Gap Demo


One condition placed on funding approval for ESCC’s Link Road was a requirement to enhance a habitat in the ‘Brede Hastings area’ to offset loss of habitat in Combe Haven. The work will cost £250,000.

The habitat is ‘wet woodland and grassland’. It may well be a pathetic attempt to make up for the wreckage in Decoy Stream valley – completely ruined now – and set to be further degraded when the traffic roars through what was a beautiful, tranquil, intimate, steep sided valley. If an intention is that those who rue its loss may experience something in the area of Brede/Hastings to make up for it – which is very doubtful and more likely impossible – then accessibility is an issue. It should be equally accessible to the ‘sacrificed site’, and accessible to all.



Decoy Valley Greylag Decoy Valley June 14

Where is it? How may people get there? It won’t be easily walkable from Bexhill/Hastings and if there is a bus there’ll be a cost. Even if there’s a bus now, current plans to cut services may remove the service. (See below).

ESCC won’t give us a grid reference or accessibility information (requested twice). Worryingly, according to Secretary of State for the Environment, Owen Paterson, MP, offsetting is acceptable if the offset site is ‘up to an hour’s car drive away’. That’s both dismissive and ignorant.


An ESCC consultation on proposed cuts is about to be launched (July 7th). It will run for 12 weeks which unhelpfully coincides with school holidays – and summer holidays for all. The report to Cabinet – including proposed cuts (last three pages) is available via this link: Item 6 (opens new window)

The consultation can be accessed via the link below:

What do you think about these suggested changes to buses? Individuals

In due course we will comment on the proposals on this website and already, others have raised concerns too. Here is a link to ‘Travelman’ website with appropriate comments and useful information. www.travelloglewes.co.uk

Hastings – including links to the Conquest Hospital – is particularly badly hit  by the cuts on weekdays, and on Sundays, for those wishing to access some of the best walking country in the south-east, there may be no buses at all. The ‘honeypot’ of Bodiam Castle will be inaccessible by public transport, along with the adjacent heritage railway.

BELOW:  HASTINGS – BODIAM – HAWKHURST SUNDAY SERVICES MAY BE SCRAPPED. Currently there are four buses each way on Sundays and Bank Holidays.

Bodiam Bus 1a

Hastings Country Park, Fairlight, Winchelsea Beach, Rye and Northiam could lose their Sunday buses too. We note that the National Trust is Committed to reducing the impact of traffic on its properties and the countryside in general, and maximising access by public transport, walking and cycling. The cuts won’t help.

If you wish to make comments on the proposed cuts directly to CBT East Sussex, feel free to do so by e-mail to: derrick.coffee@talk21.com I will incorporate comments in a response. If you have time to submit a response that would be great.


The funds for the ‘low to medium value for money’ (according to the Department for Transport) Link Road and associated schemes will run to £150m or more, while the East Sussex bus support grant of £1.7m is apparently unaffordable. But ESCC is chasing many more millions of public funds to spend on grand road schemes along the coast without – as with the Link Road – considering sustainable, healthy alternatives that do not spawn sprawling and unhealthy car based developments. Health professionals warn us now of the impending crisis that will accompany obesity and consequent Type 2 diabetes caused by poor diets and sedentary lifestyles. A serious and urgent investment in alternative, healthy transport would help to avoid the worst of this: the last thing we need is more road building, its accompanying car dependency and its wasting of land. The costs imposed on the NHS through a failure to meet and beat the obesity challenge would, they warn, threaten the survival of the NHS.



Lewes Rd Cycle

A great example of popular cycle infrastructure investment is the Lewes Road cycleway, Brighton, opened late last year. Measures to support cycling such as this typically repay every pound of investment with up to £20 – in some cases the figure is even higher – of benefits in health improvement, better air quality, reduced CO2 and pollution, less noise and less parking space required.  Accompanied by 20mph zones to encourage cycling in all residential areas, such schemes promote strong growth in walking and cycling. Kings Drive, Eastbourne and St Helens Road, Hastings might be given the same treatment, while a route parallel to the railway line to Ore might also be successful.

It is clear that a strong commitment and major shift to investment in sustainable transport, rather than a car-based future with its accompanying health disbenefits and environmental degradation, both rural and urban, is a way forward to improve public health – physical and mental.

For up to date information on the threats posed by authorities promoting major and very costly road building along the south coast, see the website of newly formed South Coast Alliance on Transport and the Environment (SCATE):

South Coast Alliance on Transport and the Environment .

See also:

Combe Haven Defenders | Stop Osborne’s Roads to




Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment


GLYNE GAP STATION PLANS ”Should be retained for the next planning period” – JRC Consultancy report January, 2014.

Concurrent with the demonstration in support of a new station at Glyne Gap, and following a formal objection to deletion of the station plan from Rother’s planning policies and East Sussex County Council’s Local Transport Plan 3, (See previous post on this website),   Campaign for Better Transport – East Sussex (CBT E SX) commissioned JRC consultancy to review the councils’ own £30,000. report. That report – carried out by Mott McDonald – evidently had flaws and omissions: importantly, it ignored  the new signalling system about to be ‘switched on’, and failed to investigate the potential difference that this could make to provision of new services.

The JRC report – presented by CBT E Sx at the Public Inquiry into the council’s proposed amendments to next local plan for the period to 2026 –   Glyne Gap station review JRC 644 Final is critical of the council’s commissioned report, pointing out its shortcomings (as well as some useful research). For instance, the ‘one train per hour‘ service would set the business case to fail and yet the new signalling could potentially accommodate two trains per hour, giving a much better ‘benefit to cost’ ratio. That was never tested. Rother District’s consultant admitted that he was never asked to look at that scenario! It wasn’t in the remit given him by the two councils.

There were other criticisms in the JRC report:

The extent to which passengers would be ‘lost’ to Bexhill through using Glyne Gap was exaggerated and took no account of passengers new to the railway; the massive growth in popularity of rail travel was underplayed ( a doubling of passengers at Ore from 112,000 to 210,000 in just one year and 10% for each of the last ten years at Bexhill and Collington!); the value of an extra train per hour serving local stations was overlooked; improved pedestrian/cycle links to Pebsham community,  a better complementary bus service and area wide and well marketed ticketing including bus and rail travel as in other urban areas – none of this was considered of interest or benefit to residents or visitors.

On top of this, the decision to delete the new station plan didn’t fit with national or local policy – including support for local economies, health and environment –  and was considered premature and unnecessary since the railway timetable would be re-examined for 2019: that’s  7 years before the expiry of the Local Plan period in 2026.

Overall,  CBT E Sx considers this to be a poor decision flowing from an incomplete study, and outside of any overall strategy  ignoring the hopes, needs and changing lifestyles of the younger generation.

The press release, and the CBT E Sx submission to the Planning Inspector are here:

Glyne Gap Presser 20th Jan

Glyne Gap 3,000 Words Sub.

Bexhill Observer article is here:

Glyne Gap Sta Bex Obs 31 2


Any temporarary relief afforded the A259 by BHLR  may be very short lived. Unless there are high quality alternatives to the car and parking controls to lock in the benefits, the traffic will simply grow back.

The Bexhill Observer headlines of 31st Jan 2014 celebrated the planned bus lanes for the A259 as bringing a ‘cut in A259 gridlock’: there was an editorial sigh of relief:  ‘At last…..’. But the ‘gridlock’ scenario rarely applies to Bexhill Road and the traffic is almost always moving, if slowly: that’s good, not bad for residents, pedestrians and cyclists. A recent trip on the 99 from Hastings to Eastbourne included a total of 18 minutes where the bus just sat at stops between Hastings and Bexhill. In any case  the situation is always much worse in school term time. And the bus lanes, along with many other sustainable measures  promoted by CBT E Sx for many years, could have been implemented in the early 2000s. We can contemplate that if those measures had been carried out, they may have caused a few red faces when their success and popularity became obvious and made the BHLR look a bit daft and many, many times more costly for local and national taxpayers.

So, what should the mix of high quality alternatives include?

  • Pedestrian and cycling improvements, including a redesign of the arrangements between Hastings station/college and Priory Meadow/Havelock Road. These are dangerous and insulting to pedestrians.
  • Evening and night bus services, with daytime ‘turn up and go’ levels of service at 4 buses per hour between Bexhill and Hastings, and Eastbourne, and at least 2 per hour on Sundays and Bank Holidays . The Conquest and Eastbourne District General  hospitals are now central to the needs of residents and visitors of all three towns. Currently evening visitors to the Conquest have a very hard time when it comes to finding buses home. Brighton standards provide a good model with all residential areas provided with 4 buses an hour from the Royal Sussex hospital up to 10 pm. That’s civilised and fair, and helps staff too.
  • A well marketed Bexhill and Hastings Travel Card ‘smart ticket’ for all buses and trains. That was recommended in 2002 in a major government funded study of the two towns and south coast towns in general.They’d be popular
  • Bus lanes: yes, we know they’re coming, but they were said to be coming in the ESCC Local Transport Plan (LTP1) for 2000. They’re long overdue – as is the Quality Bus Partnership route for Ore – Little Common; and one for The Ridge. They were also in the ESCC 2000 LTP1.
  • A railway station at Glyne Gap to serve the retail/leisure services, provide workers with access, give college students a good mix of non-car alternatives, make it easy for young families to have a day at the beach and with improved pedestrian/cycle access, give Pebsham residents a high quality mix of transport choice, and reduce traffic and climate change gas emissions on the A259.
  • All the above would be important pieces in the mosaic of measures that have been resolutely resisted by ESCC for so long to make the BHLR look such a good deal, though not according to the Department for Transport who could only rate it as giving ‘medium to poor value for money’.


Now here’s a sure route to gridlock!

Friends of the Earth ran a campaign over a decade ago on the theme of ‘Better towns: Less traffic’. That principle still holds good. A noisy town choked by traffic and fumes is not a town to linger in and will deter visitors. The pressure of traffic and the degradation of open space taken up by cars cramming in to diminishing space does nothing for a town’s prosperity. It also holds up pedestrians, cyclists and the bus services.  The free parking petition set up by MP Amber Rudd will simply lead to more car trips for short distances, choking up local streets and getting in the way of traders, builders, plumbers, electricians and essential service vehicles which do need to get around to carry out their business. It’ll make walking and cycling unpleasant and dangerous, frustrate efforts to create more high quality public spaces where people will want to linger, encourage unhealthy lifestyles, increase emissions of climate change gases and  create a negative image of a great town.


There is a big push on in government to rush through studies assessing projects for new roads. Some are re-hashed old ones, dusted off and wheeled out. Most frightening is that the plans are based on assertions not backed by evidence  (think BHLR only on a national scale). This has many serious implications for generations to come. See the link to the national Campaign for Better Transport website:

New roads policy goes back to the 90s – help us take action


Some images of the floods – 2nd February, 2014:

The peace of the valley is recognised by everyone as of value: within such easy (and affordable) reach of so many people: a perfect place to experience  wildlife and sense history  in a beautiful landscape setting. That combination will be lost. A scheme to ‘offset’ some of the habitat loss will be funded ‘in the Hastings/Brede area’. Of course this is of some value, but no one seems able to tell us where it is. Still, as Owen Paterson MP, Secretary of State for the Environment, tells us, it’s quite an acceptable practice as long as it’s no more than an hour away by car, so cutting off kids from nature. What a cynic and what a cynical ideology.

CHWaterscape Berries CH Wintry Water CH Water Adams Fm CH Spit and Adams CH Flying Swans CH Flooded Gate CH Dinosaurs and Berries  CH Causeway Flood CH 1066 and Swans

Image | Posted on by | Leave a comment


This gallery contains 15 photos.

To coincide with the opening of the new Marks and Spencers store at Ravenside (Glyne Gap) on the 28th November, Campaign for Better Transport – East Sussex, and the Hastings Alliance, held a demonstration to publicise the absence of a … Continue reading

Gallery | 2 Comments