hailsham & hellingly movement & access strategy · halcrow group limited elms house, 43...

HAILSHAM & HELLINGLY Movement & Access Strategy

East Sussex County Council

Halcrow Group Ltd

2 November 2012

Halcrow Group Limited

Elms House, 43 Brook Green, Hammersmith, London

W6 7EF

tel (0)20 3479 8000 fax (0)20 3479 8001

www.halcrow.com

Halcrow Group Limited is a CH2M HILL company

Halcrow Group Limited has prepared this report in accordance with

the instructions of the client, for the client’s sole and specific use.

Any other persons who use any information contained herein do so at their own risk.

© Halcrow Group Limited 2012

HAILSHAM & HELLINGLY Movement & Access Strategy

East Sussex County Council

Halcrow Group Ltd

2 November 2012

Document history

This document has been issued and amended as follows:

Version Date Description Created by Reviewed & Verified by

01 to 05 08/02/2012 to 13/04/2012 Early Drafts Simon Doyle Relevant ESCC officials

06 04/05/2012 Final Draft Simon Doyle Relevant ESCC officials

07 18/05/2012 Final Draft 2 Simon Doyle Relevant ESCC officials

08 08/06/2012 Final Draft 3 Simon Doyle Relevant ESCC officials

09 12/06/2012 Final Simon Doyle Relevant ESCC officials

Martin Johnson

10 02/11/2012 Final Corrected Simon Doyle Relevant ESCC officials

Contents

1 Introduction 1 1.1 Background 1

1.2 SWETS 1

1.3 Funding 1

1.4 Phasing & Priorities 2

2 Status Quo 4 2.1 General 4

2.2 Movement & Access Networks 7

2.3 Strategic Connections 7

2.4 Local Connections 11

2.5 Recent Past & Near Future 12

2.6 Planned Development 13

2.7 Possibilities 19

2.7.1 A22 & Hempstead Lane All-Movement Junction 19

2.7.2 Consolidated South Road, Diplocks Way & Ersham Road Roundabout 19

2.7.3 Town Centre Travel Demand Reductions & North-South Through-Traffic Re-Routing via Summerheath Road 19

2.7.4 Hailsham-Eastbourne Express Bus Service 20

2.7.5 Strategic & Local Tactical Signing Improvements 21

2.7.6 Local Connectivity & Access 21

2.7.7 Town Centre Pedestrian & Public Realm Improvements 22

2.7.8 Town Centre Traffic Circulation Changes 23

2.7.9 Smarter Choices 25

3 Movement & Access Strategy 27 3.1 Scheme Categories 27

3.1.1 Game-Changers 27

3.1.2 Important Local Interventions 27

3.1.3 Nice-To-Haves 27

3.2 Game-Changers 34

3.2.1 A22 & Hempstead Lane All-Movement Junction 34

3.2.2 Consolidated South Road, Diplocks Way & Ersham Road Roundabout 35

3.2.3 Signalisation of Junction of South & Western Roads 36

3.2.4 Hailsham-Eastbourne Express Bus Service 37

3.2.5 Strategic & Local Tactical Signing Improvements 37

3.2.6 Town Centre Pedestrian & Public Realm Improvements 38

3.2.7 Real-Time Bus Information System 53

3.2.8 Improved Smarter Choice Offer 54

3.3 Important Local Interventions 60

3.4 Nice-to-Haves 63

4 Delivery Strategy 64 4.1 General 64

4.2 Essential Works 66

4.3 Traffic Modelling 67

4.4 SWETS Differences 69

Appendices

Appendix A Generic Explanatory Material & Assumptions A.1 Scheme Identification

A.2 Scheme Selection

A.3 Scheme Development & Assessment

A.4 Scheme Costs

A.5 Scheme Priority & Timing

Appendix B Scheme Figures & Cost Estimates

Appendix C Modelling Work C.1 General

C.2 Development Assumptions, Trip Rates & Trip End Estimates

C.3 Traffic Growth

C.4 Scenarios Modelled

C.5 Mode Shift

C.6 Highway Results

Appendix D Options Considered but not Progressed

1

1 Introduction

1.1 Background

Since 2006 numerous large scale development proposals have been approved for the

town of Hailsham and village of Hellingly with several further development

allocations likely as part of the Wealden District Council LDF. In order to mitigate

the transport impact of these consented developments and future LDF sites,

improvement schemes at key junctions, on key links and within the town centre are

required to:

• enhance local accessibility;

• improve pedestrian, cycling and passenger transport connectivity;

• improve public realm; and

• support the regeneration aspirations of the town.

This document identifies a prioritised, timed and preliminarily-costed package of

improvement schemes to answer the above needs. A couple of schemes addressing

movement into and out of Hailsham from surrounding areas and

centres (e.g. Polegate and Eastbourne) are also raised but are not dealt with at the

same level of detail. A separate study for the Polegate and Stone Cross areas will

commence shortly to cover such schemes and other area studies are likely. This

study will be reviewed following the completion of that work.

1.2 SWETS

The South Wealden and Eastbourne Transport Study (SWETS), completed in 2010 to

support the emerging Wealden Core Strategy, formed the immediate basis of the

exercise undertaken to prepare this document. It identified a number of

infrastructure and operational interventions (at a strategic level) necessary to mitigate

the impact of future development across the broader South Wealden and Eastbourne

areas generally as well as Hailsham and Hellingly more specifically. The

CUBE/SATURN model, developed as part of the SWETS study and recently updated

to reflect more current traffic demands and conditions in the Hailsham area, was

used in assessing the proposals tabled in this document.

1.3 Funding

To date the County Council has secured approximately £1.5 million from

developments in the area towards transport infrastructure improvements. Some

schemes identified in this study will be funded by existing s106 contributions.

Although it will be possible to deliver quite a few of the proposed schemes with this

money, other schemes that are necessary to mitigate the impacts of LDF allocations

will have to be funded through those future developments, CIL and other sources.

Most important amongst these are:

• schemes affecting areas far wider than Hailsham and Hellingly (e.g. the

proposed Hailsham-Eastbourne Express Bus Service, the proposed

county-wide real-time bus information system and Strategic Road Network

improvements);

• schemes whose costs far exceed normal s106 funding streams or s278

expectations; and

2

• fairly modest schemes (e.g. footway upgrades and new bus shelters) which,

because of location and/or existing s106 conditions, do not qualify for funding

under current agreements and the monies associated with them.

1.4 Phasing & Priorities

Statements are made at various points in this document concerning the delivery

phasing and relative priorities of proposed schemes, all of which considering

Hailsham and Hellingly in isolation from the larger Wealden area. Requirements in

other growth areas – principally, Polegate and Stone Cross – and the balanced

delivery of infrastructure over the whole of Wealden District, dependent on CIL

receipts, may demand some re-prioritisation of funding and phasing of schemes

within Hailsham and Hellingly themselves. This matter is taken up again in

section 4.1.

3

The Core Strategy seeks to enhance the role of Hailsham as a District Centre serving

its local community and surrounding area by:

• working with Hailsham Town Council and Hellingly Parish Council and local

land owners and developers to build on Hailsham and Hellingly’s town master

planning and retail consultancy reports and ensure that they are developed in

conjunction with Wealden District Council’s LDF Site Allocation Development

Plan Documents;

• supporting appropriate development within the built-up area contained within the

Hailsham development boundary;

• continuing to meet the housing and community needs of Hailsham by allocating

a range of deliverable housing sites for around 1300 dwellings and 8,650 sq.metres

net employment floorspace, 300 sq.metres retail floorspace and education

provision;

• creating new parks and increasing the provision and accessibility of open space

links to provide a greenspace network as part of the proposed town extensions,

and creating better connectivity with the Cuckoo Trail and existing town open

spaces;

• encouraging employment growth and increasing the range of local job

opportunities by supporting the provision of office space and commercial

premises around the town;

• supporting the continuation of a livestock market in the vicinity of the town to

assist in supporting the agricultural economy and local producers;

• allocating land for some additional 5,930 sq.metres of retail floorspace as part of

a comprehensive re-development scheme in Hailsham Town Centre which will

increase the retail attractiveness of Hailsham and help create a vibrant and

inclusive town centre that is a mixed use hub for retail, commercial, leisure, civic

and residential activities and which can offer a diversity of choice for residents and

visitors;

• supporting the improvement of linkages between the shopping core and other

areas of the town, and improving accessibility to the town centre, particularly by

public transport;

• supporting and enhancing public transport connections with neighbouring

settlements, in particular by promoting the Eastbourne-Hailsham Quality Bus

Corridor and a more integrated approach to the provision of bus services;

• supporting measures which reduce the impact of vehicular traffic on the town

centre and improve the pedestrian and cyclist environments; and

• ensuring the protection of the Pevensey Levels through appropriate mitigation

measures as part of the Habitat Regulations Assessment. Taken (with editing) from Wealden District (Incorporating Part of the South Downs National Park)

Local Development Framework Core Strategy, August 2011

4

2 Status Quo

2.1 General1

Hailsham - the largest inland town in East Sussex and an established market town

since 1252 - is located approximately ten kilometres north of Eastbourne between the

middle reaches of the Cuckmere River to the west and the Pevensey Levels to the

east. Wilmington Wood reaches to the town's southern edge. Figure 1 on the

following page shows Hailsham’s broader context relative to Eastbourne to the south,

Bexhill to the southeast, Heathfield to the north, Uckfield to the northwest and Lewes

to the west.

The historic core of the town, around Market Square and St Mary's Church, still exists

and High Street, Market Square, Market Street and George Street retain elements of

the town centre’s original architecture - the Corn Exchange, The Pavilion,

Town House, The Grenadier and Courtlands being

particular examples.

Although more recent town centre development is

located behind older previously existing retail frontages,

and is generally of a scale that does not dominate the

street environment, modern frontages detract from the

street scene at a number of points. The upper elevations

and varied rooflines of many of the shopping

thoroughfares, together with retained views of

St Mary’s Church and its tower top, do much to retain

a market town appearance and feel about the retail

centre of the town.

Today, Hailsham serves as a local employment centre,

providing a range of jobs in the manufacturing and

services sectors. It also serves as the local shopping

centre for Hailsham and the surrounding rural areas.

Recent developments at Vicarage Field, The Quintins,

St Mary's Walk and the new Tescos store off

North Street have strengthened the retail role of the

town centre and the Freedom Leisure Centre in

Vicarage Lane has increased recreational

1 Much of the material in this section was taken from Hailsham & Hellingly Masterplan,

A Programme for the Future, January 2009.

Wealden District Council’s strategy for the town has

been to maintain and develop the role of Hailsham

as a housing, local employment, shopping and

services centre, and has involved striking a balance

between the demands for new housing, the need to

improve local employment opportunities and the

protection of the environment.

Its objectives have been to:

• conserve and enhance the landscape setting of the

town;

• maintain and enhance the function of the town as

a local employment, shopping and service centre;

• maintain and improve the range and choice of

local employment opportunities;

• maintain and further promote the economic

viability and vitality of the town centre;

• create a safe and attractive environment in the

town centre for shoppers and pedestrians, whilst

reducing traffic congestion and improving

accessibility; and

• maintain and widen the range of community

facilities and amenities. Taken (with slight editing) from Hailsham & Hellingly

MASTERPLAN

A Programme for the Future, January 2009

5

Figure 1: Broader Context of Hailsham & Hellingly

Eastbourne

HeathfieldUckfield

Lewes

Newhaven

Seaford

Bexhill

Hailsham

Hellingly

A27

A259

A259

A27A22

A271

A267

A26

A271

A259

A259

A26

A275

A269

A2270

A22

Polegate Pevensey

StoneCross

A27

Eastbourne

HeathfieldUckfield

Lewes

Newhaven

Seaford

Bexhill

Hailsham

Hellingly

A27

A259

A259

A27A22

A271

A267

A26

A271

A259

A259

A26

A275

A269

A2270

A22

Polegate Pevensey

StoneCross

A27

6

opportunities.

Hailsham experienced considerable growth during the twentieth century, with

significant residential development during the post-war years. Over the 30 years

between the late 1970s and late 1990s Hailsham’s population increased by 50% from

approximately 14,000 to almost 21,000. Home building during the last decade, on the

western and southern edges of the town, added over 3,000 more people. Recent large

scale development approvals, many of which have commenced, and development

allocations associated with the Wealden District Council LDF (1300 dwellings), can be

expected to add another 5,000 to 6,000 by 2027. All told, Hailsham’s population will

more than double over late 1970s levels by 2027.

As expected, housing and population increases have and will continue to be

complemented with service, business and employment developments - the recent

Tescos development off North Street and extended Wealden District Council offices

currently under construction off Vicarage Lane are particular examples of recent or

current development. Wealden District Council’s LDF assumes a further 31,600m2

retail, office, industrial, school, library and health service floor space within Hailsham

by 2027.

In view of the rapid development that has taken place in recent years and the need

for the town to assimilate, both physically and socially, recent past development and

the significant housing commitment still remaining, Hailsham will benefit from

targeted transport and movement –related investment and economic regeneration

effort in coming years. Currently unused retail space within the town centre, the

recent loss of major employers like Marlow Ropes and Abbot Joinery as well as

historically low wage and skill levels, aggravated by close and competitive

sub-regional and regional shopping and employment offers in Eastbourne and

Brighton, underscore the regeneration challenge. The strategy that follows in this

document addresses the movement and access investment required if Hailsham is to

meet consented and planned growth in a balanced, sustainable and economically

viable way.

Hellingly

The Parish of Hellingly lies immediately to the north of Hailsham. It comprises

a scattered collection of fairly localised developments, the most well known of which

being Hellingly Village, centred on the Church of St Peter and St Paul. The location of

Hellingly Village is indicated in Figure 1.

Lower Horsebridge comprises another significant development concentration within

Hellingly Parish. It straddles the busy eastern end of the A271 as it approaches

Boship Roundabout. Hellingly has its own primary school, village facilities and

various local shops and public houses, but the residents of Hellingly are very much

a part of “larger” Hailsham, satisfying the majority of their immediate needs there.

Until recently, there have been no major developments in the Parish. The

re-development of Hellingly Hospital and further housing provisions assumed in

Wealden District Council’s LDF have changed that. Future growth in the Hellingly

area will further impact on the rural road system if mitigation measures are not in

place.

7

2.2 Movement & Access Networks

Figures 2a, 2b, 3 and 4 on the following pages show the existing road, bus, on-street

footway and segregated cycle networks in Hailsham and Hellingly. Figure 5 shows

the major pedestrian connections and parking areas in Hailsham Town Centre.

Figures 2a and 2b also provide modelled 2011 AM and PM weekday peak hour traffic

volumes on the highway. Average daytime hourly regular bus service volumes are

shown on Figure 3. Figure 4 shows the location of the segregated cycle facilities

currently available in Hailsham and Hellingly – namely, the Cuckoo Trail and the

new Park Road cycle way. The segregated cycle path currently being designed for

Battle Road is also indicated. Figure 5 shows the locations of the five central block

cross-routes in the town centre and the onward connections a number of them

naturally connect into.

2.3 Strategic Connections

Figures 2a and 2b show the major routes into and past Halisham and Hellingly. The

A22, A271, A267 and B2104 provide the major highway accesses into the area.

Although the A22 and A267 are relatively high standard roads, the A271 is poorly

aligned and configured (single carriageway) as it passes through Hailsham -

particularly its Hawkswood Road and Lower and Upper Horsebridge portions.

Generally speaking, the A271 is not adequately configured for the function it fulfils

and the volumes it carries within Hailsham. Indeed, peak period capacity and level

of service issues on the A271 encourage the use of alternative routes to both the north

and south that are even less suited to carrying the types and volumes of traffic that

would be better kept on the A271. The most important alternative routes are the

east-west and north-south “rat runs” offered by New, Station and London Roads to

the north of Hailsham and the B2104 and A295 north-south “rat runs” through

Hailsham.2

Currently, the highest traffic volumes within Hailsham are on the A271,

South Road (particularly the section north of Ersham Road) and North Street.

The B2104 provides an important alternative route to and from the south and

southeast. While reasonably configured for inter-urban traffic, its usefulness is

severely limited by significant capacity constraints at the junction of South and

Ersham Roads in Hailsham and junctions in the Stone Cross vicinity to the north of

Eastbourne. If these capacity constraints are addressed, the road would see increased

use as a link between Hailsham and the northern fringes of Greater Eastbourne at the

2 The recent re-alignment of New Road just to the east of Park Road (breaking east-west network

continuity to the north of the A271) and imminent Hellingly Village traffic calming works will

discourage “rat-running” to the north. Schemes proposed in this document will significantly

help matters by encouraging greater use of the A271 by east-west through traffic.

8

Figure 2a: Existing Highway Network with 2011 Weekday AM Peak Hour Vehicular Volumes Figure 2b: Existing Highway Network with 2011 Weekday PM Peak Hour Vehicular Volumes

1470

790

520

310

1670910

310

600

160

110

4080

400

700

5030

50

30110

80

160160

210

100440

180

190

110

310

240

510

420

430170

280

120

150350

670410 500

340 450340

670

490

630420

370

280

100

110

380

270

420

310

460

840

310

630

270

900

870

460

500

380550

330

70320

90

420280

4 40

3 00

350230

1390

910

1430

1070

1370

1820

60

90

120

190

540

450

310240300

180

A22A271

A267

A22

A22

B2104

South

Road

LondonRoad

Battle

Roa

d

Haw

ksRoa

d

DiplocksWay

Hempstead

Lane

StationRoad

Park

Road

North

Street

A271

directional demand (pcus/hr)100

150

220

1470

790

1470

790

520

310

520

310

16709101670910

310

600310

600

160

110

160

110

4080

4080

400

700400

700

5030

5030

50

30

50

30110

80110

80

160160160160

210

100210

100440

180

440180

190

110190

110

310

240

310

240

510

420510

420

430170

430170

280

120

280

120

150350

150350

670410670410 500

340

500

340 450340

450340

670

490

670

490

630420

630420

370

280

370

280

100

11010

0

110

380

27038

0270

420

310420

310

460

840460

840

310310

630630

270270

900

87090

0

870

460

50046

0

500

380550

380550

330

70330

70320

90

320

90

420280

420280

4 40

3 00

4 40

3 00

350230350230

1390

910

1390

910

1430

1070

1430

1070

1370

1820

1370

1820

60

9060

90

120

190

120

190

540

450

540

450

310240310240300

180

300

180

A22A271

A267

A22

A22

B2104

South

Road

LondonRoad

Battle

Roa

d

Haw

ksRoa

d

DiplocksWay

Hempstead

Lane

StationRoad

Park

Road

North

Street

A271


150

22015

022

0

740

1360

290

520

9001220

450

530

90

260

30100

710

550

3070

30

70

160

140

110

80

120200

90

330260

310

120

200

200

70

210

240

420

370

330170

250

110

150270

370780 340

540 360550

480

630

430620

300

350

90

100

300

370

330

390

340

830

230

560

230

830

800

520

470

200

190

180

90

240370

270

4 40

210320

1070

1220

1150

1270

1680

1490

190

90

420410

480

470

200360290

310

A22A271

A267

A22

A22

B2104

South

Road

LondonRoadBattle

Roa

d

Haw

ksRoa

d

DiplocksWay

Hempstead

Lane

StationRoad

Park

Road

North

Street

A271


740

1360

740

1360

290

520

290

520

90012209001220

450

530450

530

90

260

90

260

30100

30100

710

550710

550

3070

3070

30

70

30

70

160

14016

014

0

110

80110

80

120200120200

90

330

90

330260

310

260310

120

200120

200

200

70200

70

210

240

210

240

420

370420

370

330170

330170

250

110

250

110

150270

150270

370780370780 340

540

340

540 360550

360550

480

630

480

630

430620

430620

300

350

300

350

90

100

90

100

300

37030

0370

330

390330

390

340

830340

830

230230

560560

230230

830

80083

0

800

520

47052

0

470

200

190200

190

180

90

180

90

240370

240370

270

4 40

270

4 40

210320210320

1070

12201070

1220

1150

1270

1150

1270

1680

1490

1680

1490

190

90

190

90

420410

420410

480

470

480

470

200360200360290

310

290

310

A22A271

A267

A22

A22

B2104

South

Road

LondonRoadBattle

Roa

d

Haw

ksRoa

d

DiplocksWay

Hempstead

Lane

StationRoad

Park

Road

North

Street

A271


9

Figure 3: Average Daytime Hourly Bus Frequencies Figure 4: Existing On-Street Pedestrian Footways & Existing & Imminent Segregated Cycle Facilities

A22A271

A267

A22

A22

B2104

South

Road

LondonRoad

Battle

Road

Haw

ksRoa

d

DiplocksWay

Hempstead

Lane

StationRoad

Park

Road

North

Street

A271

Cuc

koo Trail

Cuckoo Trail

Cuckoo T

rail

Park

Roa

d

Cycle

Way

on-street footways

existing segregated cycle paths

imminent segregated cycle paths

A22A271

A267

A22

A22

B2104

South

Road

LondonRoad

Battle

Road

Haw

ksRoa

d

DiplocksWay

Hempstead

Lane

StationRoad

Park

Road

North

Street

A271

Cuc

koo Trail

Cuckoo Trail

Cuckoo T

rail

Park

Roa

d

Cycle

Way

on-street footways



on-street footways



1

1

1

1

33

3

3

1

1

45

5

55

5

44 1

5 11

1

1

1

1

2 2

22

22

7

7

77

7

44

3 3

33

4 44

4

55

51

A22

A271

A267

A22

A22

B2104

South

Road

LondonRoadBattle

Roa

d

Haw

ksRoa

d

DiplocksWay

Hempstead

Lane

StationRoad

Park

Road

North

Street

A271

Upper Dicker, Berwick, Uckfield &

Lewes

Heat

hfiel

d

Hastings

Stone Cross

& Eas

tbourne

Eas

tbou

rne

& Berwick

Mark Cross

& Berwick

regular services

limited servicesonly on certain days of the week and/or certain times

2 22

2

5

1

1

1

1

33

3

3

1

1

45

5

55

5

44 1

5 11

1

1

1

1

2 2

22

22

7

7

77

7

44

3 3

33

4 44

4

55

51

A22

A271

A267

A22

A22

B2104

South

Road

LondonRoadBattle

Roa

d

Haw

ksRoa

d

DiplocksWay

Hempstead

Lane

StationRoad

Park

Road

North

Street

A271

Upper Dicker, Berwick, Uckfield &

Lewes

Heat

hfiel

d

Hastings

Stone Cross

& Eas

tbourne

Eas

tbou

rne

& Berwick

Mark Cross

& Berwick

regular services


regular services


2 22 22

22

2

5

10

Figure 5: Hailsham Town Centre Pedestrian Connections & Parking Areas

service yard

service yard

indoor mallparking

parking

parking

parking

parking

parking

park

ing

parking

South Stree

t

Market Street

Vicarage Road

London Road

Vicarage Laneparking parking

North S

treet

store entry

on-street footways

other pedestrian connections

service yard

service yard

indoor mallparking

parking

parking

parking

parking

parking

park

ing

parking

South Stree

t

Market Street

Vicarage Road

London Road

Vicarage Laneparking parking

North S

treet

store entry

on-street footways

other pedestrian connections

Background reproduced from Ordnance Survey mapping with the permission of the Controller of Her Majesty’s Stationary Office © Crown Copyright.East Sussex County Council – 100019601 2012

11

very least – something that is not necessarily desirable. The significant capacity

constraints at the junction of South and Ersham Roads in Hailsham and junctions in

the Stone Cross vicinity to the north of Eastbourne, however, are not desirable either.

The preferable solution would be to address A22/A27 and A2270 issues in tandem

with any improvements on the B2104 corridor or to complement capacity

improvements on the B2104 corridor with measures that “cap” traffic increases.

With the removal of the railway through Hailsham and Hellingly during the 1960s

there is no direct rail connection in Hailsham. Inter-urban rail services can only be

accessed indirectly via car or bus through the nearest rail station in Polegate, five to

six kilometres to the south. Polegate offers particularly good connections to

Eastbourne, Hastings, London and Brighton – the latter two via Lewes.

2.4 Local Connections

Within Hailsham, a relatively even network of local connectors and distributors

provides reasonable penetration but not necessarily good connectivity across and

through the town in the north-south and east-west axes. On the north-south axis the

primary road network funnels down in the vicinity of the town centre, concentrating

traffic on a limited number of roads, located, at times, in extremely constrained and

also more densely developed and active settings – none of which provide the

necessary capacity. On the east-west axis the town is subtly split in two by what is

otherwise a very important and unique asset - the Cuckoo Trail. As one would

expect of an old rail corridor, the Cuckoo Trail is associated with limited crossing

points, which introduce a degree of severance between east and west Hailsham

which would not otherwise exist. In mitigation, the Cuckoo Trail comprises

a well-located, well-oriented and also segregated walk and cycle facility through the

town. As such, it provides a convenient and, potentially safer, alternative for local

walk and cycle trips which would otherwise have to use what are often narrow and

busy roads. Although significant numbers of scholars and students are seen using

the Cuckoo Trail during weekdays before and after school, its main use appears to be

for leisure rather than as a means of getting to the town centre for work, educational

or shopping purposes. Generous supplies of free parking at various points in and

around the town centre render car access so convenient it is no surprise locals do not

use the Cuckoo Trail as a more healthy and sustainable alternative to and from the

town centre.

It is worth noting that the north-south and east-west issues discussed immediately

above are not entirely negative in nature. They discourage unwanted through-traffic

on both the local and strategic levels, and are therefore in that sense an ally.

The main roads providing access to, and the network of local roads allowing traffic to

circulate around, central Hailsham are busy during the weekday and weekend peaks.

Indeed, congestion can spike quite quickly at junctions with constrained layouts. The

junctions of South Road with Diplocks Way and Ersham Road and, to a lesser extent,

the junctions of South Road with Western Road and George Street and of

London Road with Battle Road and North and High Streets are particular examples.

Although they generally cope with existing demands, they are expected to have

significant implications for planned growth and expansion in Hailsham Town Centre

specifically and Hailsham and Hellingly more generally. The junctions of South Road

with Diplocks Way and Ersham Road are a particular concern.

12

As one would expect within a rural area - something one would not necessarily want

to change - the Hellingly district is served by a loose network of roads which

effectively but modestly serve all directions of travel. Unfortunately, and as already

stated above, the network is sufficiently well-connected to allow significant amounts

of rat-running, especially when the strategic network is congested.3

Figure 3 shows average daytime hourly bus frequencies for regularly available

services. The best served corridor between Hailsham and the south - ultimately to

Eastbourne via Polegate or Stone Cross – is clearly evident. The next busiest

corridors link Hailsham with Heathfield to the north and Uckfield to the northwest.

Generally speaking, frequencies on the first corridor support regular commuter use,

but network bottlenecks within Hailsham4 and to the south near Polegate and in

Stone Cross undermine bus service journey times.

Although there is a town bus service and local community bus services serve the

rural settlements around Hailsham, service frequencies are not at those levels which

would foster routine commuter use within Hailsham or between Hailsham and the

immediate rural areas. Inter-urban services pass sufficiently close to most areas

within Hailsham to cover for the lack of a regular local bus service.5

2.5 Recent Past & Near Future

Recently approved planning applications involve s106 and s278 agreements which

have and will continue to deliver a number of significant and also necessary highway

improvements. The most important improvements delivered to date comprise:

• the re-alignment of New Road just to the east of Park Road;

• improvements to the A22 southbound left-out slip into Hempstead Lane;

• improvements to the existing mini-roundabout at the junction of Hawks Road,

London Road and Hempstead Lane;

3 As already noted in a previous footnote, the recent re-alignment of New Road just to the east of

Park Road (breaking east-west network continuity to the north of the A271) and imminent

Hellingly Village traffic calming works will discourage “rat-running” to the north. Schemes

proposed in this document will significantly help matters by encouraging greater use of the A271

by east-west through traffic. 4 Particularly at the junctions of South Road with Diplocks Way and Ersham Road. 5 A review of publicly available bus service timetable information showed that there are a total of

13 services, of which:

� 7 are inter-urban in nature, 5 of which providing a total of 7 buses an hour to Eastbourne

via either Polegate or Stone Cross;

� 4 are local in nature; and

� 2 are rural in nature.

Of the same 13 services, 4 could be described as occasional, involving only 1 to 3 trips one

weekday per week. Further, an additional 3 services – all of which local to Hailsham - offer up

to 8 daytime trips, but on Mondays, Wednesdays and Fridays only.

13

• the provision of a development access and small roundabout at the junction of

Hempstead Lane and Gleneagles Drive;

• a cycle way on Park Road;

• the provision of various new development accesses; and

• a bus service connecting the Hellingly Hospital development

site (Roebuck Park) with Polegate via Hailsham.

Imminent improvements (secured by existing s106 agreements) include:

• the signalisation of the junction of Park Road and the A271;

• a new mini-roundabout at the junction of Hawks Road and the A271;

• Magham Down safety improvements;

• Hellingly Village traffic calming;

• a new small roundabout at the junction of Battle Road and the A271;

• a new signalised junction incorporating pedestrian and cycle facilities on

Battle Road, just north of Battle Crescent (providing access to the development

site behind the Wealden District Council offices and Leisure Centre);

• a signalised pedestrian crossing over the A271 at the local shopping centre

between Battle and Park Roads;

• a cycle way on Battle Road;

• a new footway connection along Marshfoot Lane for pedestrians accessing the

town centre;

• improvements to the junction of London Road and the A271;

• Gleneagles Drive traffic calming;

• a cycle connection between the Hellingly Hospital development

site (Roebuck Park) and the Cuckoo Trail (to be agreed); and

• improvements to bus stops on Anglesey Avenue.

Figure 6 shows the locations of all of the above.

2.6 Planned Development

Without in any way discounting the value of any of the schemes listed above and the

improvements they bring to the transport network in Hailsham and Hellingly - both

individually and in combination, as well as locally and strategically – they do not

provide that step-change necessary to handle planned LDF development. Substantial

development is planned for Hailsham and Hellingly. Figure 7 shows the locations

and development quanta involved. Overall, traffic activity is expected to increase by

approximately 50% over 2011 levels due to the consented and planned development

quanta shown in Figure 7.6

6 The development quanta cited in Figure 7 reflect those assumed in the modelling exercise. There

may be differences between them and official LDF figures.

14

Traffic modelling clearly shows that currently planned growth for the Hailsham

vicinity will significantly increase traffic pressures on the A271 between

Cowbeech Road and Boship Roundabout. Indeed, without some of the planned local

improvements mentioned above, severe capacity issues will develop at the junctions

of the A271 with North Street, London Road, Park Road and New and Cowbeech

Roads. Further, modelling also shows that existing problems at Boship Roundabout

(particularly on the A271 eastern arm during weekday afternoon peaks) would

worsen significantly and the access junctions on the A22 at Diplocks Way and

South Road will also suffer increased congestion. More substantial interventions are

essential.

The strategic road network serving Hailsham is not the only part of the network that

will suffer. The junctions of South Road with Diplocks Way and Ersham Road -

already a problem - will develop into a serious bottleneck. Traffic pressures in the

town centre will also intensify. Key locations in this regard are the junctions of

London Road with Battle Road and High and North Streets – partially because of

unwanted through-traffic avoiding broader strategic-level bottlenecks.

Figure 8 shows the key locations of concern. Table 1 provides a more detailed listing

of issues and constraints within Hailsham generally.

15

Figure 6: Recently Delivered & Committed Schemes

78

1019

6

9

1

2

14

15

5

12

17

20

4

3

18

5

13

16

1. Re-alignment of New Road

2. Improvements to A22 southbound into Hempstead Lane left-

out slip road

3. Improvements to existing mini-roundabout at junction of Hawks

Road, London Road and Hempstead Lane

4. Development access and improvements to junction of

Hempstead Lane and Gleneagles Drive

5. Various new development accesses

6. Park Road cycle way

7. Signalisation of junction of Park Road and A271

8. New mini-roundabout at junction of Hawks Road and A271

9. Magham Down safety improvements

10. Hellingly Village traffic calming

11. Proposed Hellingly Hospital development bus service

12. New small roundabout at junction of Battle Road and A271

13. New signalised junction, incorporating pedestrian and cyclist

facilities, on Battle Road providing access to new development

site behind the Council offices and Leisure Centre

14. Pedestrian crossing over A271 at local shopping centre

15. Battle Road cycle way

16. New footway along Marshfoot Lane

17. Improvements to junction of London Road and A271

18. Gleneagles Drive traffic calming

19. Cycle connection to Cuckoo Trail from Hellingly Hospital

development (to be agreed)

20. Improvements to bus stops on Anglesey Avenue

5

5

Legend

11

7788

101019

6

99

1

22

1414

1515

55

1212

1717

2020

44

33

1818

55

1313

16

1. Re-alignment of New Road

2. Improvements to A22 southbound into Hempstead Lane left-

out slip road

3. Improvements to existing mini-roundabout at junction of Hawks

Road, London Road and Hempstead Lane

4. Development access and improvements to junction of

Hempstead Lane and Gleneagles Drive

5. Various new development accesses

6. Park Road cycle way

7. Signalisation of junction of Park Road and A271

8. New mini-roundabout at junction of Hawks Road and A271

9. Magham Down safety improvements

10. Hellingly Village traffic calming

11. Proposed Hellingly Hospital development bus service

12. New small roundabout at junction of Battle Road and A271

13. New signalised junction, incorporating pedestrian and cyclist

facilities, on Battle Road providing access to new development

site behind the Council offices and Leisure Centre

14. Pedestrian crossing over A271 at local shopping centre

15. Battle Road cycle way

16. New footway along Marshfoot Lane

17. Improvements to junction of London Road and A271

18. Gleneagles Drive traffic calming

19. Cycle connection to Cuckoo Trail from Hellingly Hospital

development (to be agreed)

20. Improvements to bus stops on Anglesey Avenue

55

55

Legend

11

16

Figure 7: Modelled Hailsham Development Locations & Quanta

D5

D1

D2

D4

D3

D8

D9

D6

D7

D1. Hellingly Hospital – 400 homes Consented

D2. Battle Road: Amberstone – 128 homes Consented

D3 & D4. Welbury Farm & Woodholm Farm - 460 homes Consented

D5. Woodside Farm - 25 homes Consented

D6. Battle Road: Hillreed – 170 homes, 4,000m2

office & new school, library & GP services

(assumed 7,600m2) Consented

D7. Hailsham North – 700 homes, 300m2 retail,

8,650m2 industrial & new primary school LDF allocation

D8. Hailsham East – 680 homes LDF allocation

D9. Town Centre – 6,500m2 retail LDF allocation

Within South Wealden DC, but not shown on figure …

Berwick Station – 50 homes LDF allocation

Upper Dicker – 10 homes LDF allocation

Herstmonceux – 150 homes LDF allocation

Ninfield – 100 homes LDF allocation

Polegate – 700 homes, 4,300m2 office

& 12,600m2 industrial/warehousing LDF allocation

Stone Cross – 650 homes LDF allocation

Note: The development quanta cited above are those assumed in the modelling exercise.

There may be differences between them and official LDF figures.

Legend

D5

D1

D2

D4

D3

D8

D9

D6

D7

D5

D1

D2

D4

D3

D8

D9

D6

D7

D1. Hellingly Hospital – 400 homes Consented

D2. Battle Road: Amberstone – 128 homes Consented

D3 & D4. Welbury Farm & Woodholm Farm - 460 homes Consented

D5. Woodside Farm - 25 homes Consented

D6. Battle Road: Hillreed – 170 homes, 4,000m2

office & new school, library & GP services

(assumed 7,600m2) Consented

D7. Hailsham North – 700 homes, 300m2 retail,

8,650m2 industrial & new primary school LDF allocation

D8. Hailsham East – 680 homes LDF allocation

D9. Town Centre – 6,500m2 retail LDF allocation

Within South Wealden DC, but not shown on figure …

Berwick Station – 50 homes LDF allocation

Upper Dicker – 10 homes LDF allocation

Herstmonceux – 150 homes LDF allocation

Ninfield – 100 homes LDF allocation

Polegate – 700 homes, 4,300m2 office

& 12,600m2 industrial/warehousing LDF allocation

Stone Cross – 650 homes LDF allocation

Note: The development quanta cited above are those assumed in the modelling exercise.

There may be differences between them and official LDF figures.

Legend

17

Figure 8: Locations of Concern

1 3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

9

10

2

1. Boship Roundabout

2.-4. Junctions of A271 with London, Hawks, Park & Battle Roads

5. Town Centre network, including junction of South & Western

Roads

6. Junctions of South Road, Diplocks Way & Ersham Road

7. Gleneagles Drive

8. Junction of A22 & Diplocks Way

9. “Rat-runs” to north of A271

10. “Rat-runs” to south of A271

Legend

1 3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

9

10

2

1. Boship Roundabout

2.-4. Junctions of A271 with London, Hawks, Park & Battle Roads

5. Town Centre network, including junction of South & Western

Roads

6. Junctions of South Road, Diplocks Way & Ersham Road

7. Gleneagles Drive

8. Junction of A22 & Diplocks Way

9. “Rat-runs” to north of A271

10. “Rat-runs” to south of A271

Legend

18

Table 1: Key Issues, Constraints & Opportunities Note: Not necessarily in order of significance.

Issues & Constraints Opportunities

� Generally infrequent local and rural bus services

� Indirect access to rail (via Polegate)

� Relatively good inter-urban bus services to and from Eastbourne via Polegate and Stone Cross, some of which extend to Heathfield to the north

� Poor bus information

� Existing bottleneck at South and Ersham Roads undermines inter-urban bus services to and from Eastbourne via both Polegate and Stone Cross

� Peak period congestion at junction of South and Ersham Roads

� Ersham Road and Diplocks Way offset

� Park (owned by town council) in corner of Ersham and South Roads provides scope for highway network changes

� Limited capacity at Boship Roundabout, generating occasional delays on certain arms during peak periods

� Limited movement access onto A22 from Hempstead Lane (certain movements - to and from north - forced to take more circuitous routes)

� Wide A22 allowing scope for new all-movement access junction at Hempstead Lane

� Sub-standard (considering volumes and function) A271 to north of Hailsham

� Uncharacteristically wide and super-elevated section of A271 between Bell Bank Cottages and Danum Close

� Rat-running and traffic speeds on Gleneagles Drive

� Rat-running and traffic speeds through Hellingly Village

� School and general traffic conflicts on Hawks Road outside Hawkes Farm School

� Absence of dedicated cycle provision on busy or higher speed roads, and at certain destinations suited to increased cycle use

� Insufficient pedestrian footway or crossing provision at a variety of locations across Hailsham � Numerous and also suitable opportunities for new or improved pedestrian crossings

� Irregular internal road network, complicating visitor wayfinding and movement

� Limited opportunities to move between Battle Road and Hawks and London Roads away from A271

� Poor and at times confusing gateways into Hailsham, complicating visitor wayfinding and movement into, through and out of the town

� Cuckoo Trail discontinuous or relatively sub-standard at points

� Circuitous access to Cuckoo Trail from London Road

� Concerns over personal safety and security on the urban sections of the Cuckoo Trail

� Security perimeter around Community College (discouraging direct access to Cuckoo Trail)

� Relatively well-managed and maintained Cuckoo Trail with reasonably good access

� Large and slightly complicated junction of London Road and North and High Streets

� Challenging High Street levels

� Narrow footways on both sides of extended sections of High Street

� Parking in High Street creates severance effect

� Overly large junction of George Street and Victoria Road

� Challenging George Street levels (at least on eastern half)

� Narrow footways on both sides of eastern half George Street

� Formal pedestrian crossing opportunities on George Street limited to extreme eastern and western ends

� Parking in eastern half of George Street creates severance effect

� North Street generally very wide, creating severance and allowing higher speeds

� Narrow western footway on north half of North Street (particular issue at and near bus stop)

� High, George and North Streets are all relatively wide, providing space to work with

� Indistinct entries to cross-links through "central" town centre block � Established and potential cross-links through "central" town centre block

� Lots of conveniently located parking in and around the town centre

� High and potentially unnecessary use of car � The size and relatively flat nature of Hailsham make it possible for many short journeys, particularly those starting and ending within the town, to be made by sustainable modes of transport, particularly foot and cycle

� Official policies and pressures that support significant interventions � Substantial development proposed in the future

� Significant s106 monies and s278 committed schemes

19

2.7 Possibilities

A number of improvement opportunities have been identified for Hailsham.

Although limited in number, several offer substantial benefits at what are believed to

be affordable costs.

Notwithstanding the benefits they potentially offer – particularly in terms of

supporting further growth in Hailsham and Hellingly (as included in the Wealden

Core Strategy) - and their relative affordability, it is important to note that a funding

gap currently exists and that the delivery of finally identified schemes will be

dependent on development-related CIL receipts.

It is important to note that the movement and access options mentioned below do not

exhaust the possibilities that were actually considered during the study but not

progressed for various reasons (most often, the issue of deliverability within the

given fifteen year horizon with likely funding constraints). A table in Appendix D

lists the most significant of such possibilities and the primary reasons for their

elimination.

2.7.1 A22 & Hempstead Lane All-Movement Junction

Perhaps the most important of all of the opportunities identified to date is the

proposal to provide an all-movement access on the A22 at its existing (limited

movement) junction with Hempstead Lane. Traffic modelling shows that this

network improvement will significantly re-arrange traffic movement into and out of

Hailsham, relieving the A271 west of Hawks Road and Boship Roundabout of

excessive demands and, significantly for the locality, relieving Gleneagles Drive of

unwanted through-traffic. A new all-movement access onto the A22 at

Hempstead Lane also reduces traffic pressures at the Diplocks Way and South Road

junctions with the A22.

2.7.2 Consolidated South Road, Diplocks Way & Ersham Road Roundabout

The consolidation of the separate but closely spaced junctions of South Road with

Diplocks Way and Ersham Road into a single small roundabout present the next

significant change proposed for Hailsham’s road network. The two existing

junctions, which are repeatedly congested, severely affect traffic movement into and

out of Hailsham from and to the south and southeast. Indeed, traffic conditions are

such that movements that can use alternative routes do so, bringing unnecessary

traffic to roads that are less adapted to take extra traffic - roads like Gleneagles Drive.

As with the A22 and Hempstead Lane all-movement roundabout mentioned

immediately above, modelling shows that a consolidated junction delivers substantial

improvements on the movement and capacity levels and should provide the capacity

necessary to deal with future expected demands.

2.7.3 Town Centre Travel Demand Reductions & North-South Through-Traffic Re-Routing via Summerheath Road

Despite the capacity and relief that the two improvement possibilities mentioned

above deliver, further relief, particularly in and/or around the town centre, should be

secured if general access, circulation and urban and public realm issues are to be

20

resolved. It is generally acknowledged that such relief will have to come from lower

traffic demands rather than conventional road building - either a general reduction in

town traffic through, as yet unidentified, demand management measures, or by both

increased and new use of Summerheath Road by north-south traffic movements.

Through-traffic travelling between London Road in the north and South Road in the

south allegedly misses Summerheath Road, especially that traffic not familiar with

the town. Southbound through-traffic travelling between Battle and South Roads

cannot turn right at the junction of Battle and London Roads, so, in a southbound

direction at least, cannot but go via the town centre.

Testing of a scheme including traffic signals at the northern end of

Summerheath Road, traffic signals at the junction of South and Western Roads and an

all-movement London and Battle Roads junction (including a right turn from north to

west which is not possible at present) suggests that the use of Summerheath Road by

all or more north-south traffic could relieve the junctions of London Road with

Battle Road and High and North Streets. Existing physical constraints and delivery

cost considerations render this scheme undeliverable. Further, the residential nature

and also “offset” location of Summerheath Road relative to the more natural

north-south route via North Street argue against the use of Summerheath Road for

any north-south traffic other than that travelling between London and South Roads.

An alternative and “reduced” scheme only assuming the signalisation of the junction

of South and Western Roads was also tested and shown to be reasonably but

selectively effective at relieving the town centre road network of unnecessary traffic

demands. It also enhances the town centre access offer to western and northwestern

Hailsham in peak periods.7

2.7.4 Hailsham-Eastbourne Express Bus Service

The proximity of Hailsham to Eastbourne with its employment and business offer

and Polegate with its rail access, combined with, at points, significant highway

congestion between Hailsham, Polegate and Eastbourne, create a very strong case for

a substantially improved bus offer between Hailsham and Eastbourne – high

frequency and with limited intermediate stops. Proposals to date include

a Hailsham-Eastbourne Express Bus Service. Indeed, such an express service has

been a very important part of the overall package of transport interventions proposed

for the South Wealden and Eastbourne areas over recent years.

7 The role of Summerheath Road in the “reduced” scheme is more limited compared to that

envisaged in earlier SWETS work. However, it continues to play an important relieving role

consistent with both its “B” road status and the general highway network

arrangement (Summerheath Road is not really positioned to serve traffic using anything other

than the London Road corridor). Further, the “reduced” scheme will be much more acceptable

to affected parties.

21

Two of the improvement possibilities mentioned above – the consolidated

South Road, Diplocks Way and Ersham Road Roundabout and the signalisation of

South and Western Roads (to improve north-south through-traffic routing) – plus

certain of the town centre proposals mentioned below are likely to prove critical to

the delivery of an effective and attractive express bus service in so far as they

“unlock” existing bottlenecks, improve bus journey times and provide a better

terminus offer. As already stated above, the two existing junctions of South Road

with Diplocks Way and Ersham Road are repeatedly congested and, as a result,

severely affect traffic movement into and out of Hailsham from and to the south and

southeast. Proposals that improve traffic circulation within the town centre by

offering alternate routes for relevant movements, or that actually provide more

capacity and generally “smooth” traffic operations within the town centre, will help

further.

Generally speaking, all town centre proposals must take a future

Hailsham-Eastbourne Express Bus Service into account. Network improvements

effected elsewhere to accommodate planned development will also contribute to the

success of an express bus service in so far as they allow good connections from

Hailsham generally, and north and east Hailsham particularly, to the currently

assumed express service terminus in the town centre.

2.7.5 Strategic & Local Tactical Signing Improvements

Anecdotal evidence exists which suggests that visiting traffic, especially heavy goods

traffic, repeatedly follows undesirable routes through Hailsham. General network

arrangements and wayfinding challenges within and on the major entries to

Hailsham suggest that such stories are not necessarily far fetched. A distinct need

therefore exists to thoroughly review and, where possible, improve signing generally

- on both the strategic and local levels - to minimise inefficient traffic routing into and

through Hailsham.

2.7.6 Local Connectivity & Access

All of the above possibilities are of a strategic or wider area significance and come

with significant but what are currently considered affordable price tags. Numerous

opportunities also exist for much more modest interventions which deliver

substantial changes in connectivity and access at the local level. Generally speaking,

these opportunities comprise new or improved pedestrian crossings over busy roads.

In other cases, footways, cycle parking or safer school drop-off and pick-up

arrangement are in view. Specific examples include:

• upgrade of the existing pelican crossing on Battle Road outside the Community

College to a puffin or possibly toucan crossing (the latter if the segregated

Battle Road cycle facility extends this far);

• provision of improved footways around and local widening of Hawks Road

outside Hawkes Farm School to more safely accommodate pupils walking to

school and drop-off and pick-up activity immediately adjacent the school;

• provision of a direct connection into the Community College from the

Cuckoo Trail;

• provision of pedestrian shelters and cycle storage at the northern entrance to

White House Primary School;

• provision of cycle storage at Marshlands Primary School;

22

• provision of a pedestrian crossing over London Road just north of

Grovelands Road (or, alternatively, near the Ambulance Station);

• provision of a pedestrian crossing over London Road on eastern side of the

bridge over the Cuckoo Trail (near the existing northbound bus stop);

• provision of a southern access to the Cuckoo Trail from London Road on the

eastern side of bridge over the Trail;

• provision of improved footways either side of the A267 at Boship Roundabout;

• provision of continuous footways on the southern side of the A271 between

"Spinney Cottage" and London Road junction;

• physical modifications to the uncharacteristic section of the A271 between

Bell Bank Cottages and Danum Close; and

• lighting of all or parts of the Cuckoo Trail as it passes through Hailsham to

address security issues.

Additional schemes which, because of location and/or existing s106 conditions, do

not qualify for funding under current agreements and the monies associated with

them, include the provision of footways on:

• on Mill Road between Lion House Park and the existing footway closer to

town;

• on Station Road between existing path and Old Swan Lane; and

• on the south side of Southerden Close as it leaves Market Street.

A need has also been identified for a pedestrian crossing over Ersham Road near

Sandbanks Way.

2.7.7 Town Centre Pedestrian & Public Realm Improvements

Although some of the above proposals have implications, even positive, for the town

centre, nothing actually addresses the huge need that exists to thoroughly review and

- as justified, possible and affordable – re-model and re-position the entire town

centre for planned growth. In this respect, Wealden District Council and Hailsham

Town Council policy openly supports not only maintaining but also developing the

role of Hailsham town centre as a shopping and services centre. More specifically,

a political commitment exists to create a safe and attractive environment in the town

centre for shoppers and pedestrians, whilst reducing traffic congestion and

improving accessibility.

A number of town centre proposals have been identified and assessed, not all of

which are viable or recommended. Possibilities explored included traffic circulation

changes, including the full pedestrianisation of High Street and a variety of

inter-related interventions aimed at improving access and local connectivity and

creating a more functionally-connected and sustainable town generally. Details

follow in the next section of the document. Key to the finally recommended package

of works, however, is the ability to incrementally re-model and gradually improve

the town centre on the access, movement and public realm levels as funds allow and

with a minimum of abortive spending and effort. Although utility presence and

existing road levels present significant challenges on High and George Streets,

footway widening over carefully identified sections of both streets (requiring the

removal of existing parking) could provide “quick wins” at, hopefully, affordable

costs. Further, addressing the severance currently associated with North Street is not

necessarily as difficult as one would expect. The provision of a central median and

23

the widening of the northern half of the western footway will go a long way to

narrowing the physical width of North Street and dampening existing traffic speeds.

2.7.8 Town Centre Traffic Circulation Changes

Currently, a one-way circulatory system operates in Hailsham town centre, with

High Street, George Street and a short section of Vicarage Lane combining to restrict

traffic movements in a clockwise direction through the town centre. North Street, on

the west side of the town centre, is bi-directional. The current circulation is

associated with the relatively recent and costly North Street scheme. Accordingly,

radical changes in town centre circulation will probably not be sensible in the short to

medium term. Further, certain changes are of debatable value irrespective of

a possible implementation date.

Two-Way Operations on High Street & George Street

For argument’s sake, the re-introduction of two-way flows on High and

George Streets will not only be expensive but would be somewhat

counter-productive, increasing traffic congestion and pedestrian severance

throughout the town centre. Indeed, two-way traffic operations on North, High and

George Street could very easily throw a noose around the town centre.

The re-introduction of two-way flows on George Street alone is a much more

workable proposition, providing a higher order “short cut”, relatively speaking, for

traffic seeking to access southeastern Hailsham without having to negotiate

High Street or Vicarage Lane. Physically, however, the existing George Street

carriageway, while relatively wide on its western half, is too narrow, without major

re-configuration and parking removal, to effectively accommodate two-way flows at

its eastern end. Further, significant junction modifications will be necessary at the

junction of North and George Streets to accommodate two-way flows on all arms –

modifications which, within existing highway boundaries, are likely to reduce

existing capacity.

Pedestrianisation of High Street

Most radical of all, perhaps, would be the complete pedestrianisation of High Street.

A complex range of pedestrian movements and desire lines exist along and across

Hailsham High Street. Pedestrianisation of High Street, accordingly, presents an

obvious option to improve pedestrian connectivity, reduce severance and remove

conflicts with vehicular traffic. Although current vehicle parking activity along the

High Street would be displaced, on-site parking observations suggest that sufficient

parking exists in reasonable proximity to High Street to more than cover the loss.8

8 Current parking provision on High Street is estimated at approximately 52 spaces including

taxis. On-site observations, however, reveal that the number of vehicles parked on High Street

often exceeds this number by up to five vehicles because of illegal parking. Further, anecdotal

24

However, and generally speaking, pedestrianisation schemes of such a nature in

towns like Hailsham are risky initiatives from both the traffic and commercial angles.

From the traffic angle, modelling suggests that there could be significant increases in

traffic on Vicarage Lane, Vicarage Road, North Street and Garfield and Station Roads

in a southbound direction. While North Street and most of Vicarage Lane are

adequately configured to take such increases, it is doubtful whether Vicarage,

Garfield and Station Roads should take more traffic than they currently carry. The

extreme northwestern end of Vicarage Lane (currently one-way), at the very least,

and the existing junction of London Road and North and High Streets would require

significant re-configuration. Finally, alternative taxi ranking facilities are unlikely to

provide the convenience and visibility of the existing rank in High Street. From the

commercial angle, there may also be undesirable impacts on High Street businesses

caused by trade vehicle access issues and a loss of “pop-in” trade. For these reasons

pedestrianisation of the High Street is not considered a viable option.

One-Way Operations on Vicarage Lane

Perhaps the only practical option immediately available that involves a traffic

circulation change is the proposed conversion of Vicarage Lane to one-way

operations over its entire length - the extreme northwestern section is currently

one-way only for east and southbound traffic. Although this proposal would be

fairly straightforward to implement, and would require only modest expense, there

would be an effect on existing traffic movements through the town centre. Traffic

from southeast Hailsham would have to negotiate the entire lengths of George and

North Streets before it can access Vicarage Lane. Traffic originating in

Marshfoot Lane would have to negotiate Vicarage Road in addition.

Junction of London Road with North & High Streets

The last and only potentially feasible option for re-arranging traffic movements

within the town centre comprises a complete re-configuration of the existing junction

of London Road and North and High Streets. Currently, the southbound approach to

the junction of London Road and North and High Streets forks into North and

High Streets, with Vicarage Lane comprising a one-way exit off High Street. Not only

does the existing layout take up a lot of space, but it unnecessarily encourages traffic

to continue down High Street. Further, the left turn into Vicarage Lane is easily

missed. Thorough re-modelling of the currently complex and large junction could

simplify wayfinding and also reduce land take.

evidence also suggests that parked vehicles are more often than not long-stay vehicles linked to

local businesses. On-site observations on a typical weekday suggest that reserve parking

capacity in the immediate vicinity of High Street (i.e. The Quintins undercover and open car

parks, North Street South car park, Vicarage Lane car park and Waitrose car park) is generally

50% more than the maximum number of vehicles noted parking on High and George Streets.

Local off-street parking provision is therefore more than able to cover High and George Streets

needs.

25

2.7.9 Smarter Choices

Smarter Choices include schemes and initiatives aimed at encouraging more

sustainable travel behaviour and usually feature increased use of sustainable modes

of transport like public transport, walking and cycling or more efficient trip making

generally – whether that be through more thoughtful and careful car use or simple

trip planning. Smarter Choices schemes will support growth and regeneration of the

whole town - not just the town centre. Importantly, smarter choice possibilities are

not exhausted by facility, infrastructure and service interventions, especially in an

area where the sustainable delivery of planned development would be substantially

helped by more sustainable trip-making behaviours and patterns. Generally

speaking, effective and sustainable transport planning and provision in the modern

age requires smarter travel initiatives aimed at effecting real and significant travel

choice and behaviour changes. The biggest issue in a setting like Hailsham is

identifying measures that complement and enhance rather than undermine

regeneration efforts.

Possible smarter choice actions include:

• provision of real time bus information;

• a substantially improved bus offer generally, both within Hailsham as well

connecting Hailsham to surrounding areas and centres;

• improved cycle parking and cycle and pedestrian information

signage (including a simple and easily recognisable or branded wayfinding

finger post and location map system, displaying destination and distance

information);

• sensible land use arrangements generally;

• active encouragement of existing developments, businesses and property

owners, users and service suppliers to implement voluntary, and where

possible cooperative, Travel Plans; and

• enforcement of Travel Plans on new development through s106 agreements.

A number of the improvement possibilities already mentioned above have

smarter choice elements or benefits:

• In so far as the proposed A22 and Hempstead Lane all-movement access

junction provides a more direct route to the strategic road network and relieves

the A271 and local roads within Hailsham (especially Gleneagles and

London Roads) of substantial vehicular volume increases with all the

congestion and traffic dominance associated with them, walking and cycling

will become more attractive and bus journey times along the A271 and London

and Battle Roads will improve.

• In so far as a consolidated South Road, Diplocks Way and Ersham Road

Roundabout delivers substantial improvements on the movement and capacity

level, bus journey times for routes using South and Ersham Roads will also

improve. These improvements are critical to the success of the proposed

Hailsham-Eastbourne Express Bus Service.

• In so far as improved north-south through-traffic re routing via

Summerheath Road relieves traffic pressures and presence within the town

centre, pedestrian, cycle and bus movements into, out of and within the town

centre should also improve.

• In so far as improved north-south through-traffic re-routing via

Summerheath Road involves improvements at the junction of South and

26

Western Roads (signalisation), local bus movements using Summerheath and

Western Roads will also benefit.

• In so far as town centre proposals improve public realm, pedestrian and cycle

provision as well as general traffic circulation, smarter choice

options (e.g. walk, cycle and bus) will become more attractive.

The various proposals mentioned above that deliver connectivity and access

improvements at the local level (e.g. new or upgraded crossings, new and improved

footways and cycle storage facilities) or encourage increased pedestrian and cycle

travel (e.g. the proposed lighting of the Cuckoo Trail) directly support smarter travel.

The proposed Hailsham-Eastbourne Express Bus Service has clear and direct

implications for smarter travel.

27

3 Movement & Access Strategy

3.1 Scheme Categories

The final sub-section of the previous section of the report (section 2.7) introduced

a series of improvement possibilities for Hailsham and Hellingly. Table 2 lists all of

the schemes that were progressed and then adopted as part of the movement and

access strategy for Hailsham and Hellingly. Table 2 also allocates the various

schemes to one of three categories:

• “Game Changers”;

• “Important Local Interventions”; and

• “Nice-To-Haves”.

Figures 9 to 11 show the locations of physically-locatable schemes. Appendix B

supplies sketches and cost estimates of a number of the major schemes proposed in

the movement and access strategy.

3.1.1 Game-Changers

The “game-changers”, as the phrase suggests, either guarantee substantial

improvements in network flows and operations or offer the travel behaviour changes

necessary to make Hailsham generally, and the town centre more specifically, “work”

better on an access and movement level over the long term. Perhaps the single

biggest and challenging element of the game-changing element comprises the town

centre improvements.

Smarter travel incentives and choices are essential over the longer term. The creative

and ongoing effort and investment – often but not always quite modest compared to

large infrastructure projects - required to achieve real smarter choice “gains” must

not be underestimated. The biggest issue in a setting like Hailsham is identifying

measures that complement and enhance rather than undermine regeneration efforts.

3.1.2 Important Local Interventions

Notwithstanding the scale, effort and cost associated with the “game-changers”,

a number of “important local interventions” are also proposed, all of which aimed at

creating or significantly improving local connectivity. Almost all of the listed

schemes are pedestrian-related, a number of which simple road crossings at locations

with existing or guaranteed future demand.

3.1.3 Nice-To-Haves

Finally, a series of “nice-to-haves” are listed, all of which reflecting identified needs

which deserve record but do not necessarily deserve immediate attention, given

available funds and more pressing needs. Most of the identified schemes do not

qualify for funding under current s106 agreements but could qualify for future CIL

LDF funding.

The following briefly introduces the various schemes listed in Table 2, outlining their

basic features, benefits and ideal delivery timings.

28

Table 2: Scheme Categories Game-Changers

� new all-movement junction on A22 at Hempstead Lane

� consolidation of the separate but very closely spaced junctions of South Road with Diplocks Way and Ersham Road into a single small roundabout

� signalisation of the junction of South and Western Roads to improve north-south routing via Summerheath Road

� provision of a Hailsham-Eastbourne Express Bus Service

� strategic and local signing improvements to minimise inefficient traffic routing into and through Hailsham

� town centre circulation, pedestrian connections and public realm improvements [see Table 3 for details]

� deployment of a county-wide real-time bus information system

� targeted but incremental and regeneration-friendly improvement in smarter choice offers generally across Hailsham

Important Local Interventions

� upgrade of the existing pelican crossing on Battle Road outside the Community College to a puffin crossing (possibly a toucan crossing if the cycleway on Battle Road extends to this point)

� provision of improved footways around and local widening of Hawks Road outside Hawkes Farm School to more safely accommodate pupils walking to school and drop-off and pick-up activity immediately adjacent the school

� direct connection into the Community College from the Cuckoo Trail

� pedestrian shelters and cycle storage at the northern entrance to White House Primary School

� cycle storage at Marshlands Primary School

� provision of a pedestrian crossing over London Road just north of Grovelands Road (or, alternatively, near the Ambulance Station)

� provision of a pedestrian crossing over London Road on eastern side of the bridge over the Cuckoo Trail (near the existing northbound bus stop)

� provision of a southern access to the Cuckoo Trail from London Road on the eastern side of bridge over the Trail

� provision of improved footways either side of the A267 at Boship Roundabout � provision of continuous footways on the southern side of the A271 between "Spinney Cottage" and

London Road junction

� physical modifications to the uncharacteristic section of the A271 between Bell Bank Cottages and Danum Close

� provision of lighting on urban sections of the Cuckoo Trail

Nice-To-Haves

� provision of a pedestrian crossing over Ersham Road near Sandbanks Way

� provision of a footway on Mill Road between Lion House Park and the existing footway closer to town

� provision of a footway on Station Road between existing path and Old Swan Lane � provision of a footway on the south side of Southerden Close as it leaves Market Street

29

Figure 9: Game-Changers

1

4

2

1. New all-movement junction on A22 at Hempstead Lane

2. Consolidation of the separate but closely spaced junctions of

South Road with Diplocks Way & Ersham Road into single small

roundabout

3. Signalisation of South & Western Roads

4. Town centre circulation, pedestrian connections & public realm

improvements

3

Legend

11

44

22




roundabout

3. Signalisation of South & Western Roads


improvements

33

Legend

30

Figure 10: Game-Changers - Town Centre

11

5

5

7

7

1

3

3

4

9

11

15

13

16

16

16

16

17

17

17

17

18

19

19

17

17

2

6

7

6

11

8

12

14

High Street

1. Extended speed table adjacent Market

Square; explore potential for shared space

treatment in medium term

2. Narrower carriageway

3. Wider footways

4. Active management of taxi rank access & use

5. Road & footway surface treatments & build-

outs adjacent cross-link entries

6. Disabled parking

7. Sensibly located shared first-come/first-served

loading & drop-off/pick-up bays

George Street


9. Wider footway

10. Reduce junction of George Street & Victoria

11. Pedestrian crossing (at one of two locations

indicated)

North Street

12. Loading bay

13. Central median (long term)

14. Wider western footway (long term)

15. Shifted bus shelter (long term)

16. Cycle facilities (long term)

Central Block

17. Clearly identify & strengthen existing & future

potential corridors & improve signing

(ongoing)

Junction of London Road, North Street & High

Street

18. Re-model junction so that Vicarage Lane

becomes the T-arm, London Road & North

Street continue to comprise the continuous

element & High Street becomes an exit only

arm off newly aligned Vicarage Lane

Market Street

19. Improve footways & crossings between

Market & town centre

Legend

See Figure B8 for further detail




14

1111

5

5

7

7

1

3

3

4

9

11

15

13

16

16

16

16

17

17

17

17

18

19

19

17

17

2

6

7

6

1111

8

1212

14

High Street

1. Extended speed table adjacent Market

Square; explore potential for shared space

treatment in medium term


3. Wider footways

4. Active management of taxi rank access & use

5. Road & footway surface treatments & build-

outs adjacent cross-link entries

6. Disabled parking

7. Sensibly located shared first-come/first-served

loading & drop-off/pick-up bays

George Street


9. Wider footway

10. Reduce junction of George Street & Victoria

11. Pedestrian crossing (at one of two locations

indicated)

North Street

12. Loading bay

13. Central median (long term)

14. Wider western footway (long term)

15. Shifted bus shelter (long term)

16. Cycle facilities (long term)

Central Block

17. Clearly identify & strengthen existing & future

potential corridors & improve signing

(ongoing)

Junction of London Road, North Street & High

Street

18. Re-model junction so that Vicarage Lane

becomes the T-arm, London Road & North

Street continue to comprise the continuous

element & High Street becomes an exit only

arm off newly aligned Vicarage Lane

Market Street

19. Improve footways & crossings between

Market & town centre

Legend





14


31

Figure 11: Important Local Interventions

1. Upgrade of existing pelican crossing on Battle Road outside

Community College to puffin or toucan crossing

2. Provision of improved footways around and local widening of

Hawks Road outside Hawkes Farm School to more safely

accommodate pupils walking to school and drop-off and pick-

up activity immediately adjacent the school

3. Direct connection into the Community College from Cuckoo

Trail

4. Pedestrian shelters and cycle storage at the northern entrance

to White House Primary School

5. Cycle storage at Marshlands Primary School

6. Provision of pedestrian crossing over London Road just north

of Grovelands Road

7. Provision of a zebra crossing over London Road on eastern

side of the bridge over the Cuckoo Trail

8. Southern access to Cuckoo Trail from London Road on eastern

side of bridge over the Trail

9. Provision of improved footways either side of and over the

A267 at Boship Roundabout

10. Provision of continuous footways on the southern side of the

A271 between "Spinney Cottage" and London Road junction

11. Physical modifications to the uncharacteristic section of the

A271 between Bell Bank Cottages & Danum Close

12. Provision of lighting on urban sections of the Cuckoo Trail

2

1

4

6

3

7

8

5

11

9

Legend

10

12

12

12


Community College to puffin or toucan crossing

2. Provision of improved footways around and local widening of

Hawks Road outside Hawkes Farm School to more safely

accommodate pupils walking to school and drop-off and pick-

up activity immediately adjacent the school

3. Direct connection into the Community College from Cuckoo

Trail

4. Pedestrian shelters and cycle storage at the northern entrance

to White House Primary School


6. Provision of pedestrian crossing over London Road just north

of Grovelands Road

7. Provision of a zebra crossing over London Road on eastern

side of the bridge over the Cuckoo Trail



9. Provision of improved footways either side of and over the

A267 at Boship Roundabout



11. Physical modifications to the uncharacteristic section of the

A271 between Bell Bank Cottages & Danum Close


2

11

444

66

3

7

3

7

88

55

11

99

Legend

1010

12

12

12

32

Figure 12: Nice-To-Haves

1. Provision of pedestrian crossing over Ersham Road near

Sandbanks Way

2. Provision of footway on Mill Road between Lion House Park and

the existing footway closer to town

3. Provision of footway on Station Road between existing path and

Old Swan Lane

4. Provision of footway on the south side of Southerden Close as it

leaves Market Street

2

3

1

4

Legend


Sandbanks Way




Old Swan Lane



22

33

11

4

Legend

33

Figure 13: Figures 9, 11 & 12 Composite

10

2

3

1

4

1

4

2

2

1

4

6

3

7

8

5

11

9

3




roundabout


improvements


Community College to puffin crossing

2. Local widening of Hawks Road outside Hawkes Farm School

3. Direct connection into the Community College from Cuckoo Trail

4. Pedestrian shelters and cycle storage at the northern entrance to

White House Primary School


6. Provision of pedestrian crossing over London Road just north of

Grovelands Road

7. Provision of a zebra crossing over London Road on eastern side

of the bridge over the Cuckoo Trail



9. Provision of improved footways either side of and over the A267

at Boship Roundabout



11. Physical modifications to the uncharacteristic section of the A271

between Bell Bank Cottages & Danum Close



Sandbanks Way




Old Swan Lane



Legend

12

12

12

10

22

33

11

4

11

44

22

22

11

444

66

3

7

3

7

88

55

11

99

33




roundabout


improvements


Community College to puffin crossing

2. Local widening of Hawks Road outside Hawkes Farm School

3. Direct connection into the Community College from Cuckoo Trail

4. Pedestrian shelters and cycle storage at the northern entrance to

White House Primary School


6. Provision of pedestrian crossing over London Road just north of

Grovelands Road

7. Provision of a zebra crossing over London Road on eastern side

of the bridge over the Cuckoo Trail



9. Provision of improved footways either side of and over the A267

at Boship Roundabout



11. Physical modifications to the uncharacteristic section of the A271

between Bell Bank Cottages & Danum Close



Sandbanks Way




Old Swan Lane



Legend

12

12

12

34

3.2 Game-Changers

The following schemes either guarantee substantial improvements in network flows

and operations or offer the travel behaviour changes necessary to make Hailsham

and Hellingly generally, and the Hailsham Town Centre more specifically, “work”

better on an access and movement level over the long term.

For convenience, small tables indicating the basic feasibility, benefits, issues,

estimated cost, ideal timing and pertinent development are inset into the text

addressing each scheme. Table 4 at the end of this section combines all of the

information given in the smaller tables in one location.

3.2.1 A22 & Hempstead Lane All-Movement Junction

The most important and urgent of all of the schemes identified for implementation

comprises an all-movement access on the A22 at the existing (limited movement)

junction with Hempstead Lane. Figure B4 in Appendix B provides a sketch of the

type of scheme envisaged.

Traffic modelling clearly shows that such a junction will significantly re-arrange

traffic movements into and out of Hailsham, relieving the A271 of excessive demands

and, significantly for the

locality, relieving

Gleneagles Drive of

unwanted through-traffic.

It also reduces traffic

pressures at the

Diplocks Way and

South Road junctions with

the A22, but traffic flows

increase significantly on

Hempstead Lane, Hawks

Road and London Road. The adjacent table records the most important traffic and

movement benefits. Importantly, a design has been generated which is not only

modestly priced but fits within the existing highway boundary, thereby averting

third party land acquisition.

Because this scheme relieves existing pressures at Boship Roundabout, removes

traffic from the A271 and Gleneagles Drive and the Welbury, Woodholm &

Woodside Farm developments are already well underway, it should be implemented

as soon as is practically possible within the delivery programme – if possible, not

long after the Welbury, Woodholm & Woodside Farms developments are completed

and other planned development for north and east Hailsham commence.

Basic Feasibility Benefits Issues

� Yes � Significant local access and broader network relief benefits

� Traffic disruption during construction

Estimated Cost

Pertinent Consented, Planned or Expected Developments Timing

� £670k � Welbury, Woodholm & Woodside Farms

� Of benefit to all future development in west, north and east Hailsham

� As soon as is practically possible within the delivery programme

35

3.2.2 Consolidated South Road, Diplocks Way & Ersham Road Roundabout

The complete re-configuration of the separate but closely-spaced junctions of

South Road with Diplocks Way and Ersham Road into a single small roundabout

comprises the next significant change proposed for Hailsham’s road network.

Figure B5 in Appendix B

provides a sketch of the

type of scheme

envisaged.

As indicated in the table,

a single junction can be

expected to deliver

substantial

improvements on the

movement and capacity

level in the locality and

should provide the

capacity necessary to

deal with future

expected demands. Indeed, the existing bottleneck is something of a “show-stopper”

for all planned and expected development. Accordingly, it should be implemented

as soon as is practically possible. Like the A22 and Hempstead Lane all-movement

junction, delivery costs are significant but affordable.

Modelling suggests that the resolution of existing capacity problems at the junction of

South and Ersham Roads could lead to traffic increases on Ersham Road as the

balance of attractiveness between routes into Hailsham from the south and east alter

– more than is perhaps desirable for a road of its nature. Mitigating features may be

required as a result.

Modelling investigations also reveal that a new consolidated four-arm roundabout

offers an alternative and potentially better but longer route between northwest and

south Hailsham via Hempstead Lane, the A22 and Diplocks Way compared to the

more direct and natural route via Summerheath, Western and South Roads. The

signalisation of the junction of South and Western Roads effectively mitigates against

an undesirable increase in traffic on Diplocks Way by improving north-south journey

times via the more direct and natural route. Accordingly, it is identified as

a necessary “complementary” intervention (see section 3.2.3) below.

9 The existing park area is apparently the only remaining piece of common land left in Hailsham.

The designation can be swapped to another piece of land, but only with special approval. Such

approval is not likely to be costly, but could take time and may increase the risk of objection.


� Yes � Significant strategic and local movement capacity-related benefits generally, including improved bus movement on South and Ersham Roads

� Utilities works & traffic disruption during construction

� Loss of existing park9

� Signalisation of South and Western Roads necessary to prevent A22 and Diplocks Way becoming north-south alternative

Estimated Cost


� £520k � Town centre development � Of broader benefit to future

development in west, north and east Hailsham

� As soon as is practically possible

36

3.2.3 Signalisation of Junction of South & Western Roads

The current junction of South and Western Roads comprises a simple priority

junction with Western Road forming the minor arm. Delays on the minor arm -

especially the right turn into South Road westbound - can be high during peak

periods encouraging

southbound traffic to

take alternative routes.

Indeed, modelling

investigations revealed

that a new consolidated

four-arm roundabout at

South Road,

Diplocks Way and

Ersham Road offers an

alternative and

potentially better but

longer route between

northwest and south

Hailsham via

Hempstead Lane,

the A22 and

Diplocks Way

compared to the more

direct and natural route

via Summerheath, Western and South Roads. The signalisation of the junction of

South and Western Roads effectively mitigates this undesirable effect by improving

north-south journey times via the more direct and natural route. It is also reasonably

but selectively effective at relieving the town centre road network - generally

speaking, North Street only sees relief in a southbound direction. Figure B6 in

Appendix B shows the type of scheme envisaged. Very little in terms of physical

works will be required to signalise the junction.


� Yes � Substantially reduces journey times on what is the most direct and natural route between much of north and south Hailsham

� Relieves North Street � Discourages use of

Hemsptead Lane, the A22 and Diplocks Way by local north-south movements

� Introduces new delays to South Road traffic

Estimated Cost



� Of benefit to all future development in north and east Hailsham and the town centre

� As soon as is practically possible, but not later than (1) the provision of a consolidated junction to replace the existing junctions of South Road with Diplocks Way and Ersham Road or (2) significant new development in north, east or central Hailsham

37

3.2.4 Hailsham-Eastbourne Express Bus Service

The proximity of Hailsham to Eastbourne with its employment and business offer

and Polegate with its rail access, combined with significant highway congestion

between Hailsham, Polegate and Eastbourne and the need for tangible take-up of

smarter travel choices,

create a very strong case

for a substantially

improved bus offer

between Hailsham and

Eastbourne.

A high-frequency

limited-stop express bus

service connecting

Hailsham, Polegate and

Eastbourne has been

a very important part of

the overall package of

transport interventions

proposed for the

South Wealden and

Eastbourne areas over

recent years. Indeed, its implementation is essential if planned development is to be

remotely accommodated on the public transport level.

Provision of a consolidated South Road, Diplocks Way and Ersham Road

Roundabout and the proposed signalisation of the A22/A27 Cophall Roundabout,

plus proposals that improve traffic circulation and public realm within the town

centre generally are likely to prove critical to the delivery of an effective and

attractive express bus service in so far as they “unlock” existing bottlenecks and

improve bus journey times and terminus environments.

3.2.5 Strategic & Local Tactical Signing Improvements

It is debatable how much signing improvements can actually deliver in terms of more

efficient routing, especially if current inefficient routing is intentional and the

inevitable result of network

access and capacity issues that,

say, the above-listed schemes

address. Nevertheless,

a distinct need still exists to

thoroughly review and, where

possible, improve signing

generally - on both the

strategic and local levels – so

that inefficient traffic routing

into and through Hailsham is

minimised. Heavy vehicle routing is a particular concern. A number of signing

improvements have been identified, the potential delivery cost of which has been

estimated.


� Start-up and ongoing funding require special LDF funding

� Provides an attractive smarter travel option for inter-urban commuters

� Makes more effective use of available network capacity

� Existing bottlenecks at the junctions of South Road with Diplocks Way and Ersham Road and the existing A22/A27 Cophall Roundabout must be addressed

Estimated Cost

Pertinent Consented, Planned or Expected

Developments Timing

� Hundreds of thousands of pounds to start and subsidise over the years

� £50k for one-off capital costs in Hailsham

� Existing and future Hailsham development generally; north and east Hailsham and Hailsham town centre LDF development more specifically

� Timed to precede LDF development planned for north, east and central Hailsham, but not before existing bottlenecks at South Road, Diplocks Way and Ersham Road and at the A22/A27 Cophall Roundabout are addressed


� Yes � Modest but worthwhile

� None of any significance

Estimated Cost


Developments Timing

� Strategic signs £50k

� Tactical signs £30k

� None in particular � As soon as is practically possible, subject to funding

38

3.2.6 Town Centre Pedestrian & Public Realm Improvements

Perhaps the single-biggest and challenging element of the movement and access

strategy proposed in this document is the improvements package related to Hailsham

town centre. A great need exists to thoroughly review and as justified, possible and

affordable, re-model the town centre for planned growth. Indeed, Wealden

District Council and Hailsham Town Council policy openly supports not only

maintaining but also developing the role of Hailsham town centre as a shopping and

services centre. Further, a political commitment exists to create a safe and attractive

environment in the town centre for shoppers and pedestrians, whilst reducing traffic

congestion and improving accessibility.

A number of town centre proposals were identified and assessed, not all of which are

viable or recommended. At the end of the process, however, a package of measures

was developed aimed at improving access and local connectivity and creating a more

functionally-connected, attractive and sustainable town generally at a relatively

affordable price. Key to the recommended package of works is the ability to

incrementally re-model and gradually improve the town centre on the access,

movement and public realm levels as funds allow and with a minimum of abortive

spending and effort.

Although utility presence and existing road levels present significant challenges on

High and George Streets, footway widening over carefully identified sections of both

streets (requiring the removal of existing parking) could provide “quick wins” at,

hopefully, affordable costs. Further, addressing the severance currently associated

with North Street is not necessarily as difficult as one would expect. The provision of

a central median and the widening of the northern half of the western footway will

go a long way to narrowing the physical width of North Street and dampening

existing traffic speeds. Because the existing scheme is fairly new and there are more

pressing needs nearby, North Street improvements are only considered medium to

long term in nature and do not, as a result, form a specific part of the proposal

package identified for the town centre.

Given the inter-related and inter-dependent nature of many of the proposed works,

Table 3 and the following discussion focus on the various streets or distinct areas and

locations subject to intervention. Only two issues, which transcend specific locations,

receive dedicated treatment – parking and general traffic circulation.

3.2.6.1 Scheme Considerations

Three matters deserve attention in advance of providing details of the recommended

package of measures aimed at improving access and local connectivity and creating

a more functionally-connected, attractive and sustainable town generally.

39

The Quintins Re-Development

Planning permission has recently been granted for the re-development of

The Quintins shopping centre.10 Development plans include the construction of an

additional food store to the south of the existing Quintins development and the

construction of a two-storey car park expansion on the existing Quintins open car

park. Crucially, the existing pedestrian link between High and North Streets via

The Quintins will remain and the existing pedestrian ramps between The Quintins

and the open car park will be enhanced. The new development is likely to generate

significant increases in pedestrian traffic to, from and within the southern half of the

central block – most importantly, St Mary’s Walk, the George Street alley and through

the existing The Quintins centre. Two of these three routes run directly through

a vehicle turning and loading area to the west side of St Mary’s Walk, negatively

affecting the ease of movement for pedestrians. It is imperative that clear, continuous

and safe pedestrian provision be secured, particularly between the new food store

and St Mary’s Walk, including clear linkages southwards to George Street alley and

northwards to The Quintins. Given the complexity of movements and the volumes of

vehicle traffic involved “shared space” principles are suggested.

Utilities & Camber Issues

The greatest challenge associated with the town centre proposals is utilities and levels

-related. The existing footways and, to an extent, carriageways of both High and

George Streets are full of services.11 Further, existing road levels, possibly because of

repeated tarmac overlays without milling, are unusually high compared to the

adjacent footways. In fact, existing carriageway cambers on High Street are quite

10 Available details concerning The Quintins Re-development have been considered and integrated

into the discussion of the schemes proposed in this document. 11 It is not an exaggeration to say that there is a substantial number of manholes and service access

points along the length of High and George Streets within both the pedestrian footways and

main carriageways. There is a public sewer running along the whole length of High Street under

the main carriageway. Uncertainties concerning utilities have been built into the financial risk

element of the various schemes.

40

Table 3: Town Centre Proposals & Future Possibilities Note: Figure B7 in Appendix B illustrates many of the schemes raised in the table.

Scheme Location

Short Term Medium Term Long Term

Introduce an extended speed table adjacent Market Square.

Narrow existing carriageway where possible to a minimum width of 4.8m.

Widen footways where possible.

Completely remove “open” on-street parking.

Provide six disabled bays and three shared first-come/first-served loading and drop-off/pick up-bays, time-limited in the case of the latter.

Adopt taxi licensing conditions that ensure taxi drivers and operators actively manage their access to and use of the provision made for them without exploiting general parking provision.

Implement road and footway surface treatments adjacent Carrier’s Walk and St Mary’s Walk cross-link entries.

High Street Note: Bus stop and taxi ranking areas to be retained at the existing locations, effectively “as is”.

Explore, and as appropriate, implement shared space treatments for the section of High Street adjacent Market Square. Alternatively, retain raised table at the existing pedestrian crossing in order to calm traffic and enhance pedestrian movement.

Widen footways and narrow George Street carriageway in central section.

Reduce the size of the junction of George Street and Victoria Road as enabled by and to complement the general footway widening and narrowing of George Street mentioned immediately above.

George Street

Provide additional pedestrian crossing – probably a zebra crossing – in the vicinity of The George Public House, The South Downs College and Tiffin Coffee Shop or immediately to the east of Victoria Road.

Provide formal loading bay directly outside Post Office Sorting House.

Provide raised central median on the northern section of North Street. Note: Only a possibility at this stage.

Widen western footway of North Street, through a combination of carriageway narrowing and construction of a retaining wall on the edge of the Tesco parking (rather than the currently landscaped/planted slope). Note: Only a possibility at this stage.

Re-locate existing bus shelter slightly further back into the Tesco parking area (might mean a loss of one or two parking bays and the re-allocation of remaining space to temporary shopping trolley storage). Note: Only a possibility at this stage.

Undertake pedestrian audit following The Quintins expansion to establish pedestrian crossing needs and demands, and, as necessary, provide suitable crossing over North Street.

North Street

Introduce cycle facilities over the entire length of North Street. Note: Only a possibility at this stage.

Central Block Clearly identify and gradually strengthen existing corridors, pathways and footways crossing the central block. At least five cross-routes within the central block have been identified which are considered key corridors for facilitating pedestrian connectivity. At present, they are difficult to identify for the visiting pedestrian (being unsigned). Further a number are not suited to pedestrian use. The five routes, all of which shown in Figure 5, are: � Carrier’s Path � The Forge � The Quintins � St Mary’s Walk � George Street alley, and its connections to the western end of St Mary’s Walk and the central section of The Quintins east-west pedestrian link

Junction of London Road, North Street, High Street & Vicarage Lane

Thoroughly re-model the junction of London Road, North Street and High Street, so that Vicarage Lane becomes the T-arm, London Road and North Street continue to comprise the continuous element and High Street becomes an exit-only arm off a newly aligned Vicarage Lane. Figure B8 in Appendix B illustrates the proposal in view. Note: For various reasons – most importantly operational feasibility – this is no more than a possibility at this stage.

Market Street Improve pedestrian footways and crossings between the Market and town centre if Hailsham Market actively used as spill-over parking area.

All over Town Centre Provide network of finger signing and location map signs displaying destination and distance information for pedestrians.

41

pronounced. The widening of existing footways either side of High and George

Streets will therefore require tricky and potentially expensive road re-grading and

utility cover drops.

A camber amelioration and drainage facility review needs to be completed for the

entire length of High Street before any substantial re-modelling of the street is

attempted. This could require invasive engineering inspections, causing significant

disruption to traffic and pedestrian movements on High Street and its immediate

environs.

Objectives & Constraints

Given the inter-related and inter-dependent nature of many of the existing problems

and needs within the town centre, the development of a coherent and complementary

package of improvement works was not necessarily straightforward. Simply

speaking, an effort was made to identify a package of improvements that:

• improve pedestrian movement and connectivity between key destinations;

• achieve tangible improvements in public realm; and

• ensure a minimum level of vehicular access for trade and shopper vehicles

throughout the town centre.

The pursuit of these three objectives was continually informed and, at times, dictated

to by the need to balance the needs of pedestrians and vehicles. In practice, however,

the act of balancing their respective needs concluded with ensuring minimum levels

of continued vehicular access.

3.2.6.2 High Street Works

Uncomfortably narrow footways and unbroken lengths of well if not over -used

on-street parking leave High Street somewhat cramped for pedestrians. Indeed,

pedestrian movement along extensive sections of High Street, as well as over it away

from the central signalised

pedestrian crossing at

Market Square, is far from ideal.

Generally speaking, there is a clear

need to:

• re-configure, reduce and

control on-street parking;

• narrow the existing

carriageway where possible;

• widen existing footways

where possible; and

• create better pedestrian

crossings over the road.


� Yes � Significant � Utilities & road camber works

� Traffic & business disruption during construction

Estimated Cost


Developments Timing

� £540k � Existing and future Hailsham development generally; Hailsham town centre LDF development more specifically

� As soon as is practically possible, subject to funding

42

The High Street is relatively wide,12 which provides scope for carriageway narrowing

and footway widening. Further, scope also exists to reduce on-street parking

provision on at least one side of the road, while maintaining existing bus and taxi

provision and providing dedicated loading areas. Specific options are discussed

below. Figure B7 in Appendix B illustrates the proposals in view.

Carriageway Narrowing & Footway Widening

In the first instance, the existing carriageway of High Street should be narrowed

down to a minimum of 4.8 metres in the vicinity of Market Square at the very least

and ideally to a point just south of St Mary’s Walk. 4.8m is slightly wider than

standard to facilitate vehicle movements in and out of remaining parking and loading

bays and provide a minimum safety width for cyclists. Further, it is narrow enough

to suppress traffic speeds and discourage obstructive kerb-side “fly” parking.

Narrowing of the carriageway will allow the existing footways to be widened,

improving pedestrian movement along the street. Parking and loading needs,

combined with existing highway widths, however, will limit possibilities over

significant lengths of the street.

New & Improved Pedestrian Crossings

The most obvious crossing improvement comprises an extended “raised table”13 at

the existing pedestrian crossing adjacent Market Square. A “shared space” solution

for the section of High Street adjacent Market Square is also a possibility, but would

probably be a lot more expensive and would, as is the case with all shared space

initiatives, need to be sensitively designed and implemented.

Although additional raised tables have been considered at other locations along

High Street, they will probably be redundant if the existing carriageway is narrowed

and parking only exists on one side of the street. Suitable road and footway surface

treatments14 and street furniture cues adjacent cross-link entry points like

St Mary’s Walk and Carrier’s Path should be as effective in alerting drivers, even

sub-consciously, to pedestrian presence. Footway build-outs, or carriageway widths

excluding parking provision, at both of these locations will also help to alert drivers

to potential pedestrian presence as well as foster easier wayfinding for pedestrians.

Obviously, a balance needs to be met between improving pedestrian provision and

unnecessarily interfering with vehicular traffic so that it re-routes off High Street onto

12 Having been, until relatively recently, a two-way street.

13 An extended table is proposed to enhance the presence of the pedestrian crossing, perhaps

allowing in time the removal of the existing signals and widening of the existing crossing (using

relatively simple and localised shared space techniques) and allowing gentler gradients on entry

and exit. The latter are particularly important given the bus traffic on High Street.

14 Including slightly raised and suitably textured surfaces (for the mobility-impaired), perhaps

even with subtle entry and exit ramps (i.e. not normal speed humps in the traditional and

technical sense).

43

parallel alternative routes. The measures envisaged, however, are not expected to

create traffic displacement.

On-Street Parking Controls

Anecdotal evidence suggests that parked vehicles are more often than not long-stay

vehicles linked to local businesses. Initial proposals for High Street assume the

complete removal of “open” on-street parking (see Figure B7 in Appendix B).

However, provision is made for six disabled bays and three shared

first-come/first-served loading and drop-off/pick-up bays, time-limited in the case of

the latter.15 Active enforcement is likely to be an issue.

Taxi Parking

A conveniently situated taxi rank currently exists on the west side of High Street

opposite the bus stop on the east side, both of which situated just north of the existing

signalised pedestrian crossing at Market Square. Anecdotal evidence, confirmed

during site visits, suggests that existing taxi parking demand often spills into the

on-street parking available to all vehicle types, leaving less for other traffic.

Because alternative taxi ranking facilities are unlikely to offer the convenience and

visibility provided by the existing rank in High Street, it is proposed that the existing

provision be retained, if not increased by an additional 2 taxi bays in the same

location,16 in any High Street re-development and that taxi licensing conditions are

adopted that ensure taxi drivers and operators actively manage their access to and

use of the provision retained for them without exploiting general parking provision.

Loading Bays

Although a variety of loading arrangements were considered, the final provision of

three marked but shared facilities (shared with drop-off/pick-up activity on

a first-come/first-served basis) was decided on taking available space (given

pedestrian and public realm improvement aspirations) and likely business needs into

account (including, for example, a lack of rear vehicular access). The three locations

comprise:

• the east side of High Street opposite The Forge;

• the west side of High Street on the central raised table opposite the war

memorial in Market Square; and

• the east side of High Street just before George Street.

15 i.e. maximum 5-minute stop with driver remaining “at the wheel” or only temporarily leaving

his/her seat to assist passengers.

16 Sufficient footway width exists to do this.

44

Incremental Delivery

As indicated, a total budget of £540,000 should be sufficient to deliver the

improvements outlined above. Given their separable nature, the three distinct

elements could be delivered incrementally as funds allow and as follows:

• central raised crossing in the vicinity of Market Square and footway widening

and carriageway narrowing between the northern end of the bus stop and the

Corn Exchange;

• local build-out and textured pedestrian crossing adjacent Carrier’s Path; and

the east side of High Street opposite The Forge; and

• St Mary’s Walk road and footway surface treatments and street furniture cues

adjacent St Mary’s Walk.

Rough estimates suggest figures of £370k for works in the vicinity of Market Square,

£120k for works in the vicinity of St Mary’s Walk and £50k for works adjacent

Carrier’s Walk.

Generally speaking, on-street parking bans along sections of High Street which are

not allocated to disabled or shared loading and drop-off/pick-up use should only

occur as works along the different sections of the street are completed.

3.2.6.3 George Street Works

Like High Street, but to a lesser extent, George Street also has uncomfortably narrow

footways over its eastern half as well as well -used on-street parking. Although

pedestrian volumes are much

lower than those seen on

High Street, movement can

become a little cramped for

pedestrians on the eastern half.

Further, the junction of

George Street and

Victoria Road is unexpectedly

large. Generally speaking,

a case exists to:

• reduce and control

on-street parking;

• narrow the existing

carriageway where possible;

• widen the existing footways where possible;

• reduce the spatial and visual impact of the junction of George Street and

Victoria Road; and

• create at least one additional pedestrian crossing over the road.


� Yes � Significant � Utilities & road camber works


Estimated Cost




45

Figure B7 in Appendix B illustrates the proposals outlined below.

Carriageway Narrowing & Footway Widening

Carriageway narrowing and footway widening similar to that proposed for

High Street17 is also recommended for George Street. With the exception of the

continued presence of “open” on-street parking, the works indicated form a natural

continuation on those proposed for High Street, helping to promote physical and

operational continuity through a common “theme”. It would appear sensible,

however, that High Street works enjoy priority and that George Street works only

follow once substantial improvements have been effected to High Street.

Junction of George Street & Victoria Road

To complement the proposed footway widening and carriageway narrowing on the

central section of George Street, the junction of George Street and Victoria Road

should be reduced in size or, at the very, least impact. The actual measures used on

the southwestern corner (e.g. build-outs) need not actually change vehicle swept path

possibilities from what they currently are, only reduce the visual and spatial impact

of the junction.

Additional Pedestrian Crossing

The only formal pedestrian crossings currently provided over George Street exist at

its two ends – i.e. at the junctions of George Street with North and High Streets. An

additional crossing – probably a zebra crossing – could be provided in the vicinity of

The George Public House, The South Downs College and Tiffin Coffee Shop. This

location offers good sight lines for both drivers and pedestrians and is reasonably

close to the existing walkway into the central block – George Street alley. Provision

of such a crossing would require parking removal and would be best effected after

carriageway narrowing and footway widening works.

As suggested by Figure B7, it is possible that the proposed zebra crossing will be

better-located immediately upstream of the junction of George Street and

Victoria Road. Siting the crossing here will improve the outward linkage from the

town centre to the south via Victoria Road, particularly to the car park situated on

Victoria Road.

On-Street Parking Controls

As for High Street, anecdotal evidence suggests that parked vehicles are more often

than not long-stay vehicles linked to local businesses. A maximum parking duration

of either two hours, or one hour with no return within one hour, is initially

recommended for George Street. This should have a negligible impact on local

“pop-in” business trade, while forcing long-stay vehicles into the numerous long-stay

car parks located close to George Street. Active enforcement, however, may be an

issue.

17 i.e. a minimum 4.8 metre carriageway.

46

Incremental Delivery

Given the nature and extent of the works proposed for George Street, there is little

scope for incremental or phased delivery. As already stated above, it would appear

sensible for High Street works to enjoy priority and that George Street works only

follow once substantial improvements have been effected to High Street.

3.2.6.4 North Street Severance & Pedestrian & Cycling Provision

With the exception of repeated loading and off-loading issues at the Post Office

Sorting House, North Street generally operates reasonably well from the vehicular

traffic perspective. Despite two signalised pedestrian crossings over its northern half

(at the junction of London Road and High and North Streets and just north of the

access roundabout to Tesco), the traffic volumes on and width of North Street create

something of a spatial and operational barrier between Tesco and its parking and the

rest of the town centre to the east. Further, vehicular volumes and speeds are not

conducive to cycle traffic. Finally, an unusually cramped footway on the western

side of the northern half of North Street undermines pedestrian amenity, especially

for those awaiting buses.

Post Office Sorting House On-Street Loading & Off-Loading

Site visits revealed loading and off-loading issues adjacent the Post Office

Sorting House located on the western side of the southern section of North Street.

Because large vehicles cannot

access the rear of the building,

they stop in the carriageway in

order to load or unload goods,

effectively closing the

northbound lane.

The Post Office Sorting House is

slightly recessed from the main

North Street carriageway,

providing sufficient width for

a formal loading bay to be constructed whilst retaining acceptable footway provision.

This will allow Post Office vehicles to completely pull-off the main carriageway,

eliminating existing traffic impacts and substantially improving safety for Post Office

employees. Figure B7 in Appendix B shows the proposed loading bay.

Severance

Addressing the severance currently associated with North Street is not necessarily as

difficult as one would expect. The provision of a central median and the widening of

the northern half of the western footway will go a long way to narrowing the physical

width of North Street and dampening traffic speeds. Because the existing scheme is

fairly new and there are more pressing needs nearby, nothing specific is

recommended in the short to medium term.

Western Footway Widening

Widening of the western footway on the northern half of North Street will probably

require a combination of carriageway narrowing and the construction of a retaining

wall on the edge of the Tesco parking (to replace and narrow the existing

landscaped/planted slope). Relocation of the existing bus shelter slightly further back

into the Tesco parking area (might mean a loss of one or two parking bays, and the


� Yes � Significant � Traffic & business disruption during construction

Estimated Cost


Developments Timing

� £45k for Post Office loading bay

� Existing and future LDF development in Hailsham


47

re-allocation of remaining space to, say, temporary shopping trolley storage or some

other practical use) may also be required if the gap between the front of the shelter

and the kerbside is still cramped. Again, because the existing scheme is fairly new

and there are more pressing needs nearby, nothing specific is recommended in the

short to medium term.

Pedestrian Crossing Needs

The existing pedestrian crossings over North Street are located at its junctions with

George and High Streets and to the west of The Quintins shopping undercover

parking. Although these, generally speaking, satisfy existing needs, the approved

expansion of The Quintins shopping centre and construction of a new food store to

the south next to North Street will increase pedestrian traffic in the vicinity of

North Street and may even justify an additional pedestrian crossing over its southern

half. The actual type of pedestrian crossing needed will have to be very carefully

considered, given its potential impacts on North Street traffic movements and the

priority and roundabout junctions in the immediate vicinity. A pelican crossing may

compromise the operational performance of the two junctions and a zebra crossing

might be altogether too disruptive. Accordingly, it is recommended that a pedestrian

audit be undertaken following The Quintins expansion to establish pedestrian

crossing needs and demands in the vicinity. It is quite possible that the dominant

desire lines can be adequately served via existing crossings.

Cycle Provision

A need for some form of cycle provision on North Street has been identified. Wide

footways and lighter pedestrian demands along the southern half of North Street

suggest off-road shared pedestrian/cycle facilities. Available footway widths on the

northern half of North Street, however, suggest that an off-road shared

pedestrian/cycle facility will only be possible on the eastern side if the existing

footway “pinch point” near the junction of London Road and High and North Streets

is addressed. On-street provision will definitely be necessary on the west side of

North Street.

As is often the case with cycle facilities, transition and termination designs are critical.

Suggestions, therefore, need to be carefully tested for safety and practicality before

they are implemented.

3.2.6.5 Thorough Re-Modelling of the Junction of London Road with North & High Streets

Currently, the southbound approach to the junction of London Road with North and

High Streets forks into North and High Streets, with Vicarage Lane comprising

a one-way exit off High Street. Not only does the existing layout take up a lot of

space, but it unnecessarily encourages traffic to continue down High Street. Further,

the sharp left turn into Vicarage Lane can be easily missed. Thorough re-modelling

of the currently complex and large junction, so that a two-way Vicarage Lane

becomes the T-arm, London Road and North Street continue to comprise the

continuous element and High Street becomes a minor exit-only arm off a newly

aligned and two-way Vicarage Lane, is recommended to simplify traffic routing and

wayfinding and reduce land take. Figure B8 in Appendix B shows the type of scheme

in view. In so far as a two-way Vicarage Lane provides a more direct route out of the

town centre to the north for traffic from Vicarage and Marshfoot Lanes, George and

North Streets will benefit from some traffic relief. Indeed, modelling shows

substantial traffic reductions on George and North Streets, particularly in the

48

afternoon peak, and significantly reduced delays in the central area generally.

Further, a new re-modelled junction should significantly simplify vehicular and

pedestrian routing and wayfinding, deflect traffic from George and North Streets and

release space for public realm purposes.

The proposed scheme will obviously involve expensive highways works on

a junction that has only

recently been delivered (as

part of the Tesco

development). It will also

require some land take

(from the block of flats to

the immediate east of the

existing junction). Further,

additional work needs to be

undertaken to confirm that

a safe and efficient layout is

possible that effectively

addresses all movements,

particularly traffic seeking

to enter High Street.18

Accordingly, the proposal is

somewhat tentative and

probably no more than

medium to long term in

nature.19

3.2.6.6 Pedestrian Connectivity Within the Central Block

Key destinations within the town centre are quite dispersed with relatively few direct

pedestrian links between them. North Street, with its traffic volumes and limited

number of pedestrian crossing points (all of which controlled) is a particular obstacle.

That said, a series of existing corridors, pathways and footways crossing the central

block offer the potential for low cost enhancement schemes offering effective and

direct improvements to pedestrian connectivity.

At least five cross routes have been identified within the central block, all of which

key to facilitating pedestrian connectivity in the future. At present, the entries to all

18 The lastmentioned - traffic seeking to enter High Street – is perhaps the most important issue

that needs to be explored and confirmed before the proposal is progressed any further.

19 A roundabout solution has also been explored. While physically challenging to implement,

a roundabout doesn’t have the operational issues associated with the T-junction solution. It may,

as a result, deserve continued attention.


� Conditional on confirming a layout that safely and effectively addresses all movements, particularly traffic seeking to enter High Street

� Simplifies vehicular and pedestrian routing and wayfinding

� Deflects traffic from George and North Streets

� Releases space for public realm

� Significantly reduced delays in the central area

� Confirming a layout that safely and effectively addresses all movements, particularly traffic seeking to enter High Street

� Land take � Recent works � Traffic disruption during construction

Estimated Cost


Developments Timing

� £300k to £500k � Existing and future LDF development in Hailsham

� Medium to long term at best, but ideally to precede or coincide with any major re-development of the town centre

49

five are difficult to identify for the visiting pedestrian (being unsigned and often

indistinct). Further, a number of them are not presently suited to pedestrian use,

passing through service areas. The five routes are:

• Carrier’s Path;

• The Forge;

• The Quintins link;

• St Mary’s Walk; and

• George Street alley.

The presence of onward or outward connections help to “knit” the central block into

its wider context. Onward or outward connections comprise:

• Vicarage Field and the slightly off-set St Mary’s Cemetery walkways to the

east;

• Victoria Road to the south; and

• the signalised pedestrian crossing over North Street and walkway through the

Tesco car park to the west (connecting, in turn, to the Maryan Court pedestrian

path and, via a downward ramp, the Cuckoo Trail).

Figure 5 shows the locations of the five central block cross-routes and the onward

connections a number of them naturally connect into.

Of all of the central block pedestrian cross links, the one connecting George Street

alley with the western end of St Mary’s Walk and central section of The Quintins link

is the least well-defined. Indeed, apart from being unsigned, it is associated with

poor pedestrian provision, particularly safe crossing points.

The Forge is accessible to vehicular traffic and is predominately used for the servicing

of The Quintins shopping centre. As a result, there is little pedestrian traffic and

considerable investment would be required to make it attractive to and useable by

pedestrians. Further, alternative east-west pedestrian thoroughfares currently exist

close by at Carrier’s Walk and The Quintins. It is important, however, that the

opportunity that The Forge offers as a future pedestrian connection, with or without

vehicular use, not be lost.

Actions identified to establish and strengthen central block pedestrian routes follow

below.

Finger Signs & Locality Maps

A carefully located network of branded finger signs and locality maps displaying

destination and distance information should help pedestrians and cyclists to more

easily identify the quickest and most appropriate routes to their destinations and,

also, locate the entries to

central block cross-links and

successfully navigate the

central block without help.

Finger signs should be located

throughout the town centre,

but would be particularly

pertinent in the short term to

the Carrier Path, Vicarage Field

/ The Quintins and

St Mary’s Walk routes. Fewer locality maps would be needed. Suitable locations

include the existing information display board within Market Square, the


� Yes � Modest to significant � None

Estimated Cost


Developments Timing

� £20k � Existing and future LDF development in Hailsham

� As town centre pedestrian and public realm improvements are delivered

50

eastern (main) entry to The Quintins, St Mary’s Walk and within the Tesco and

Waitrose entry areas.

St Mary’s Walk

The entry into St Mary’s Walk from the west is unclear, unsigned and also

unattractive. Currently, an old lay-by, filled with large bricked vegetation holders,

obscures the walkway. Further, the walkway exits into a roadway for an existing car

park and loading area, with

no clear pedestrian route

marked. As stated above,

this area is immediately

adjacent what will be a new

food store. Accordingly, an

increased level of

pedestrian movement can

be expected. It is

imperative that clear,

continuous and safe

pedestrian provision be

secured, particularly between the new food store and St Mary’s Walk, but including

clear links to George Street alley to the south and the existing The Quintins centre to

the north. Given the complexity of movements and the volumes of vehicle traffic

involved, the shared space approach suggested in initial drawings for the

development are strongly supported.20

3.2.6.7 Parking Reductions

There is a generous supply of parking within or on the edge of Hailsham town centre,

all of which is free. There are as many as 1,325 spaces, 3% of which for disabled

users, available off-street in a total of eleven off-street car parks, all of which located

within 400 m walking distance of Market Square. Along High and George Streets –

the major shopping and business streets – there is an estimated 70 legal on-street

spaces for general traffic.21

Although actively used and apparently busy, typical weekday parking use

observations suggest that the eleven off-street car parks operate at 25% to 35% reserve

capacity over most of the day. The five off-street car parks located closest to the

20 Planning Application materials include a drawing indicating an “Area of shared Surfacing”

between the ramp to The Quintins and the George Street alley, taking in along its length the

service and loading area to the rear of The Corn Exchange and Piper News as well as the western

entry to St Mary’s Walk.

21 There is space for four taxis on High Street.


� Yes � Significant � None

Estimated Cost


Developments Timing

� Should be covered by The Quintins Re-Development

� The Quintins Re-Development and future town centre development located in the south half of the central block

� Initially, during the final design and delivery of the The Quintins Re-Development

� Later improvements as funds allow and town centre development demands

51

High Street22 operate at a lower 20% to 25% reserve capacity over most of the day,

only dipping to an observed 17% reserve capacity during the early afternoon.

On-street parking provision on High and George Streets, on the other hand, is

extremely well if not over-used.23 The total removal of “open” on-street car parking

provision in the High Street and a significant reduction on that currently available in

George Street, combined with a marginal loss of car parking spaces expected with the

current The Quintins re-development proposals, therefore, shouldn’t present parking

demand issues.

In exceptional instances, where parking demands are unusually high (i.e. special

events or seasonal shopping peaks), alternative additional car parking provision

“contingency” plans may need to be considered. The existing Hailsham Market car

park offers specific potential in this regard as a spill-over facility when it is not

actually in use as a market (fortnightly on Mondays and weekly on Wednesdays). If

actively pursued, improved pedestrian facilities (footways and crossings) between

the Market and town centre should be delivered.24

Perhaps the biggest issue associated with the removal and reduction of on-street

parking on High and George Streets concerns business owners and staff parking

needs. The time restrictions associated with currently available off-street parking

provision severely limit business owner and staff use. Reserved parking bays or

a permit-style system may be necessary to accommodate business needs.

22 i.e. The Quintins undercover and open car parks, North Street South car park, Vicarage Lane car

park and Waitrose car park.

23 On-site observations repeatedly revealed up to five illegally parked vehicles on High Street and

as many as three on George Street.

24 Published by Mary Portas.

52

Parking Charges & Time Restrictions

As already stated above, on-street parking on High and George Streets is very well

used. Anecdotal evidence suggests that many of the parked vehicles are long-stay in

nature, being linked to local

businesses. Freeing up the

parking for shoppers and

business visitors, along

George Street at the very least,

will only be possible through

the introduction of parking

charges or time restrictions.

Recent research25 indicates that

affordable car parking is

usually an important element

in promoting and maintaining

an economically sustainable town centre, especially one like Hailsham’s. It is

possible, therefore, that the introduction of parking charges in the town centre car

parks will have a detrimental impact on the economic viability of Hailsham town

centre. While car parking charges for on-street parking on a street like George Street

may be considered, to encourage use of off-street facilities, it is felt that on-street

parking time limits will be as effective in managing use and also more acceptable to

stakeholders. A maximum parking duration of either two hours, or one hour with no

return within one hour, is initially recommended for George Streets at the very least.

This should have a negligible impact on local “pop-in” business trade, while forcing

long-stay vehicles into the numerous long-stay car parks located within reasonable

walking distance of George Street. Active enforcement, however, may be an issue.

The Police are currently responsible for enforcement. If enforcement is to be a matter

for Wealden District Council or East Sussex County Council through Parking Officers

a “decriminalised parking scheme” would need to be in operation.

3.2.6.8 Traffic Circulation Changes

Vehicular access and circulation are essential to the economic well-being of any

modern town centre. Vehicular requirements, however, need to be carefully

managed and balanced with the often conflicting but equally relevant demands of

pedestrian accessibility, sustainable travel and a safe and attractive town centre

environment.

25 It is worth noting that the active use of Hailsham Market for spill-over parking purposes may

trigger re-development pressures in the southeast corner of Hailsham town centre. The recent

purchase of Hailsham Market by a local group to prevent the re-development of the Market itself

will feature in any planning for the neighbourhood.


� Yes � Significant � Business owners & staff parking needs

� Enforcement

Estimated Cost


Developments Timing

� Signage & TROs nominal

� Enforcement significant

� General growth within Hailsham, combined with regeneration aspirations


53

One-Way Vicarage Lane

The only short-term traffic circulation option considered worthy of assessment

involved the proposed conversion of Vicarage Lane to one-way operations over its

entire length. The extreme northwestern section is currently one-way only for east

and southbound traffic.

Although this proposal would be fairly straightforward to implement, and would

involve relatively modest costs, its effect on existing traffic movements through the

town centre is sufficient to rule it out. First, traffic from southeast Hailsham would

have to negotiate the entire lengths of George and North Streets before it can access

Vicarage Lane. Traffic originating in Marshfoot Lane would have to negotiate

Vicarage Road in addition. Second, although the volumes of re-routed traffic are not

necessarily high, they are high enough to put the junction of London Road and High

and North Streets under unacceptable pressures in the long term.

A further consideration deserves mention: If a safe and efficient layout can be

identified for a thoroughly re-modelled junction of London Road with North and

High Streets, Vicarage Lane will become two-way over its entire length, thereby

simplifying vehicular routing and wayfinding and deflecting traffic from George and

North Streets. Such a proposal has already been dealt with above.

3.2.7 Real-Time Bus Information System

A lack of real-time and reliable bus service information repeatedly arises in

assessments of the public transport offer in Hailsham. While a lack of service

information is not limited to Hailsham, it affects the attractiveness of the public

transport offer into, out of and within Hailsham and, potentially, limits the extent to

which bus services are perceived and used as a viable alternative to private car travel.

The County Council has launched an initiative to upgrade and slightly expand the

existing but dated RTPI system that already serves specific routes in coastal towns in

the western part of the county as well as Peacehaven, Newhaven and Eastbourne. If

the requested funding is granted, a firm platform for further and affordable

expansion, including areas like Hailsham and enabling a variety of access

options (roadside displays,

web pages and mobile

messaging), should be in place

within 2 to 3 years. Along

with supporting the current

initiative, Hailsham

stakeholders (e.g. the town

and parish councils and the

Bus Alliance) should actively

consult currently involved

parties to identify the role they

need to play and the contribution they need to make to expedite the deployment of

the new real time bus information system in the Hailsham area. It is possible funds

need to be secured in advance.


� Yes � Substantial � Cannot be implemented in isolation from or in advance of broader county-wide initiatives

Estimated Cost


Developments Timing

� Millions of pounds

� All existing and future Hailsham development

� Medium term at best, and dependent on broader county-wide roll-out

54

3.2.8 Improved Smarter Choice Offer

Smarter choice possibilities are not exhausted by facility, infrastructure and service

interventions, especially in an area where the sustainable delivery of planned

development would be

helped by more

sustainable trip making

behaviours and patterns.

The biggest issue in

a setting like Hailsham is

identifying measures that

complement and enhance

rather than undermine

regeneration efforts.

Actions aimed at raising

the profile of and effecting

increased smarter choice

travel behaviour include:

• slightly reduced

parking provision in

the town centre,

particularly in

locations with

a generous parking

supply;

• improved cycle

parking and cycle and pedestrian information signage (including a simple and

easily recognisable or branded wayfinding finger post and location map

system, displaying destination and distance information);

• provision of real time bus information;

• a substantially-improved bus offer, particularly within Hailsham;

• active encouragement of existing developments, businesses and property

owners, users and service suppliers to implement voluntary, and where

possible cooperative, Travel Plans;

• enforcement of Travel Plans on new development through s106 agreements;

and

• the active pursuit, as future development proposals come forward, of sensible

land use and movement network arrangements generally, which maintain if

not improve existing local connectivity and movement network legibility and

which also actively accommodate the sustainable travel modes like walking,

cycling and bus use.


� Depends on what is done

� Vary between the modest and significant

� Identifying measures that complement and enhance rather than undermine regeneration efforts

� Securing real changes in trip-making behaviours and patterns is difficult, often requiring more than facility and infrastructure –type interventions

Estimated Costs


Developments Timing

� Vary greatly � Best covered by s106 or s278 agreements secured through development applications schemes or addressed through official policy and application approval processes


� Should be proactive and ongoing “line items” in general planning and development application approval processes

55

Many of the proposed schemes listed in this document – both in this and the

following section - are smarter choice in nature or foster a smarter choice agenda.26

Indeed, all except the last three are dealt with within proposed schemes.27 Generally

speaking, it is better to include smarter choice interventions as “line items” in regular

projects.

Improved Pedestrian Connectivity

The town centre proposals dealt with above feature interventions aimed at improving

general pedestrian accessibility, connectivity and amenity throughout the town

centre. Such actions have an intrinsic smarter choices element in so far as they

encourage and promote movement by foot. Specific measures include:

• widened pedestrian pavements on High and George Streets, encouraging

pedestrian movement and creating a safer and more attractive environment for

pedestrians;

• enhancement of town centre cross-links and entries and exits to them; and

• finger posts and locality maps to help pedestrians and cyclists identify the

most appropriate route to their destination and, also, make inform them of

alternative routes that they might not have been aware of.

26 For example (repeating material already provided in the document):

� In so far as the proposed A22 and Hempstead Lane all movement access junction provides

a more direct route to the strategic road network and relieves the A271 and local roads within

Hailsham (especially Gleneagles and London Roads) of substantial vehicular volume

increases with all the congestion and traffic dominance associated with them, walking and

cycling will become more attractive and bus journey times along the A271 and London and

Battle Roads will improve.

� In so far as a consolidated South Road, Diplocks Way and Ersham Road Roundabout delivers

substantial improvements on the movement and capacity level, bus journey times for routes

using South and Ersham Roads will also improve. These improvements are critical to the

success of the proposed Hailsham Eastbourne Express Bus Service.

� In so far as improved north-south through-traffic re-routing via Summerheath Road relieves

traffic pressures and presence within the town centre, pedestrian, cycle and bus movements

into, out of and within the town centre should also improve.

� In so far as improved north-south through-traffic re-routing via Summerheath-Road involves

improvements at the junction of South and Western Roads (signalisation), local bus

movements using Summerheath and Western Roads will also benefit.

� In so far as town centre proposals improve public realm, pedestrian and cycle provision as well

as general traffic circulation, smarter choice options (e.g. walk, cycle and bus) will become

more attractive.

Proposals that deliver connectivity and access improvements at the local level (e.g. new or

upgraded crossings, new and improved footways and cycle storage facilities) or encourage

increased pedestrian and cycle travel (e.g. lighting of the Cuckoo Trail) directly support smarter

travel. Further, the proposed Hailsham-Eastbourne Express Bus Service has clear and direct

implications for smarter travel.

27 The last three actions are more properly official policy and application approval actions.

56

Improved Local Connections Outside the Town Centre

Scheme proposals that follow include:

• a new access to the Cuckoo Trail off London Road and a related zebra crossing

over London Road;

• a direct access off the Cuckoo Trail into the Community College; and

• the provision of lighting on the Cuckoo Trail as it passes through Hailsham.

The Cuckoo Trail comprises a relatively central well-surfaced and predominately

off-road pedestrian and cycle link running north-south through the centre of

Hailsham. The closest access points to the Cuckoo Trail from the town centre vicinity

are via Station Road, the Tesco car park and London Road. All three access points

provide suitably close and convenient access to the town centre.28

Although the Cuckoo Trail runs right past Hailsham Community College there is no

formal access directly into the site from it.29 All staff, students and visitors ought to

enter the College from Battle Road. It is proposed that a secondary entrance to the

College be provided directly off the access route to the Cuckoo Trail connected to

London Road. There are two prominent access points potentially linking the College

and Cuckoo Trail - one immediately to the west of the College Tennis Courts or main

building and another located at the southwest corner of the College complex. The

second option will be relatively straightforward to implement and low cost. In

addition, it will also provide a much more convenient access to the College for

students and staff travelling by foot from the northwest, west and southwest

generally. That said, an additional access will add to the management and security

burden of the College, potentially requiring CCTV coverage.

28 There is also an access to the Cuckoo Trail between the last two access points – namely, via an

east-west pedestrian walkway linking London Road with Maryan Court. While useful as an

access, it is not oriented to serve the town centre.

29 A hole in the College property fence is evident on the Cuckoo Trail access path close to

London Road, suggesting that the College is being accessed, albeit informally, directly from the

Cuckoo Trail. An informal path up the Cuckoo Trail embankment at the same location confirms

this, including the fact that a southern access to/from the Cuckoo Trail in the vicinity of

London Road should be seriously considered.

57

Table 4: Game-Changers

Scheme Relevant Text

Basic Feasibility Benefits

Known Issues

Estimated Cost


Developments Timing

� A22 & Hempstead Lane All- Movement Junction

3.2.1 � Yes � Significant local access and broader network relief benefits

� Traffic disruption during construction


� Of benefit to all future development in west, north and east Hailsham

� As soon as is practically possible within the delivery programme

� Consolidated South Road, Diplocks Way & Ersham Road Roundabout

3.2.2 � Yes � Significant strategic and local movement capacity-related benefits generally, including improved bus movement on South and Ersham Roads

� Utilities works & traffic disruption during construction

� Loss of existing park � Signalisation of South and Western Roads necessary to prevent A22 and Diplocks Way becoming north-south alternative

� £520k � Town centre development

� Of broader benefit to future development in west, north and east Hailsham


� Signalisation of Junction of South & Western Roads

3.2.3 � Yes � Substantially reduces journey times on what is the most direct and natural route between much of north and south Hailsham

� Relieves North Street � Discourages use of

Hemsptead Lane, the A22 and Diplocks Way by local north-south movements

� Introduces new delays to South Road traffic


� Of benefit to all future development in north and east Hailsham and the town centre

� As soon as is practically possible, but not later than (1) the provision of a consolidated junction to replace the existing junctions of South Road with Diplocks Way and Ersham Road or (2) significant new development in north, east or central Hailsham

� Hailsham Eastbourne Express Bus Service

3.2.4 � Start-up and ongoing funding require special LDF funding

� Provides an attractive smarter travel option for inter-urban commuters

� Makes more effective use of available network capacity

� Existing bottlenecks at the junctions of South Road with Diplocks Way and Ersham Road and the existing A22/A27 Cophall Roundabout must be addressed

� Hundreds of thousands of pounds to start and subsidise over the years

� £50k for one-off capital costs in Hailsham

� Existing and future Hailsham development generally; north and east Hailsham and Hailsham town centre LDF development more specifically

� Timed to precede LDF development planned for north, east and central Hailsham, but not before existing bottlenecks at South Road, Diplocks Way and Ersham Road and at the A22/A27 Cophall Roundabout are addressed

� Strategic & Local Tactical Signing Improvements

3.2.5 � Yes � Modest but worthwhile � None of any significance � Strategic signs £50k

� Tactical signs £30k

� None in particular � As soon as is practically possible, subject to funding

58

Table 4: Game-Changers - continued …



Known Issues

Estimated Cost


Developments Timing

� High Street Works 3.2.6.2 � Yes � Significant � Utilities & road camber works




� George Street Works

3.2.6.3 � Yes � Significant � Utilities & road camber works




� Post Office Sorting House On-Street Loading & Off-Loading

3.2.6.4 � Yes � Significant � Traffic & business disruption during construction

� £45k for Post Office loading bay

� Existing and future LDF development in Hailsham


� Thorough Re-Modelling of the Junction of London Road with North & High Streets

3.2.6.5 � Conditional on confirming a layout that safely and effectively addresses all movements, particularly traffic seeking to enter High Street

� Simplifies vehicular and pedestrian routing and wayfinding

� Deflects traffic from George and North Streets

� Releases space for public realm

� Significantly reduced delays in the central area

� Confirming a layout that safely and effectively addresses all movements, particularly traffic seeking to enter High Street

� Land take � Recent works � Traffic disruption during construction

� £300k to £500k � Existing and future LDF development in Hailsham

� Medium to long term at best, but ideally to precede or coincide with any major re-development of the town centre

� Finger Signs & Locality Maps

3.2.6.6 � Yes � Modest to significant � None � £20k � Existing and future LDF development in Hailsham


� St Mary’s Walk 3.2.6.6 � Yes � Significant � None � Should be covered by The Quintins Re-Development

� The Quintins Re-Development and future town centre development located in the south half of the central block

� Initially, during the final design and delivery of the The Quintins Re-Development

� Later improvements as funds allow and town centre development demands

59

Table 4: Game-Changers - continued …



Known Issues

Estimated Cost


Developments Timing

� Parking Charges & Time Restrictions

3.2.6.7 � Yes � Significant � Business owners & staff parking needs

� Enforcement

� Signage & TROs nominal

� Enforcement significant

� General growth within Hailsham, combined with regeneration aspirations


� Real-Time Bus Information System

3.2.7 � Yes � Substantial � Cannot be implemented in isolation from or in advance of broader county-wide initiatives

� Millions of pounds � All existing and future Hailsham development

� Medium term at best, and dependent on broader county wide roll-out

� Improved Smarter Choice Offer

3.2.8 � Depends on what is done

� Vary between the modest and significant

� Identifying measures that complement and enhance rather than undermine regeneration efforts

� Securing real changes in trip making behaviours and patterns is difficult, often requiring more than facility and infrastructure -type interventions

� Vary greatly � Best covered by s106 or s278 agreements secured through development applications schemes or addressed through official policy and application approval processes


� Should be proactive and ongoing “line items” in general planning and development application approval processes

60

3.3 Important Local Interventions

The identification of opportunities that improve connectivity or more sustainable

travel behaviour at the local level was perhaps the easiest task of the planning

exercise. Generally speaking, recommended schemes comprise new or improved

pedestrian crossings over busy roads. In other cases, footways, cycle parking or safer

school drop-off and pick-up arrangements are in view.

Specific examples, all of which presented with more detail in Table 5, include:

• upgrade of the existing pelican crossing on Battle Road outside the

Community College to a puffin crossing (possibly a toucan crossing if the

cycleway on Battle Road extends to this point);

• provision of improved footways around and local widening of Hawks Road

outside Hawkes Farm School to more safely accommodate pupils walking to

school and drop-off and pick-up activity immediately adjacent the school;

• provision of a direct connection into the Community College from the

Cuckoo Trail;

• provision of pedestrian shelters and cycle storage at the northern entrance to

White House Primary School;

• provision of cycle storage at Marshlands Primary School;

• provision of a zebra crossing over London Road just north of Grovelands Road;

• provision of a zebra crossing over London Road on eastern side of the bridge

over the Cuckoo Trail (near the existing northbound bus stop);

• provision of a southern access to the Cuckoo Trail from London Road on

eastern side of bridge over the Trail;

• provision of improved footways either side of and over the A267 at

Boship Roundabout;

• provision of continuous footways on the southern side of the A271 between

"Spinney Cottage" and London Road junction;

• physical modifications to the uncharacteristic section of the A271 between

Bell Bank Cottages and Danum Close; and

• lighting of all or parts of the Cuckoo Trail as it passes through Hailsham to

address security issues.

Figures B9 to B15 in Appendix B provide sketches of the locations and works

associated with some of the above.

61

Table 5: Important Local Interventions

Scheme Basic

Feasibility Benefits Known Issues

Estimated Cost


Developments Timing

� Battle Road crossing � Yes � Modest & local � None � £30k � North and east Hailsham LDF development

� As soon as possible, but definitely in advance of further development approvals in east and north Hailsham

� Improved footways on Hawks Road and connecting roads & pull-off bays adjacent school

� Yes � Significant � Mixed opinions of stakeholders, especially concerning the justification for pull-off bays

� £85k to £230k depending on nature and extent of works

� North Hailsham LDF development

� As soon as possible, but ideally in advance of further development approvals in north Hailsham development

� Direct access to Community College from Cuckoo Trail

� Yes � Significant � Additional management & security concern for College

� £2k � Existing need � No particular urgency, although should not occur later than the zebra crossing over London Road on eastern side of the bridge over the Cuckoo Trail and a southern access to the Cuckoo Trail from London Road are provided

� Pedestrian shelters and cycle storage at the northern entrance to White House Primary School

� Yes � Significant given current lack

� None, except identification of suitable location

� £7k � East Hailsham LDF development

� No particular urgency

� Cycle storage at Marshlands Primary School

� Yes � Modest � None, except identification of suitable location

� £5k � Existing need � No particular urgency

� Zebra crossing over London Road just north of Grovelands Road

� Yes � Modest to significant � None � £20k � Welbury, Woodholm & Woodside Farms developments

� As soon as possible subject to funding

� Zebra crossing over London Road on eastern side of the bridge over the Cuckoo Trail

� Yes � Modest to significant, depending on provision of southern access to the Cuckoo Trail from London Road (see next scheme)

� None � £20k � General growth within Hailsham

� No particular urgency, although should not probably not occur until southern access to the Cuckoo Trail from London Road is provided

� Southern access to the Cuckoo Trail from London Road

� Yes � Modest � None � £130k � General growth within Hailsham

� No particular urgency, although the sooner it is provided the better the connections to and use of the Cuckoo Trail will be

� Improved footways either side of and over the A267 at Boship Roundabout

� Yes � Modest � None � £60k � North, east and west Hailsham LDF development


62

Table 5: Important Local Interventions - continued …

Scheme Basic

Feasibility Benefits Known Issues

Estimated Cost


Developments Timing

� provision of continuous footways on the southern side of the A271 between "Spinney Cottage" and London Road junction

� Yes � Significant � Existing highway boundaries a little narrow at points

� Mitigating effort required where resident vegetation encroaches within highway

� £45k � Existing need � As soon as possible, but ideally in advance of further development approvals in north Hailsham development

� Improvements to A271 between Bell Bank Cottages and Danum Close

� Yes � Modest � Traffic disruption during construction

� £35k to £110k depending on solution chosen

� North, East and west Hailsham LDF development


� Provision of lighting on urban sections of the Cuckoo Trail

� Yes � Potentially significant � None � £475 to £675k � Existing need � As soon as possible subject to funding

63

3.4 Nice-to-Haves

Additional schemes which, because of location and/or existing s106 conditions, do

not qualify for funding under currently collected agreements and the monies

associated with them, include the provision of footways on:

• on Mill Road between Lion House Park and the existing footway closer to

town;

• on Station Road between existing path and Old Swan Lane; and

• on the south side of Southerden Close as it leaves Market Street.

A need has also been identified for a pedestrian crossing over Ersham Road near

Sandbanks Way.

64

4 Delivery Strategy

4.1 General

The importance and timing of the various proposals addressed in the previous

section of the report vary greatly. Many of them are also inter-related and/or

inter-dependent. Table 8 at the back of this section of the document times the

proposals individually according to the “short”, “medium” and “long” terms and

also categorises them as “essential”, “desirable” or purely “aspirational”. Further,

inter-dependencies are indicated where relevant. The schemes presented in Table 8

could, if all delivered, represent a total spend of an estimated £4.13 million over the

fifteen years between 2012/13 and 2027.

In all respects, the delivery phasing and relative priorities of proposed schemes

suggested in Table 8 are ideal, considering Hailsham and Hellingly in isolation from

the larger Wealden area and assuming adequate funding for everything that needs to

be done in Wealden as a whole. In reality there is a funding gap. Further,

requirements in other growth areas – principally, Polegate and Stone Cross – and the

balanced delivery of infrastructure over the whole of Wealden District, dependent on

CIL receipts, may demand some re-prioritisation of funding and phasing of schemes

within Hailsham and Hellingly themselves.

Blended, Broadly Distributed and Relevant Package of Schemes

The rounded and forward looking character of the delivery strategy is revealed in the

blended package of infrastructure and operational elements it assumes. Table 6

overleaf indicates how the various proposals map against common policy themes and

priorities, namely:

• pedestrians;

• cycles;

• buses and bus users;

• general traffic;

• urban realm;

• integrated and accessible development;

• local development;

• network legibility;

• environment;

• network operations; and

• smarter travel.

Table 7 indicates how the various proposals address original project requirements –

namely, that improvement schemes:

• enhance local accessibility;

• improve pedestrian, cycling and passenger transport connectivity;

• improve public realm; and

• support the regeneration aspirations of the town.

Not only are the proposed schemes broadly distributed across Hailsham (see

Figure 13), but they also address a wide range of existing and future issues. Most

importantly:

• the proposed A22 and Hempstead Lane roundabout addresses

Boship Roundabout, the A271 and Hellingly Village rat-running issues;

65

• the proposed South Road, Diplocks Way and Ersham Road consolidated

roundabout addresses an existing bottleneck severely impairing town centre

access from the south and inter-urban movements between Hailsham and

Eastbourne;

• the proposed signalisation of South and Western Roads addresses existing

north-south routing and capacity issues through central Hailsham;

• the proposed Hailsham-Eastbourne Express Bus Service addresses the

longstanding need for a good public transport connection to the rail station in

Polegate and onwards to Eastbourne;

• the proposed improvements in the town centre address the need for

a step-change in public realm and a re-balancing of provision for pedestrian,

cycles and vehicular traffic;

• a variety of improved and new pedestrian footway and crossing facilities at

various locations across the northern half of Hailsham (where future growth

will be focused) address the need for improved local connectivity and ease of

movement, something that will become increasingly important as traffic

activity and presence increase;

• the provision of cycle storage at at least two schools encourages increased cycle

use;

• the improvement of access to and security on the Cuckoo Trail – the latter via

lighting - encourages greater use of it by pedestrians and cyclists; and

• the review and improvement of signing generally across Hailsham improves

wayfinding.

The importance of the first three schemes for movement into, out of and within

Hailsham - both that directly and that indirectly affected - cannot be under-estimated.

Table 9 shows how the proposed schemes map against key issues and constraints (for

most part, those listed in Table 1 earlier in the document).

Strategy Objective and Residual Issues

While saying all of the above, it needs to be noted that the proposed package of

schemes does not offer to address all future movement and access needs within

Hailsham and Hellingly. Nor does it promise to sustain the status quo in terms of

traffic operating conditions across Hailsham and Hellingly. What the strategy does

do is identify schemes that must be delivered if future development is to occur

without unacceptable movement and access conditions developing. Specific

planning applications, as they come forward, will identify further improvements.

Further, the ongoing planning and design of schemes like the proposed

Hailsham-Eastbourne Express Bus Service will also identify further improvement

requirements.

It is also worthwhile noting that at least two residual issues remain:

• despite the relief that the proposed A22 and Hempstead Lane roundabout

brings, Boship Roundabout will continue to have to cater for volumes which

significantly exceed its capacity; and

• with the exception of the relatively expensive and also “aspirational” proposal

to address the most uncharacteristic section of the A271 between Bell Bank

Cottages and Danum Close, the A271 will continue to be inadequately

configured over most of its length for the function it fulfils and the volumes it

carries.

66

Physical constraints and/or prohibitive costs limit options in both instances. There is

generally very little that can be done, other than of an environmental or calming

nature, at Boship Roundabout and along the A271.30

Smarter Choices

The importance of influencing and changing travel behaviour cannot be overstated.

Although forecast year modelling suggests that Hailsham’s highway network,

improved as proposed, can generally cope with the traffic growth associated with

consented and planned development, there are locations, particularly within the

town centre that will struggle with future demands without travel choice and

behaviour changes. In one sense, increasing levels of congestion and parking control

of some type will provide the “stick” that occasions travel choice change. Truly

viable and attractive alternatives to car travel will provide the “carrot”, but will have

to be in place in advance of major development changes if Hailsham isn’t to lose the

patronage of its natural hinterland and regeneration efforts and investment prove

wasted. The biggest issue in a setting like Hailsham lies is identifying smarter

choices measures and alternatives that complement and enhance rather than

undermine regeneration efforts.

4.2 Essential Works

The single-biggest movement-related interventions necessary to enable planned

development comprise:

• the proposed A22 and Hempstead Lane Roundabout; and

• the proposed consolidated roundabout at South Road, Diplocks Way and

Ersham Road.

Without these two schemes, all of the development planned for Hailsham and

Hellingly is thrown into question. Not only do both schemes provide the network

step-change necessary to reasonably accommodate consented and planned

development, but both schemes address capacity and access issues hampering

existing development. Accordingly, a failure to deliver either scheme constitutes

a “show-stopper”.

Note: With the exception of these two schemes, and the “highly desirable” signalisation of the

junction of South and Western Roads, weekday peak hour saturation levels across the Hailsham

and Hellingly network are either well within those ranges that are generally considered

workable,31 or, if beyond normally accepted thresholds, are considered tolerable given the horizon

in view (2027) and broader network-related considerations (e.g. network consistency and the

deliberate retention of limited capacity along certain corridors and routes to discourage

unnecessary traffic).32 The three locations, in order of importance, are:

30 Interventions that address high circulatory speeds at Boship Roundabout or marginal treatments

that address function/setting and severance issues on the A271 are both worth investigating. 31 e.g. no more than 95% and, ideally, well below. 32 The locations in view here include:

67

• Boship Roundabout, which will continue to have to cater for volumes which significantly

exceed its capacity (particularly on the southern approach in the morning peak and the

western approach in the afternoon peak);

• the junction of the A22 and South Road (particularly the southern approach in the morning

peak); and

• the junction of South and Station Roads (the southern priority-controlled approach in both

the morning and afternoon peaks).

Apart from wholesale and probably unaffordable network improvements, there is little that can be

done at Boship Roundabout and the junction of South and Station Roads. The most obvious

opportunity available to increase capacity on the southern approach of the junction of the A22 and

South Road involves offside widening and provision on an additional lane within the existing

inner circle for the south to northeast movement. Figure B16 in Appendix B shows the layout in

view.

Feasibility investigations undertaken to date have not identified or uncovered

anything that would question either the feasibility or estimated delivery cost of each

scheme. The presence of fibre optics at the existing junctions of South Road with

Diplocks Way and Ersham Road may significantly affect the final delivery cost of the

second scheme, but not its basic feasibility.33

An issue that might jeopardise some of the movement and access strategy proposals

comprises adverse public and business reaction to the High and George Street

proposals, particularly the proposed removal of “open” on-street parking.

A compromise solution might be identified, but (1) it is unlikely to provide more than

a fraction of the on-street parking currently available on High Street and (2) is likely

undermine the public realm offer inherent to proposals.

4.3 Traffic Modelling

Appendix C provides materials concerning the modelling exercise undertaken to

identify problems, test certain schemes and develop the delivery strategy presented

in this section of the report. The following highlights the most important conclusions:

• Consented and planned development results in substantial increases in traffic

on almost all of Hailsham’s and Hellingly’s roads relative to existing levels.

Despite a number of important “committed” network improvements

(associated with recently consented developments), traffic delays and queues

� the junction of the A22 and Hempstead Lane (more particularly, the north approach in the

afternoon peak);

� the junction of the A271 and London Road (more particularly, the left turn from south to west

in the morning peak);

� the junction of London Road, Hawks Road and Hempstead Lane (more particularly, the

Hawks Road approach in the morning peak and Hempstead Lane approach in the afternoon

peak); and

� the junction of Market Street and Vicarage Road (more particularly, straight movement from

south to north).

33 The 44% optimism bias used in the cost estimate for this scheme should cover such an eventuality.

68

increase substantially too. Indeed, traffic delays and queues increase

unacceptably without committed network improvements.

• Although committed network improvements cannot meet all the needs of

future planned development, those that address the A271 (i.e. the junction

improvements proposed for the junctions of the A271 with London Road,

Hawks Road, Park Road and Battle Road) are essential if the A271 is to operate

satisfactorily. Further, the combination of improvements on the A271 and the

Hellingly Village traffic calming significantly reduce traffic on Station Road

and through Hellingly Village.

• The proposed A22 and Hempstead Lane Roundabout brings substantial relief

to Boship Roundabout, the A271 west of Hawks Road, Gleneagles Drive, the

A22 and Diplocks Way Roundabout, South Road, North Street southbound,

and, probably in combination with the proposed Hellingly traffic calming

scheme, Station Road through Hellingly Village. However, traffic flows

increase significantly on Hempstead Lane, Hawks Road and London Road.

• The existing junctions of South Road with Diplocks Way and Ersham Road are

inadequately configured to cope with existing demands let alone future ones.

A consolidated four-arm roundabout “unlocks” the existing bottleneck, but

also alters the balance of attractiveness between routes into Hailsham from the

south and east which could lead to traffic increases on Ersham Road – more

than is perhaps desirable for a road of its nature. Mitigating features may be

required as a result. It is also evident that a new consolidated four-arm

roundabout offers an alternative and potentially better but longer route

between northwest and south Hailsham via Hempstead Lane, the A22 and

Diplocks Way compared to the more direct route via Summerheath, Western

and South Roads. The signalisation of the junction of South and Western

Roads is effective in mitigating undesirable traffic increases on Diplocks Way.

It also relieves North Street southbound, but introduces new delays to

through-traffic on South Road.

• With the exception of just three locations, the proposed A22 and Hempstead

Lane Roundabout, the proposed South Road, Diplocks Way and Ersham Road

consolidated four-arm roundabout and the proposed signalisation of the

junction of South and Western Roads yield weekday peak hour saturation

levels across the Hailsham and Hellingly network which are either well within

workable ranges or tolerable given the horizon in view (2027) and broader

network related considerations (e.g. network consistency and the deliberate

retention of limited capacity along certain corridors and routes). The three

locations, in order of importance, are:

- Boship Roundabout, which will continue to have to cater for volumes

which significantly exceed its capacity (particularly on the southern

approach in the morning peak and the western approach in the

afternoon peak);

69

- the junction of the A22 and South Road (particularly the southern

approach in the morning peak); and

- the junction of South and Station Roads (the southern priority controlled

approach in both the morning and afternoon peaks).

• Apart from wholesale and probably unaffordable network improvements, both

locally within Hailsham and Hellingly as well as within South Wealden

generally,34 there is little that can be done at Boship Roundabout and the

junction of South and Station Roads.

• Irresolvable capacity issues at the junction of South and Station Roads and, to

a lesser extent, the junction of Market Street and Vicarage Road, suggest

a cautious approach to further development in southeast Hailsham.

4.4 SWETS Differences

The work undertaken in this planning exercise built on rather than replaced previous

SWETS work. Previous SWETS findings and conclusions pertinent to Hailsham

were, for the most part, confirmed. However, two differences are worth noting:

• a need to address the significant bottleneck associated with the junctions of

South Road with, Diplocks Way and Ersham Road was clearly identified;35 and

• a “reduced” role for Summerheath Road, compared to that envisaged in earlier

SWETS work, has been recommended.36

34 e.g. new as opposed to just improved road links.

35 See Sections 2.7.2 and 3.2.2.

36 Summerheath Road is not really positioned to serve traffic using anything other than the

London Road corridor. Further details are given in Sections 2.7.3, 3.2.2 and 3.2.3.

70

Table 6: Primary Beneficiaries & Benefits

Primary Beneficiaries & Benefits

No. Scheme Pedestrians

Cycles

Buses and Bus Users

General Traffic

Urban Realm

Integrated and Accessible Development Generally

Local Development

Network Legibility

Environment

Network Operations

Smarter Travel Choices

1. Recently Delivered

1.01 Re-alignment of New Road � � �

1.02 Improvements to A22 southbound into Hempstead Lane left-out slip road � � � �

1.03 Improvements to existing mini-roundabout at junction of Hawks Road, London Road and Hempstead Lane � � � � �

1.04 Development access and improvements to junction of Hempstead Lane and Gleneagles Drive � � � � �

1.05 Various new development accesses � � � � �

1.06 Hellingly Hospital development bus service � � � � � � �

2. Givens

2.01 Park Road cycle way � � � � � � �

2.02 Signalisation of junction of Park Road and A271 � � � � � �

2.03 New mini-roundabout at junction of Hawks Road and A271 � � � � � �

2.04 Magham Down safety improvements � � �

2.05 Hellingly Village traffic calming � � � � � � � � � �

2.06 New small roundabout at junction of Battle Road and A271 � � � � � �

2.07 Pedestrian crossing over A271 at local shopping centre � � � � �

2.08 Battle Road cycle way � � � � � � �

2.09 New footway along Marshfoot Lane � � � �

2.10 Improvements to junction of London Road and A271 � � � � �

2.11 Gleneagles Drive traffic calming � � � � � � � � �

2.12 Cycle connection to Cuckoo Trail from Hellingly Hospital development � � � � � � �

2.13 Improvements to bus stops on Anglesey Avenue � � � � � � �

3. Game-Changers

3.01 New all-movement junction on A22 at Hempstead Lane � � � � � �

3.02 Consolidation of the junctions of Diplocks Way and Ersham Road with South Road into a single small roundabout � � � � � �

3.03 Signalisation of junction of South and Western Roads � � � � � �

3.04 Hailsham-Eastbourne Express Bus Service � � � � �

3.05 Strategic and local tactical (i.e. within Hailsham) signing improvements � � � � �

3.06 Town Centre circulation and pedestrian connections and realm improvements (See relevant text and Table 3) � � � � � � � � � � �

3.07 Thorough Re-Modelling of the Junction of London Road with North and High Streets � � � � � � �

3.08 Real Time Bus Information system � � �

3.09 Smarter choices offers generally � � � � � � � � �

4. Important Local Interventions

4.01 Upgrade of existing pelican crossing on Battle Road outside Community College to a puffin or toucan � �

4.02 Improved footways on Hawks Road and connecting roads & pull off bays adjacent school � � � � � �

4.03 Direct connection to Cuckoo Trail from Community College � � � � � � �

4.04 Pedestrian shelters and cycle storage at White House Primary School � � � � � �

4.05 Cycle storage at Marshlands Primary School � � �

4.06 Pedestrian crossing over London Road just north of Grovelands Road (or near Ambulance Station) � � � � �

4.07 Zebra crossing on London Road on eastern side of bridge over Cuckoo Trail � � � � �

4.08 Southern access to Cuckoo Trail from London Road on eastern side of bridge over Trails � � � � �

4.09 Pedestrian crossing over A267 at Boship Roundabout � � �

4.10 Footway on southern side A271 between "Spinney Cottage" and London Road junction � � � �

4.11 Address uncharacteristic section of A271 between Bell Bank Cottages and Danum Close � �

4.12 Provision of lighting on urban sections of the Cuckoo Trail � � � � � � �

5. Nice-To-Haves

5.01 Pedestrian crossing over Ersham Road near Sandbanks Way � � � � �

5.02 Footway on Mill Road between Lion House Park to existing footway � � � � �

5.03 Footway on Station Road between existing path to Old Swan Lane � � � � �

5.04 Southerden Close footway � � � � �

71

Table 7: Scheme Requirements

No. Scheme Enhance Local Accessibility

Improve Pedestrian, Cycling & Passenger Transport Connectivity

Improve Public Realm

Support Regeneration Aspirations


1.01 Re-alignment of New Road � �

1.02 Improvements to A22 southbound into Hempstead Lane left-out slip road � �

1.03 Improvements to existing mini-roundabout at junction of Hawks Road, London Road and Hempstead Lane � � �

1.04 Development access and improvements to junction of Hempstead Lane and Gleneagles Drive � � �

1.05 Various new development accesses � � �

1.06 Hellingly Hospital development bus service � � �

2. Givens

2.01 Park Road cycle way � � � �

2.02 Signalisation of junction of Park Road and A271 � � �

2.03 New mini-roundabout at junction of Hawks Road and A271 � � �

2.04 Magham Down safety improvements � �

2.05 Hellingly Village traffic calming � � � �

2.06 New small roundabout at junction of Battle Road and A271 � �

2.07 Pedestrian crossing over A271 at local shopping centre � � �

2.08 Battle Road cycle way � � �

2.09 New footway along Marshfoot Lane � �

2.10 Improvements to junction of London Road and A271 � �

2.11 Gleneagles Drive traffic calming � �

2.12 Cycle connection to Cuckoo Trail from Hellingly Hospital development � � �

2.13 Improvements to bus stops on Anglesey Avenue � � �

3. Game-Changers

3.01 New all-movement junction on A22 at Hempstead Lane � �

3.02 Consolidation of the junctions of Diplocks Way and Ersham Road with South Road into a single small roundabout � �

3.03 Signalisation of junction of South and Western Roads � �

3.04 Hailsham-Eastbourne Express Bus Service � � �

3.05 Strategic and local tactical (i.e. within Hailsham) signing improvements � �

3.06 Town Centre circulation and pedestrian connections and realm improvements See relevant text and Table 3

� � � �

3.07 Thorough Re-Modelling of the Junction of London Road with North and High Streets � � � �

3.08 Real Time Bus Information system � �

3.09 Smarter choices offers generally � � �


4.01 Upgrade of existing pelican crossing on Battle Road outside Community College to a puffin or toucan � �

4.02 Improved footways on Hawks Road and connecting roads & pull off bays adjacent school � � �

4.03 Direct connection to Cuckoo Trail from Community College � �

4.04 Pedestrian shelters and cycle storage at White House Primary School � �

4.05 Cycle storage at Marshlands Primary School � �

4.06 Pedestrian crossing over London Road just north of Grovelands Road (or near Ambulance Station) � �

4.07 Zebra crossing on London Road on eastern side of bridge over Cuckoo Trail � �

4.08 Southern access to Cuckoo Trail from London Road on eastern side of bridge over Trails � � �

4.09 Pedestrian crossing over A267 at Boship Roundabout � �

4.10 Footway on southern side A271 between "Spinney Cottage" and London Road junction � � �

4.11 Address uncharacteristic section of A271 between Bell Bank Cottages and Danum Close � �

4.12 Provision of lighting on urban sections of the Cuckoo Trail � � �

5. Nice-To-Haves

5.01 Pedestrian crossing over Ersham Road near Sandbanks Way � � �

5.02 Footway on Mill Road between Lion House Park to existing footway � � �

5.03 Footway on Station Road between existing path to Old Swan Lane � � �

5.04 Southerden Close footway � � �

72

Table 8: Delivery Strategy

No. Scheme Related Developments &

Funding Sources

Short Term

- next 5 years

Medium Term

– 5-10 years

Long Term

– 10 years plus

Priority Dependencies, Triggers & Timing Estimated Cost Comment


1.01 Re-alignment of New Road Hellingly Hospital Delivered

1.02 Improvements to A22 southbound into Hempstead Lane left-out slip road Welbury & Woodholm Farms Delivered

1.03 Improvements to existing mini-roundabout at junction of Hawks Road, London Road and Hempstead Lane

Welbury & Woodholm Farms Delivered

1.04 Development access and improvements to junction of Hempstead Lane and Gleneagles Drive Welbury & Woodholm Farms Delivered

1.05 Various new development accesses Various Delivered

1.06 Hellingly Hospital development bus service Hellingly Hospital Delivered

2. Givens

2.01 Park Road cycle way Hellingly Hospital � Committed Timed to precede Hellingly Hospital development completion

2.02 Signalisation of junction of Park Road and A271 Hellingly Hospital � Committed Timed to precede Hellingly Hospital development completion

2.03 New mini-roundabout at junction of Hawks Road and A271 Hellingly Hospital � Committed Timed to precede Hellingly Hospital development completion

2.04 Magham Down safety improvements Hellingly Hospital � Committed Timed to precede or closely follow Hellingly Hospital development completion

2.05 Hellingly Village traffic calming Hellingly Hospital � Committed Timed to precede or closely follow Hellingly Hospital development completion

2.06 New small roundabout at junction of Battle Road and A271 Battle Road - Amberstone � Committed Timed to precede Battle Road - Amberstone development completion

2.07 Pedestrian crossing over A271 at local shopping centre Battle Road - Amberstone � Committed Timed to precede or closely follow Battle Road - Amberstone development completion

£50k See Figure B1 in Appendix B

2.08 Battle Road cycle way Battle Road - Amberstone � Committed Timed to precede or closely follow Battle Road - Amberstone development completion

2.09 New footway along Marshfoot Lane Battle Road - Rear of Council offices

� Committed Timed to precede or closely follow Battle Road - Rear of Council offices development completion

£20k Includes 10% contingency but excludes lighting, stats and drainage works.

See Figure B2 in Appendix B

2.10 Improvements to junction of London Road and A271 Welbury & Woodholm Farms � Committed Timed to precede or closely follow Welbury & Woodholm Farms development completion

2.11 Gleneagles Drive traffic calming Welbury & Woodholm Farm � Committed Timed to precede or closely follow Welbury & Woodholm Farm development completion

2.12 Cycle connection to Cuckoo Trail from Hellingly Hospital development Hellingly Hospital � Committed Timed to precede or closely follow Hellingly Hospital development completion

£25k Includes 10% contingency but excludes lighting, stats and drainage works.

See Figure B3 in Appendix B Assumes uncontrolled crossing just south of the Park Road and Mill Lane junction, a 2m wide path to Mill lane and that pedestrians and cycles use Mill Lane alongside vehicles

2.13 Improvements to bus stops on Anglesey Avenue Welbury & Woodholm Farms � Committed Timed to precede Welbury & Woodholm Farms development completion

73

Table 8: Delivery Strategy - continued …

No. Scheme Potential Funding Sources

Short Term

- next 5 years

Medium Term

– 5-10 years

Long Term

– 10 years plus


3. Game-Changers

3.01 New all-movement junction on A22 at Hempstead Lane Some of existing s106 monies, LDF development and CIL

� Essential As soon as is practically possible Latest date required assuming linear development delivery between 2011 and 2027: NOW


3.02 Consolidation of the junctions of Diplocks Way and Ersham Road with South Road into a single small roundabout

Some of existing s106 monies or, better, future s278 commitments

� Essential As soon as is practically possible, but not later than any significant development approvals in the immediate vicinity or to the south on Ersham Road Latest date required assuming linear development delivery between 2011 and 2027: NOW


3.03 Signalisation of junction of South and Western Roads Some of existing s106 monies or, possibly, future s278 commitments

� Essential As soon as is practically possible, but not later than (1) the provision of a consolidated junction to replace the existing junctions of Diplocks Way and Ersham Road with South Road or (2) significant new development in north or east Hailsham or Hailsham town centre Latest date required assuming linear development delivery between 2011 and 2027: 2018 at the latest; not later than implementation of 3.02


3.04 Hailsham-Eastbourne Express Bus Service LDF-related or special funding for start-up and ongoing operational public-purse costs s278 commitments and s106 and CIL monies for one-off facility or infrastructure costs

� � Essential Timed to precede LDF development planned for north and east Hailsham and Hailsham town centre, but not before existing bottlenecks at South Road, Diplocks Way and Ersham Road and at the A22/A27 Cophall Roundabout are addressed Latest date required assuming linear development delivery between 2011 and 2027: Ideally, not before implementation of 3.02

Hundreds of thousands of pounds to start and subsidise over the years £50k for one-off capital costs in Hailsham£100sk to start and subsidise over the years

3.05 Strategic and local tactical (i.e. within Hailsham) signing improvements Existing and future s106 and future CIL monies

� � Desirable As soon as is practically possible subject to funding £50k strategic signing £30k local tactical signing

3.06 Town Centre circulation and pedestrian connections and realm improvements See relevant text and Table 3

Existing and future s106 and future CIL monies and LDF-related funding

� � � Essential to Desirable

Initial works as soon as is practically possible, with more substantial "structural" changes (e.g. circulation changes – see 3.07) only in the medium to longer term if necessary and possible

£540k for High Street proposals £230k for George Street proposals £45k for North Street proposals £20k finger signs and locality maps


3.07 Thorough Re-Modelling of the Junction of London Road with North and High Streets LDF-related funding � � Desirable but Tentative

Medium to long term at best, but ideally to precede or coincide with any major re development of the town centre Latest date required assuming linear development delivery between 2011 and 2027: Mid to late 2020s, if feasible

£300k to £500k See Figure B8 in Appendix B Conditional on confirming a layout that safely and effectively addresses all movements, particularly traffic seeking to enter High Street

3.08 Real Time Bus Information system Special county-wide funding � � Essential As soon as is practically possible, subject to funding and broader county-wide initiative

£millions Cannot be implemented in isolation from broader county-wide inter-urban bus operations

3.09 Smarter choices offers generally Existing and future s106 and CIL monies or s278 commitments

� � � Essential, Desirable & Aspirational

As possible and ongoing Covered by proposed schemes elsewhere in table or addressed through official policy and application approval processes

74

Table 8: Delivery Strategy - continued …

No. Scheme Potential Funding Sources Short Term

- next 5 years

Medium Term

– 5-10 years

Long Term

– 10 years plus



4.01 Upgrade of existing pelican crossing on Battle Road outside Community College to a puffin or toucan

Existing s106 monies � Desirable As soon as is practically possible, subject to funding £30k See Figure B9 in Appendix B

4.02 Improved footways on Hawks Road & connecting roads & pull-off bays adjacent school Existing s106 monies � � Essential As soon as is practically possible, subject to funding £85k to £230k depending on the nature and extent of works


4.03 Direct connection to Cuckoo Trail from Community College Existing s106 or future CIL monies

� � Desirable As soon as is practically possible, subject to funding and College's cooperation

£2k See Figure B11 in Appendix B Likely to be security and general maintenance and management issues (would have to be a College gate under their control and management)

4.04 Pedestrian shelters and cycle storage at White House Primary School Existing s106 monies � Desirable As soon as is practically possible, subject to funding £7k See Figure B12 in Appendix B

4.05 Cycle storage at Marshlands Primary School Existing s106 monies � Desirable As soon as is practically possible, subject to funding £5k

4.06 Zebra crossing over London Road just north of Grovelands Road (or near Ambulance Station) Existing s106 monies � � Desirable As soon as is practically possible, subject to funding £20k See Figure B13 in Appendix B

4.07 Zebra crossing on London Road on eastern side of bridge over Cuckoo Trail Existing s106 monies � Desirable Subject to funding £20k See Figure B11 in Appendix B Case for scheme will be strengthened if 4.03 is achieved

4.08 Southern access to Cuckoo Trail from London Road on eastern side of bridge over Trails Future s106 and CIL monies � � Desirable Subject to funding £130k See Figure B11 in Appendix B Case for scheme will be strengthened if 4.03 is achieved

4.09 Pedestrian crossing over A267 at Boship Roundabout Future s106 and CIL monies or LDF-related funding

� � Desirable Subject to funding £60k See Figure B14 in Appendix B

4.10 Footway on southern side A271 between "Spinney Cottage" and London Road junction Future s106 or CIL monies or LDF-related funds

� � Essential Timed to precede LDF development planned for north Hailsham at the very latest; earlier if possible


4.11 Address uncharacteristic section of A271 between Bell Bank Cottages and Danum Close Future LDF-related funding � � Aspirational As soon as is practically possible, subject to funding £35k to £110k depending on solution chosen


4.12 Provision of lighting on urban sections of the Cuckoo Trail Future s106 and CIL monies or LDF-related funding

� � Desirable Subject to funding £475k to £675k

5. Nice-To-Haves

5.01 Pedestrian crossing over Ersham Road near Sandbanks Way Future s106 or CIL monies or s278 commitments

� � Desirable

5.02 Footway on Mill Road between Lion House Park to existing footway Future s106 or CIL monies � � Desirable

5.03 Footway on Station Road between existing path to Old Swan Lane Future s106 or CIL monies � � Desirable

5.04 Southerden Close footway Future s106 or CIL monies � � Desirable

75

Table 9: Proposed Schemes Versus Key Issues & Constraints Note: Not necessarily in order of significance.

Issues & Constraints (See Table 1) Relevant Schemes

� Generally infrequent local and rural bus services 1.06

� Indirect access to rail (via Polegate) 3.04

� Poor bus information 3.08

� Existing bottleneck at South and Ersham Roads undermines inter-urban bus services to and from Eastbourne via both Polegate and Stone Cross

� Peak period congestion at junction of South and Ersham Roads

� Ersham Road and Diplocks Way offset

3.02 & 3.04

� Limited capacity at Boship Roundabout, generating occasional delays on certain arms during peak periods

� Limited movement access onto A22 from Hempstead Lane (certain movements - to and from north - forced to take more circuitous routes)

3.01

� Sub-standard (considering volumes and function) A271 to north of Hailsham 2.02, 2.03, 2.04, 2.06, 2.07, 2.10, 3.01 & 4.10

� Uncharacteristically wide and super-elevated section of A271 between Bell Bank Cottages and Danum Close 4.10 & 4.11

� Rat-running and traffic speeds on Gleneagles Drive 2.11 & 3.01

� Rat-running and traffic speeds through Hellingly Village 1.01 & 2.05

� School and general traffic conflicts on Hawks Road outside Hawkes Farm School 4.02

� Absence of dedicated cycle provision on busy or higher speed roads, and at certain destinations suited to increased cycle use 2.01, 2.08, 2.12, 4.01, 4.04 & 4.05

� Insufficient pedestrian footway or crossing provision at a variety of locations across Hailsham 2.09, 4.01, 4.06, 4.07, 4.09, 4.10, 5.01, 5.02, 5.03 & 5.04

� Irregular internal road network, complicating visitor wayfinding and movement 3.05

� Limited opportunities to move between Battle Road and Hawks and London Roads away from A271 Not easily resolvable

� Poor and at times confusing gateways into Hailsham, complicating visitor wayfinding and movement into, through and out of the town 3.05

� Cuckoo Trail discontinuous or relatively sub-standard at points Not easily resolvable

� Circuitous access to Cuckoo Trail from London Road 4.08

� Concerns over personal safety and security on the urban sections of the Cuckoo Trail 4.12

� Security perimeter around Community College (discouraging direct access to Cuckoo Trail) 4.03

� Large and slightly complicated junction of London Road and North and High Streets 3.07

� Challenging High Street levels

� Narrow footways on both sides of extended sections of High Street

� Parking in High Street creates severance effect

� Overly large junction of George Street and Victoria Road

� Challenging George Street levels (at least on eastern half)

� Narrow footways on both sides of eastern half George Street

� Formal pedestrian crossing opportunities limited to extreme eastern and western ends

� Parking in eastern half of George Street creates severance effect

� North Street generally very wide, creating severance and allowing higher speeds

� Narrow western footway on north half of North Street (particular issue at and near bus stop)

� Indistinct entries to cross-links through "central" town centre block

� Lots of conveniently located parking in and around the town centre

3.06

� High and potentially unnecessary use of car 3.09

� Substantial development proposed in the future All schemes

� Modelling issues 3.03

Appendices

Appendix A Generic Explanatory Material & Assumptions

A.1 Scheme Identification

Almost eighty distinct but at times overlapping movement, access and public realm

-related schemes were identified during the study for consideration in the final

delivery strategy presented in section 4 of the main document. The primary sources

of these schemes, or the issues and needs suggesting them, were:

• East Sussex County Council;

• Wealden District Council;

• Hailsham Town Council;

• Hellingly Parish Council;

• Halcrow, mainly through site visits; and

• a number of key documents supplied to Halcrow at the commencement of the

project, featuring but not limited to:

- Hailsham Local Area Transport Strategy, December 2005;

- Hailsham & Hellingly Masterplan, A Programme for the Future,

January 2009;

- South Wealden and Eastbourne Transport Study, November 2010;

- Wealden District (Incorporating Part of the South Downs National Park)

Local Development Framework Core Strategy, August 2011;

- Wealden District Council Local Development Framework, Annual

Monitoring Report 2009/10; and

- Wealden District Local Development Framework, Background Paper 11:

Infrastructure Delivery Plan, August 2011.

A.2 Scheme Selection

In developing the delivery strategy outlined in section 4 of the main part of the

document, focus was necessarily placed on schemes that:

• effect real improvements in network capacity and connectivity and urban

realm, thereby enabling future development and supporting the regeneration

aspirations of the town;

• were not already being attended to or delivered through existing s106 and s278

agreements;

• fell within the remit of existing s106 or expected LDF funding streams; and

• are of particular or exclusive relevance to Hailsham and Hellingly alone.

Concerning the last-mentioned, it is generally acknowledged that a real time bus

information system is needed. The planning, design, funding and deployment of

such a scheme, however, affects an area far wider than Hailsham and is, as a result,

best pursued at county level. The need for real time bus information is recorded in

the strategy, but assumes that other parties will take a more active role in pursuing its

delivery.

A.3 Scheme Development & Assessment

Scheme development and assessment, which was never more than feasibility-level in

nature, was progressed to the stage necessary to establish:

• deliverability;

• financial viability; and

• effectiveness at improving pedestrian, cycling and public transport connections

within the town and to other centres and in mitigating the traffic impact of

consented development and future allocations.

Generally speaking, proposed schemes were addressed to the level necessary to gain

a sufficiently clear understanding of their relative merits or otherwise while

respecting the available budget and timeline. The scheme development and

assessment process was iterative in nature and involved a relatively close working

relationship between Halcrow and the County Council. Although safety audit was

not formally required, safety considerations were amongst the issues taken into

account in scheme development and feasibility assessment.

Input materials used by the planners and designers in testing and developing

schemes included:

• existing designs or materials provided by ESCC;

• standard OS mapping and backgrounds;

• internet-based materials (e.g. Google Streetview); and

• information obtained from site visits and surveys (e.g. photos and

measurements).

A number of schemes required traffic modelling. This was undertaken using

a current version of the SWETS (South Wealden and Eastbourne Transport Study)

model. A fuller description of the modelling exercise can be found in Appendix C.

A.4 Scheme Costs

The scheme costs presented in the main part of the document are feasibility or outline

in nature and were prepared using a variety of cost sources. Primary sources

included:

• SPON’s Civil Engineering and Highway Works Price Book, 2011;

• typical term maintenance contract prices; and

• known planning, design and implementation costs.

Informed and benchmarked professional judgment was essential in numerous

instances, especially given the nature and context of certain schemes. For all except

the simplest and most predictable schemes, uncertainty was captured through the use

of a standard 44% optimism bias.

A.5 Scheme Priority & Timing

Certain actions in the delivery strategy are given very specific delivery timings or

priorities. These were determined using:

• current network operating conditions and constraints;

• model results, including simple interpolation between different model tests;

and

• professional judgement.

Given that the modelling that was undertaken assuming only one forecast

horizon (2027), the extent to which model results could inform timing decisions was

limited.

Appendix B Scheme Figures & Cost Estimates

The following pages supply sketches and cost estimates for a number of the major

schemes proposed in the movement and access strategy.

Figure B1: Pedestrian Crossing over A271 at Local Shopping Centre

Estimated Delivery Cost: £50,000

A271

A271

Hawks

wood Driv

e

A271

A271

Hawks

wood Driv

e


Figure B2: New Footway along Marshfoot Lane



Figure B3: Cycle Connection to Cuckoo Trail from Hellingly Hospital Development


Mill Lane

Park

Roa

d

The Driv

e

Note: New uncontrolled crossing facility

Note: Because Mill Lane is a narrow and quiet country lane, it is recommended that pedestrians and cyclists use Mill Lane alongside vehicles

Mill Lane

Park

Roa

d

The Driv

e

Note: New uncontrolled crossing facility

Note: Because Mill Lane is a narrow and quiet country lane, it is recommended that pedestrians and cyclists use Mill Lane alongside vehicles


Figure B4: New All-Movement Junction on A22 at Hempstead Lane

Units Amount Material Rate Cost

1 Full road construction m2 752.00 600mm excavation in hard material and disposal

200mm capping

150mm sub-base

250mm flexible surfacing

£160.00 £120,320.00

2 Road resurfacing/regrading m2 1,400.00 100mm cold miling and disposal


£30.00 £42,000.00

3 Footpaths m2 490.00 50mm HRA

150mm Type 1 and edgings

200mm excavation and disposal in hard material

£60.00 £29,400.00

4 Kerbs m 1,060.00 Concrete kerbs

Kerb foundation

£20.00 £21,200.00

5 Road markings/studs unit 1.00 £1,000.00 £1,000.00

6 Landscaping m2 2,580.00 150mm thick verge, topsoiling and seeding £4.50 £11,610.00

7 Drainage unit 1.00 £25,000.00 £25,000.00

8 Signage unit 1.00 £10,000.00 £10,000.00

9 Lighting unit 1.00 2x new LP with connections

approximately 10x LP relocations

£7,000.00 £7,000.00

10 Ordinary Statutory Undertakers diversionary works unit 1.00 Overhead line diversion/ minor protection work

Allowance for minor additional diversions

£30,000.00 £30,000.00

11 Breaking out of redundant pavement m2 2,315.00 £0.62 £1,435.30

Sub-Total 1 £298,965.30

Contractor Factor (preliminaries, project management) £29,896.53 10%

Traffic Management £29,896.53 10%

Restricted Working Hours £44,844.80 15%

Sub-Total 2 (Contractor Total) £403,603.16

Preliminary Design £20,180.16 5%

Detailed Design & Supervision £40,360.32 10%

Sub-Total 3 £464,143.63

Optimism Bias £204,223.20 44%

Scheme Delivery Total £668,366.82

Cost Item

Estimated Delivery Cost

Hempstead Lane

A22

A22

Hempstead Lane

A22

A22


Figure B5: Consolidated South Road, Diplocks Way and Ersham Road Roundabout


1 Full road construction m2 1,474.00 600mm excavation and disposal

200mm capping

150mm sub-base


£120.00 £176,880.00

2 Road resurfacing/regrading m2 490.00 100mm cold milling and disposal


£30.00 £14,700.00

3 Footpaths m2 267.00 50mm HRA



£60.00 £16,020.00

4 Kerbs m 487.00 Concrete kerbs

Kerb foundation

£20.00 £9,740.00

5 Road markings/studs unit 1.00 £750.00 £750.00

6 Landscaping m2 457.00 150mm thick verge, topsoiling and seeding £4.50 £2,056.50

7 Drainage unit 1.00 including car park £10,000.00 £10,000.00

8 Signage unit 1.00 £2,000.00 £2,000.00

9 Lighting unit 1.00 including car park £5,000.00 £5,000.00

10 Ordinary Statutory Undertakers diversion works unit 1.00 Electrical sub-station diversion/ minor protection work

Allowance for minor additional diversions

(£10k for sub-station; £20k for BT, water, gas & electric diversions;

assumed no fibre optic presence)

£30,000.00 £30,000.00

11 Breaking out of redundant pavement m2 300.00 £0.62 £186.00

Sub-Total 1 £267,332.50



Restricted Working Hours £0.00 0%




Sub-Total 3 £356,621.56



Cost Item


South

Roa

d

Sout

h Roa

d

Diplocks Way

Ers

ham

Roa

d

South

Roa

d

Sout

h Roa

d

Diplocks Way

Ers

ham

Roa

d


Figure B6 Signalisation of the Junction of South and Western Roads


1 Traffic management unit 1.00 £10,000.00 £10,000.00

2 Traffic signal supplied and fitted unit 4.00 £5,000.00 £20,000.00

3 Traffic signal associated works unit 4.00 £300.00 £1,200.00

4 Kerbing m 15.00 £12.00 £180.00

5 Pavement m^3 15.00 £22.00 £330.00

6 Cabling m 200.00 £42.00 £8,400.00

7 Take out pavement m^3 15.00 £90.00 £1,350.00

8 Take out kerb m 15.00 £80.00 £1,200.00

9 Vegetation clearance hac 1.00 £1,000.00 £1,000.00

10 Manholes unit 4.00 £150.00 £600.00

Sub-Total 1 £44,260.00


Traffic Management £0.00 0%





Sub-Total 3 £63,623.75



Cost Item


Western Road

Sou

th R

oad

Cuckoo T

rail

Note: Existing splitter island should be removed if there is a desire to accommodate large HGVsat this junction

Western Road

Sou

th R

oad

Cuckoo T

rail

Note: Existing splitter island should be removed if there is a desire to accommodate large HGVsat this junction


Figure B7: Town Centre Circulation, Pedestrian Connections and Public Realm Improvements

DIS

ABLED

DR

OP-O

FF/PICK-U

P & LOADIN

G

DISABLED

BUS

STO

PTA

XIS

The Quintins

Vicarage Lane

High Street

Nor

th S

tree

t

London Road

George Street

North S

treet

Post Office

Market Street

Vicara

ge R

oad

DR

OP-O

FF/PIC

K-UP

& LOAD

ING

footway widening

junction works to reduce junction size

zebra crossing at one of these locations

retain parking fo

r 8 ve

hicles

retain parking

for 3 vehicles

suitable road and footway surface treatments and street furniture cues to alert drivers to pedestrian

presence and, potentially establish pedestrian priority

extended raised table with drop-

off/pick-up facility

retain taxis rankretain bus stop

footway widening

footway w

idening

footway w

ideninglocal build-out & textured crossing

loading bay

DRO

P-OFF/PIC

K-UP & LO

ADING

DIS

ABLED

DR

OP-O

FF/PICK-U

P & LOADIN

G

DISABLED

BUS

STO

PTA

XIS

The Quintins

Vicarage Lane

High Street

Nor

th S

tree

t

London Road

George Street

North S

treet

Post Office

Market Street

Vicara

ge R

oad

DR

OP-O

FF/PIC

K-UP

& LOAD

ING

DR

OP-O

FF/PIC

K-UP

& LOAD

ING

footway widening

junction works to reduce junction size

zebra crossing at one of these locations

retain parking fo

r 8 ve

hicles

retain parking

for 3 vehicles

suitable road and footway surface treatments and street furniture cues to alert drivers to pedestrian

presence and, potentially establish pedestrian priority

extended raised table with drop-

off/pick-up facility

retain taxis rankretain bus stop

footway widening

footway w

idening

footway w

ideninglocal build-out & textured crossing

loading bay

DRO

P-OFF/PIC

K-UP & LO

ADING


High Street Pedestrian & Public Ream Works


1 Raised table at Market Square m2 300.00 Excavation in hard material and disposal, to allow for

200mm capping

150mm sub-base

100mm CBM

100mm granite flags

£180.00 £54,000.00

2 Road resurfacing/regrading m2 715.00 100mm cold miling and disposal


£30.00 £21,450.00

3 Footpaths m2 690.00 65mm concrete paviours

35mm sand bed

100mm Type 1 sub-base and edgings


£100.00 £69,000.00


Kerb foundation

£20.00 £5,400.00

5 Road markings/studs unit 1.00 £1,000.00 £1,000.00

6 Planters unit 6.00 £1,000.00 £6,000.00

7 Drainage unit 1.00 Including footpath drainage £25,000.00 £25,000.00

8 Signage unit 1.00 £5,000.00 £5,000.00

9 Lighting unit 8.00 8x new lanterns to existing columns

250W SON (P426)

£500.00 £4,000.00

10 Ordinary Statutory Undertakers diversionary works unit 1.00 Estimation for cover leveling (BT, water, gas & electric)

Allowance for minor diversions

£25,000.00 £25,000.00

11 TROs unit 1.00 Parking restriction, including publications £2,500.00 £2,500.00

12 Traffic signals - pedestrian crossing unit 1.00 Relocation of existing items £5,000.00 £5,000.00

13 Cycle racks unit 10.00 £200.00 £2,000.00

14 Informal Pedestrian Crossing unit 2.00 Dropped footpath edgeGtactile surfacing £6,000.00 £12,000.00

£237,350.00

contractor factor (preliminaries, project management) £23,735.00 10%

traffic management £35,602.50 15%

restricted working hours £35,602.50 15%

contractor total £332,290.00

preliminary design £16,614.50 5%

detailed design & supervision £33,229.00 10%

£382,133.50

optimism bias £168,138.74 44%

scheme implementation total £550,272.24

Cost Item


George Street Pedestrian & Public Ream Works


1 Raised table m2 20.00 Excavation in hard material and disposal, to allow for

200mm capping

150mm sub-base

100mm CBM

100mm granite flags

£180.00 £3,600.00

2 Road resurfacing/regrading m2 450.00 100mm cold miling and disposal


£30.00 £13,500.00


35mm sand bed



£100.00 £45,000.00


Kerb foundation

£20.00 £3,000.00

5 Road markings/studs unit 1.00 £700.00 £700.00

6 Planters unit 2.00 £1,000.00 £2,000.00

7 Drainage unit 1.00 Including footpath drainage £10,000.00 £10,000.00

8 Signage unit 1.00 £3,000.00 £3,000.00

9 Lighting unit 4.00 8x new lanterns to existing columns

250W SON (P426)

£500.00 £2,000.00

10 Ordinary Statutory Undertakers diversionary works unit 1.00 Estimation for cover leveling (BT, water, gas & electric)

Allowance for minor diversions

£10,000.00 £10,000.00

11 TROs unit 1.00 Parking restriction, including publications £2,500.00 £2,500.00

12 Zebra crossing unit 1.00 £10,000.00 £10,000.00

13 Cycle racks unit 6.00 £200.00 £1,200.00

£106,500.00







£165,341.25



Cost Item


North Street Loading Bay outside Post Office


1 Full construction m2 60.00 600mm excavation and disposal

200mm capping

150mm sub-base


Loading bay 40m2

10x 0.5mx4m at crossings

£180.00 £10,800.00


35mm sand bed



At loading bay 15m2

10x 4m2 at crossings

£30.00 £1,650.00


Kerb foundation

20m loading bay

10x 4m crossings

£100.00 £6,000.00

4 Road Markings unit 1.00 Loading bay £50.00 £50.00

5 Signage unit 1.00 1x loading bay £75.00 £75.00

6 TRO's unit 1.00 Parking restriction, incl. publications £2,500.00 £2,500.00

£21,075.00







£30,295.31



Cost Item


Figure B8: Re-Configuration of Junction of London Road, North Street, High Street &

Vicarage Lane

Estimated Delivery Cost: £300,000 to £500,000

London RoadHigh Street

Nor

th S

tree

t

Vicarage Lane

London RoadHigh Street

Nor

th S

tree

t

Vicarage Lane


Figure B9: Upgrade of the Existing Pelican Crossing on Battle Road outside the Community

College to a Puffin Crossing and Possibly a Toucan Crossing if Battle Road Cycleway

on Battle Road Extends to this Point


Bat

tle R

oad

London Road

Community College

Bat

tle R

oad

London Road

Community College


Figure B10: Improved Footways Around & Local Widening of Hawks Road outside Hawkes Farm School &Missing A271 Footway


1 Parking lay-byes construction m2 171 Type A construction – medium duty

£22400 per 200m2

£112.00 £19,152.00

2 Footpaths m2 160 50mm HRA


200mm excavation and disposal

£60.00 £9,600.00

3 Kerbs m 85 Concrete kerbs

Kerb foundation

£20.00 £1,700.00

4 Road markings/studs unit 1 including burning out of existing £500.00 £500.00

5 Drainage unit 1 including minor alterations due to

increased impermeable area

£3,000.00 £3,000.00

6 Signage unit 1 £500.00 £500.00

7 UItility diversionary works unit 1 Different minor local diversions £10,000.00 £10,000.00

Sub-Total 1 £44,452.00







Sub-Total 3 £59,298.97



Cost Item

Estimated Delivery Cost: Vehicle Pull-Offs

Units Amount Material Rate Cost Proportion of Total Cost

1 New footways on A271 m 65 £50/m footway; £40/m kerb £90.00 £5,850.00

2 m 110 £50/m footway; £40/m kerb £90.00 £9,900.00

3 m 75 £50/m footway; £40/m kerb £90.00 £6,750.00

4 Re-instate fences/hedges as necessary unit 1 £4,500.00 £4,500.00 23% £42,693.75 Priority 1

5 Re-built footways on A271 m 55 £50/m footway £50.00 £2,750.00

6 m 60 £50/m footway £50.00 £3,000.00

7 m 260 £50/m footway £50.00 £13,000.00 16% £29,648.44

8 General repair or touch-up of footways on A271 m 774 £25/m footway £25.00 £19,350.00

9 m 390 £25/m footway £25.00 £9,750.00 25% £46,014.38 Priority 3

10 General repair or touch-up of footways on Hawks Road m 1,340 £25/m footway £25.00 £33,500.00

11 Zebra crossing on Hawks Road unit 1 £10,000.00 £10,000.00 37% £68,784.38 Priority 2

Sub-Total 1 £118,350.00

Contractor Factor (preliminaries, project management, traffic management, etc.) £17,752.50 15%



Sub-Total 3 £149,712.75



Cost Item

Estimated Delivery Cost: Footways

A271

A271

Par

k R

oad

Haw

ks R

oad

vehicle pull-offs & wider footways

Hawkes Farm Primary School

new footways

Cuckoo T

rail

completely re-built footways

Danum Closegeneral repair & touch-up

gene

ral r

epai

r &

touc

h-up

gene

ral r

epai

r &

touc

h-up

general repair & touch-up

±570m

±65m ±110m±75m

±55m±60m

±260m

±325m

±14

0m

±74

0m

completely re-built footways


Figure B11: Direct Connection to Community College from Cuckoo Trail, New Pedestrian

Crossing over London Road on Eastern Side of Bridge over Cuckoo Trail and New

Southern Access to Cuckoo Trail from London Road


1 Site clearance m2 1,100 Heavy density wooded

Extra for slope

Extra for urban surrounding

£1.00 £1,100.00

2 Imported fill m3 425 Including compaction £30.00 £12,750.00

3 Cut m3 55 Assumed acceptable

Excavation and deposition in fill

£3.70 £203.50

4 Footpaths m2 300 50mm HRA


Extra for ramp

£60.00 £18,000.00

5 Fencing m 100 1m high tubular galvanized to BS7818 with mesh infill

On posts with conctere footing on one side only (western)

£191.25 £19,125.00

6 Landscaping m2 700 150mm thick verge, topsoiling and seeding £4.50 £3,150.00

7 Modifications (if necessary) to existing bridge structure units 1

Modifications to allow access from the upper footpath to the proposed ramp.

£2,000.00 £2,000.00

8 Trees units 5 £500.00 £2,500.00

9 Shrubs units 200 £45.00 £9,000.00

Sub-Total 1 £67,828.50


Traffic Management (including protection to properties) £3,391.43 5%





Sub-Total 3 £89,703.19



Cost Item

Estimated Delivery Cost: Southern Access to Cuckoo Trail

Estimated Delivery Cost: Direct Access to Community College: £2,000

Estimated Delivery Cost: Zebra Crossing: £20,000

London Road

London Road

Sum

merheath

Road

Cuckoo T

rail

Community CollegeLondon Road

London Road

Sum

merheath

Road

Cuckoo T

rail

Community College


Figure B12: Proposed Pedestrian Shelters & Cycle Storage at White House Primary School


Figure B13: Pedestrian Crossing over London Road Just North of Grovelands Road


London Road

Grovelands Road

London Road

London Road

Grovelands Road

London RoadBackground reproduced from Ordnance Survey mapping

with the permission of the Controller of Her Majesty’s Stationary Office © Crown Copyright.East Sussex County Council – 100019601 2012

Figure B14: Improved Footways at Boship Roundabout


1 Carriageway reinstatement m2 71 £30.00 £2,130.00

2 Footpaths m2 337 £60.00 £20,220.00


Kerb foundation

£20.00 £1,040.00

4 Road markings/studs unit 1 £500.00 £500.00

5 Landscaping m2 70 150mm thick verge, topsoiling and seeding £4.50 £315.00

6 Drainage unit 1 £0.00 £0.00

7 Signage unit 1 4x illuminated bollards relocation with connections £2,000.00 £2,000.00

8 Lighting unit 1 £0.00 £0.00

9 Ordinary Statutory Undertakers diversionary works unit 1 £0.00 £0.00

10 Perforation of existing carriageway m2 1 Assumed for the small area £300.00 £300.00

Sub-Total 1 £26,505.00







Sub-Total 3 £39,929.78



Cost Item


A22

A22

A267

A271

A22

A22

A267

A271


Figure B15: Physical Modifications to A271 between Bell Bank Cottages and Danum Close


1 Full road construction m2 0 600mm excavation and disposal

200mm capping

150mm sub-base


£120.00 £0.00

2 Carriageway reinstatement m2 120 £30.00 £3,600.00

3 Traffic island/footpaths m2 320 £60.00 £19,200.00


Kerb foundation

£20.00 £4,700.00

5 Road markings/studs unit 1 £300.00 £300.00

6 Landscaping m2 0 150mm thick verge, topsoiling and seeding £4.50 £0.00

7 Drainage unit 1 5x gullies with connections

4x manholes

80m sewer pipe

carriageway crossing

connection to existing drainage

£20,000.00 £20,000.00

8 Signage unit 1 2x illuminated bollards with connections £2,000.00 £2,000.00

9 Lighting unit 1 £0.00 £0.00

10 Ordinary Statutory Undertakers diversionary works unit 1 £0.00 £0.00

11 Excavation in hard material and disposal m3 60 £25.00 £1,500.00

Sub-Total 1 £51,300.00







Sub-Total 3 £77,283.45



Cost Item


A271

A271

Danum Close

A271

A271

Danum Close


Figure B16: Potential Capacity Improvement at Junction of A22 and South Road

Sou

th R

oad

A22

A22

Sou

th R

oad

A22

A22


Appendix C Modelling Work

C.1 General

A number of the schemes considered in the Hailsham and Hellingly Movement and

Access Strategy required traffic modelling. This was undertaken using the

SWETS (South Wealden and Eastbourne Transport Study) TRIPS/SATURN model,

which was initially developed for the SWETS study, but more recently updated to

reflect more current (2011) highway traffic demands and conditions in the Hailsham

area.

Apart from a few amendments, the model was used as received from its original

developers and users - Transport Planning International Ltd (TPi). The 2027 forecast

year was retained along with the 2027 Reference Case matrices that came with the

model (prepared by TPi using TEMPRO 6.2). Amendments effected to the model by

Halcrow included:

• developing a more integrated CUBE-based operating platform (still retaining

TRIPS within a CUBE environment), allowing multiple scenarios to be easily

set up and the AM and PM peak models to be run simultaneously;

• correction of inconsistent forecast mode choice pivoting set-ups;

• a few network coding amendments;

• GAP factor amendments at a number of junctions to reflect either more realistic

values or “unlock” network access point bottlenecks;

• model changes necessary to undertake the specific tests associated with the

project:

- modifications of the connectors for zones 602 and 5108 so that traffic

generated by the development areas either side of the A22 in the vicinity

of Hempstead Lane were more distinctly loaded to the network;

- removal of the traffic penalties on link 926-9261 to allow traffic to freely

exit and enter the Welbury Farm development;

- coding up of all committed network improvements and services;

- coding up of all of the schemes tested – highway and public transport - as

part of the project; and

- preparation of new consented and planned development forecast matrices

reflecting consented development within Hailsham and Hellingly and

LDF allocations within South Wealden and Eastbourne.

C.2 Development Assumptions, Trip Rates & Trip End Estimates

Tables C1 to C3 show the development assumptions, trip rate assumptions and trip

end estimates used to generate new forecast year matrices reflecting consented

development within Hailsham and Hellingly and LDF allocations within

South Wealden and Eastbourne. Figure 7 in the main part of the document shows the

locations of the Hailsham and Hellingly development.

The development quanta cited in Table C1 and shown in Figure 7 in the main part of

the document reflect those assumed in the modelling exercise. There may be

differences between them and official LDF figures.

Table C1: 2027 Consented & Planned Development Quanta (see Figure 7 in the main part of the document for the locations of the development) Note: The development quanta cited below reflect those assumed in the modelling exercise. There may be differences between them and official LDF figures.

Site No. Name SATURN Zone(s)

Residential (dwelling unit)

Retail (sqm)

Retail Park (sqm)

Office (sqm)

General Industrial &

Warehousing (sqm)

School (sqm)

Library (sqm)

GP Services (sqm)

Hailsham D1 Hellingly Hospital 5103 400

Hailsham D2 Battle Road (Amberstone) 9002 or 9007 128

Hailsham D3 & D4 Welbury Farm & Woodholm Farm 602 460

Hailsham D4 Sheppey Walk 602 25

Hailsham D5 Woodside Farm 602 75

Hailsham D6 Battle Road (rear of Council Offices & Leisure Centre) 9008 170 4,000 4,560 1,140 1,900

Hailsham D7 Wealden LDF: Hailsham North 9001 700 300 8,650 4,560

Hailsham D8 Wealden LDF: Hailsham East 9008 680

Hailsham D9 Wealden LDF: Hailsham Town Centre 9003 6,500

Elsewhere Wealden LDF: Berwick Station 5111 50

in South Wealden Wealden LDF: Upper Dicker 5109 10

Wealden LDF: Herstmonceux 5104 150

Wealden LDF: Ninfield 5136 100

Wealden LDF: Polegate 9004 700 4,300 4,300

Wealden LDF: Stone Cross Residential 9006 650

Wealden LDF: Polegate Industrial & Warehousing 9005 8,300

Eastbourne Town Centre 5003, 5005, 5006, 5007, 5009, 5010, 5011, 5012, 5013, 5022 & 5023 1,242 1,500 1,500

Town Centre - Retail Expansion 5012 49,485

Upperton 5020, 5021 & 5034 406

Seaside 5008, 5024, 5025, 5026, 5027, 5028, 5029, 5045 & 5047 482

Old Town 5019 & 5038 99

Ocklynge & Rodmill 5036, 5037, 5042 & 5054 260

Roselands & Bridgemere 5030, 5031, 5043, 5044 & 5046 125

Hampden Park 894, 895, 896, 897, 898, 899, 5053, 5055, 5060, 5061, 5062, 5063, 5064, 5077 & 5093 84

Hampden Park - Brampton Road Industrial Park 5053 2,500

Langney 5065, 5067, 5068, 5069, 5070, 5071 & 5091 241

Langney - Shopping Centre Extension 5071 6,984

Shinewater & North Langney 5072, 5073, 5074, 5075 & 5076 91

Summerdown & Saffrons 5014, 5015, 5016 & 5017 44

Meads 5001, 5002 & 5004 387

Ratton & Willingdon Village 888 & 5056 12

St Anthony’s & Langney Point 5048, 5049, 5050, 5092 & 5098 22

St Anthony’s & Langney Point - Industrial Estate 5051 23,000

St Anthony’s & Langney Point - Industrial Estate 5095 & 5100 5,100

Sovereign Harbour 5066 150

Sovereign Harbour - Retail Park & Mixed Development 5097 2,500 30,000

Table C2: AM & PM Peak Hour Trip Rate Assumptions Note: The trip rates shown in the table were, for the most part, taken directly from Tables 2.5 to 2.8 of TPi's SWETS Stage 3 Technical Note addressing “LDF Spatial Options Testing”. The original TPi Note did not supply specific rates for all uses in all areas. In such cases, suitable

rates were inferred from available rates. Although the PM peak hour residential trip rates for Herstmonceux, Berwick, Ninfield, Magham Down and Upper Dicker are low, model interrogation shows they do not affect the robustness of model results generally or, more particularly, the

operation of and case for proposed highway improvements.

Weekday AM Peak Hour Weekday PM Peak Hour

Cars/LGVs

(vehicles)

HGVs

(vehicles)

PT

(persons)

Cars/LGVs

(vehicles)

HGVs

(vehicles)

PT

(persons) Area Land Use Unit

Out In Out In Out In Out In Out In Out In

Herstmonceux, Berwick, Ninfield, Magham Down & Upper Dicker Residential Dwelling Unit 0.357 0.429 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.036 0.071 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000

Hailsham Residential Dwelling Unit 0.419 0.157 0.003 0.003 0.043 0.005 0.242 0.396 0.002 0.002 0.009 0.022

Polegate, Stone Cross & Willingdon Residential Dwelling Unit 0.323 0.149 0.000 0.000 0.093 0.000 0.137 0.329 0.000 0.000 0.031 0.056

Eastbourne Residential Dwelling Unit 0.323 0.149 0.000 0.000 0.093 0.000 0.137 0.329 0.000 0.000 0.031 0.056

Hailsham GP Surgery 100sqm 1.363 3.247 0.018 0.018 0.090 0.161 2.601 1.740 0.000 0.000 0.018 0.036

Industrial Unit 100sqm 0.084 0.510 0.008 0.010 0.000 0.002 0.338 0.031 0.001 0.000 0.002 0.000

Library 100sqm 0.492 1.803 0.164 0.164 0.000 0.164 2.459 1.475 0.000 0.000 0.328 0.000

Office 100sqm 0.186 1.227 0.003 0.003 0.009 0.364 1.016 0.124 0.000 0.000 0.268 0.004

School 100sqm 1.688 2.313 0.015 0.013 0.024 1.971 0.372 0.175 0.000 0.000 0.032 0.000

Warehouse 100sqm 0.022 0.047 0.013 0.015 0.000 0.000 0.068 0.034 0.017 0.016 0.001 0.000

Industrial & Warehousing 100sqm 0.053 0.279 0.011 0.013 0.000 0.001 0.203 0.033 0.009 0.008 0.002 0.000

Retail 100sqm 1.123 1.654 0.041 0.034 0.095 0.123 2.375 2.089 0.020 0.034 0.082 0.102

Polegate, Stone Cross & Willingdon Office 100sqm 0.186 1.227 0.003 0.003 0.009 0.364 1.016 0.124 0.000 0.000 0.268 0.004

Warehouse Commercial 100sqm 0.022 0.047 0.013 0.015 0.000 0.000 0.068 0.034 0.017 0.016 0.001 0.000



Eastbourne Office 100sqm 0.182 1.428 0.001 0.001 0.012 0.463 1.207 0.174 0.000 0.000 0.428 0.005


Warehouse Commercial 100sqm 0.037 0.177 0.027 0.054 0.000 0.000 0.167 0.097 0.049 0.049 0.000 0.000


Retail 100sqm 1.123 1.654 0.041 0.034 0.095 0.123 2.375 2.089 0.020 0.034 0.082 0.102

Retail Park 100sqm 0.050 0.336 0.000 0.017 0.000 0.017 1.394 1.243 0.000 0.000 0.034 0.084

Table C3: Consented & Planned Development Weekday AM & PM Peak Hour Trip End Estimates (see Figure 7 in the main part of the document for the locations of the development) Weekday AM Peak Hour Weekday PM Peak Hour

Cars/LGVs

(vehicles)

HGVs

(vehicles)

PT

(persons)

Cars/LGVs

(vehicles)

HGVs

(vehicles)

PT

(persons) Site No. Name SATURN Zone(s)

Out In Out In Out In Out In Out In Out In

Hailsham D1 Hellingly Hospital 5103 168 63 1 1 17 2 97 158 1 1 4 9

Hailsham D2 Battle Road (Amberstone) 9002 or 9007 54 20 0 0 6 1 31 51 0 0 1 3

Hailsham D3 & D4 Welbury Farm & Woodholm Farm 602 193 72 1 1 20 2 111 182 1 1 4 10

Hailsham D4 Sheppey Walk 602 10 4 0 0 1 0 6 10 0 0 0 1

Hailsham D5 Woodside Farm 602 31 12 0 0 3 0 18 30 0 0 1 2

Hailsham D6 Battle Road (rear of Council Offices & Leisure Centre) 9008 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Hailsham D7 Wealden LDF: Hailsham North 9001 378 244 4 4 31 94 211 294 2 2 8 16

Hailsham D8 Wealden LDF: Hailsham East 9008 472 370 6 5 40 114 341 399 2 2 24 20

Hailsham D9 Wealden LDF: Hailsham Town Centre 9003 73 108 3 2 6 8 154 136 1 2 5 7

Elsewhere Wealden LDF: Berwick Station 5111 18 21 0 0 0 0 2 4 0 0 0 0

in South Wealden Wealden LDF: Upper Dicker 5109 4 4 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0

Wealden LDF: Herstmonceux 5104 54 64 0 0 0 0 5 11 0 0 0 0

Wealden LDF: Ninfield 5136 36 43 0 0 0 0 4 7 0 0 0 0

Wealden LDF: Polegate 9004 238 180 1 1 65 16 158 238 1 0 34 40

Wealden LDF: Stone Cross Residential 9006 210 97 0 0 60 0 89 214 0 0 20 36

Wealden LDF: Polegate Industrial & Warehousing 9005 7 44 2 2 0 0 36 4 1 1 1 0

Eastbourne Town Centre 5003, 5005, 5006, 5007, 5009, 5010, 5011, 5012, 5013, 5022 & 5023 405 212 0 1 116 7 193 412 0 0 45 70

Town Centre - Retail Expansion 5012 556 818 20 17 47 61 1,175 1,034 10 17 41 50

Upperton 5020, 5021 & 5034 131 60 0 0 38 0 56 134 0 0 13 23

Seaside 5008, 5024, 5025, 5026, 5027, 5028, 5029, 5045 & 5047 156 72 0 0 45 0 66 159 0 0 15 27

Old Town 5019 & 5038 32 15 0 0 9 0 14 33 0 0 3 6

Ocklynge & Rodmill 5036, 5037, 5042 & 5054 84 39 0 0 24 0 36 86 0 0 8 15

Roselands & Bridgemere 5030, 5031, 5043, 5044 & 5046 40 19 0 0 12 0 17 41 0 0 4 7

Hampden Park 894, 895, 896, 897, 898, 899, 5053, 5055, 5060, 5061, 5062, 5063, 5064, 5077 & 5093

27 13 0 0 8 0 12 28 0 0 3 5

Hampden Park - Brampton Road Industrial Park 5053 2 9 1 1 0 0 7 2 1 1 0 0

Langney 5065, 5067, 5068, 5069, 5070, 5071 & 5091 78 36 0 0 22 0 33 79 0 0 7 13

Langney - Shopping Centre Extension 5071 78 116 3 2 7 9 166 146 1 2 6 7

Shinewater & North Langney 5072, 5073, 5074, 5075 & 5076 29 14 0 0 8 0 12 30 0 0 3 5

Summerdown & Saffrons 5014, 5015, 5016 & 5017 14 7 0 0 4 0 6 14 0 0 1 2

Meads 5001, 5002 & 5004 125 58 0 0 36 0 53 127 0 0 12 22

Ratton & Willingdon Village 888 & 5056 4 2 0 0 1 0 2 4 0 0 0 1

St Anthony’s & Langney Point 5048, 5049, 5050, 5092 & 5098 7 3 0 0 2 0 3 7 0 0 1 1

St Anthony’s & Langney Point - Industrial Estate 5051 16 82 6 9 0 1 66 18 7 6 1 0

St Anthony’s & Langney Point - Industrial Estate 5095 & 5100 4 18 1 2 0 0 15 4 1 1 0 0

Sovereign Harbour 5066 48 22 0 0 14 0 21 49 0 0 5 8

Sovereign Harbour - Retail Park & Mixed Development 5097 23 115 7 12 0 1 121 54 9 8 2 2

Totals 3,805 3,074 56 62 644 316 3,336 4,199 38 46 270 407

The trip rates shown in Table C2 were, for the most part, taken directly from

Tables 2.5 to 2.8 of TPi's SWETS Stage 3 Technical Note addressing “LDF Spatial

Options Testing”. The original TPi Note did not supply specific rates for all uses in

all areas. In such cases, suitable rates were inferred from available rates.

C.3 Traffic Growth

The highway traffic growth implicit to the TEMPRO 6.2 -based 2027 Reference Case

and 2027 Consented and Planned Development matrices over the 2011 Base Year is

shown in Table C4 for the entire SWETS model as well as the Hailsham and Hellingly

areas alone. Hailsham and Hellingly clearly face substantial levels of growth in the

next 15 years.

C.4 Scenarios Modelled

A variety of different tests were initially undertaken with the model. Table C5

provides information concerning the most important and useful tests that were

finally prepared, run and used, two of which tested under more than one demand

case.

Importantly, because Consented and Planned Development was tested as a single

package, and model zoning is a little too grainy to read too much into the specific

impacts of individual development sites, certain results may raise questions of

detail (e.g. site access provision) that are not immediately answerable by existing

model runs or further runs with the model as it is currently configured.

C.5 Mode Shift

Full mode split modelling was undertaken in almost all of the tests shown in

Table C5. Table C6 shows the magnitudes of the public transport shifts for

a sub-section of the tests shown in Table C5. The data in the table reveals that:

• There is a pronounced shift to public transport, especially in the afternoon peak

hour, for the initial Reference Case network runs, off of which all the

do-something network tests pivot.

• There is only a very modest shift in favour of public transport with the

introduction of the Hellingly Hospital Development bus service.

• Proposed highway network improvements within Hailsham erode public

transport patronage, especially in the morning peak hour (afternoon peak hour

public transport patronage losses are “marginal”). Generally speaking, there is

very little difference in the number of public transport passengers lost to

private highway travel across the various Hailsham highway schemes tested.

• The standard SWETS public transport package – including the A2270 Quality

Bus Corridor, the A259 Quality Bus Corridor and the Hailsham-Eastbourne

Express Bus Service – generate significant shifts back to public transport which

more than offset, especially in the afternoon peak, both (1) the public transport

patronage losses associated with the proposed highway network

improvements within Hailsham and (2) the losses that would be inherent to the

major highway network improvements proposed in the vicinity of but outside

Hailsham (e.g. A22/A27 Cophall Roundabout signalisation, A27/A22

Golden Jubilee Way improvements and A22 / Dittons Road improvements)

Table C4: 2011 Base Year, 2027 Reference Case & 2027 Consented & Planned Development Weekday AM & PM Peak Hour Trip End Totals Weekday AM Peak Hour Weekday PM Peak Hour

Entire SWETS Model Hailsham & Hellingly Alone Entire SWETS Model Hailsham & Hellingly Alone

No.

Trip

Ends

Growth

over

2011

Growth Per

Annum

over

2011

No.

Trip

Ends

Growth

over

2011

Growth Per

Annum

over

2011

Proportion Total

Trip

Ends

No.

Trip

Ends

Growth

over

2011

Growth Per

Annum

Over

2011

No.

Trip

Ends

Growth

Over

2011

Growth Per

Annum

Over

2011

Proportion

Total

Trip

Ends

Highway (vehicles)

2011 Base Year 49,887 7,003 14.0% 51,176 7,825 15.3%

2027 Reference Case 57,270 14.8% 0.9% 8,167 16.6% 1.0% 14.3% 58,953 15.2% 0.9% 9,226 17.9% 1.0% 15.6%

2027 Consented & Planned Development 67,282 34.9% 1.9% 11,342 62.0% 3.1% 16.9% 69,582 36.0% 1.9% 12,343 57.7% 2.9% 17.7%

Public Transport (persons)

2011 Base Year 5,147 151 2.9% 4,909 241 4.9%

2027 Reference Case 5,230 1.6% 0.1% 155 2.7% 0.2% 3.0% 4,986 1.6% 0.1% 252 4.6% 0.3% 5.1%

2027 Consented & Planned Development 6,618 28.6% 1.6% 547 261.3% 8.4% 8.3% 5,899 20.2% 1.2% 398 64.9% 3.2% 6.7%

Table C5: Final Scenarios Modelled

Transport Supply & Demand Cases Do-Nothing

Test 1

Test 2

Test 3

Test 3b

Test 3c

Test 4

Test 5

Test 8

Test 9

Test 10

Test 11

Modified connectors for zones 602 & 5108 � � � � � � � � � � � �

Committed network improvements � � � � � � � � � � �

Penalties removed from link 926-9261 � � � � � � � � � � � �

GAP factor amendments at a number of junctions � � � � � � � � � � � �

Reference Case Network

A few network coding changes � � � � � � � � � � � �

Reference Case Network + Hellingly Hospital Development Bus Service � � � � � � � � � � �

Reference Case Network + A22 / Hempstead Lane RA � � � � � � � � � �

Reference Case Network + South / Ersham Roads & Diplocks Way combined RA � � � � � � � � �

Core Network Improvements

Reference Case Network + South / Ersham Roads & Diplocks Way combined RA + signals at South & Western Roads � � � � � � �

Reference Case Network + South / Ersham Roads & Diplocks Way combined RA + mini-roundabout at South & Western Roads �

Core Network Improvements + Summerheath Road full "bypass" � �

Core Network Improvements + Vicarage Lane one-way southbound �

Core Network Improvements + High Street closed to all but buses �

Core Network Improvements + complete re-configuration of junction of London Road, North Street, High Street & Vicarage Lane �

Supply

Core Network Improvements + broader SWETS highways & public transport interventions � �

2011 Base Year � �

2027 Reference Case � � � Demand

2027 Consented & Planned Development � � � � � � � � � � � �

Table C6: 2027 Mode Shifts (Persons) in Favour of Public Transport for the Initial Reference Case Network & Subsequent Do-Something Network Tests Note: All changes are relative to the initial mode use estimate used at the start of (rather than generated by) the Reference Case network tests. In practice, the do-something network tests pivot off the

Reference Case network tests and therefore start with the Reference Case network tests post-mode splits.

Transport Supply Cases Weekday AM Peak Hour Weekday PM Peak Hour

Reference Case Network +272 +8.2% +552 +18.7%

Ref. Case Net. + Hellingly Hospital Development Bus Service +283 +8.6% +563 +19.1%

Ref. Case Net. + Hellingly Hosp. Dev. Bus Service + A22 / Hempstead Lane RA +152 +4.6% +538 +18.2%

Core Network Improvements

Ref. Case Net. + Hellingly Hosp. Dev. Bus Service + A22 / Hempstead Lane RA + South / Ersham Roads & Diplocks Way combined RA +143 +4.3% +536 +18.2%

Reference Case Network + South / Ersham Roads & Diplocks Way combined RA + mini-roundabout at South & Western Roads +146 +4.4% +534 +18.1%

Core Network Improvements + Vicarage Lane one-way southbound +144 +4.3% +534 +18.1%

Core Network Improvements + High Street closed to all but buses +144 +4.3% +535 +18.1%

Core Network Improvements + complete re-configuration of junction of London Road, North Street, High Street & Vicarage Lane +143 +4.3% +534 +18.1%

Supply

Core Network Improvements + broader SWETS highways & public transport interventions +441 +13.3% +764 +25.9%

which also form a part of the standard SWETS intervention package.

Inspection of the shifts to public transport to ascertain how much is associated

with Hailsham and Hellingly (i.e. has at least one trip end if not two in

Hailsham or Hellingly) revealed effectively none in the morning peak hour

and no more than a quarter in the afternoon peak. This is almost certainly an

underestimate on the part of the model.

C.6 Highway Results

Tables C7 to C15 and Figures C1 to C18 provide a range of summary results and

assignment plots generated by the highway element of the modelling exercise.

Section C.5 above briefly addresses the mode shifts associated with the select tests.

The following briefly records the most obvious and pertinent conclusions that can be

drawn from the highway results:

• Forecast year model results bear out the point already made concerning traffic

growth – namely, that consented and planned development results in

substantial increases in traffic on almost all of Hailsham’s and Hellingly’s

roads relative to existing levels. As expected, and despite a number of

important “committed” network improvements (associated with recently

consented developments), traffic delays and queues increase substantially too.

However, traffic delays and queues increase unacceptably without

“committed” network improvements.

• Although committed network improvements do not and, indeed, cannot meet

all the needs of future planned development (particularly but not only at

Boship Roundabout), those that address the A271 (i.e. the junction

improvements proposed for the junctions of the A271 with London Road,

Hawks Road, Park Road and Battle Road) are essential if the A271 is to operate

satisfactorily. Importantly, the combination of improvements on the A271 and

the Hellingly Village traffic calming significantly reduce traffic on Station Road

and through Hellingly Village.

• The proposed A22 and Hempstead Lane Roundabout brings substantial relief

to Boship Roundabout, the A271 west of Hawks Road, Gleneagles Drive,

the A22 and Diplocks Way Roundabout, South Road, North Street southbound,

and, probably in combination with the proposed Hellingly traffic calming

scheme, Station Road through Hellingly Village. As expected, traffic flows

increase significantly on Hempstead Lane, Hawks Road and London Road.

• The existing junctions of South Road with Diplocks Way and Ersham Road are

inadequately configured to cope with existing demands let alone future ones.

The provision of a consolidated four-arm roundabout “unlocks” the existing

bottleneck and also alters the balance of attractiveness between routes into

Hailsham from the south and east which could lead to traffic increases on

Ersham Road – more than is perhaps desirable for a road of its nature.

Mitigating features may be required as a result. It is also evident that a new

consolidated four-arm roundabout offers an alternative and potentially better

but longer route between northwest and south Hailsham via Hempstead Lane,

the A22 and Diplocks Way compared to the more direct route via

Summerheath, Western and South Roads. The signalisation of the junction of

South and Western Roads is effective in mitigating undesirable traffic increases

on Diplocks Way. It also relieves North Street southbound, but introduces new

delays to through-traffic on South Road.

• With the exception of three locations, the above-mentioned improvements –

(1) the proposed A22 and Hempstead Lane Roundabout, (2) the proposed

South Road, Diplocks Way and Ersham Road consolidated four-arm

roundabout and (3) the proposed signalisation of the junction of South and

Western Roads – yield weekday peak hour saturation levels across the

Hailsham and Hellingly network which are either well within those ranges that

are generally considered workable,37 or, if beyond normally accepted

thresholds, are considered tolerable given the horizon in view (2027) and

broader network-related considerations (e.g. network consistency and the

deliberate retention of limited capacity along certain corridors and routes).38

The three locations, in order of importance, are:

- Boship Roundabout, which will continue to have to cater for volumes

which significantly exceed its capacity (particularly on the southern

approach in the morning peak and the western approach in the afternoon

peak);

- the junction of the A22 and South Road (particularly the southern

approach in the morning peak); and

- the junction of South and Station Roads (the southern priority-controlled

approach in both the morning and afternoon peaks).

Apart from wholesale and probably unaffordable network improvements, both

locally within Hailsham and Hellingly as well as within South Wealden

generally, 39 there is little that can be done at Boship Roundabout and the

junction of South and Station Roads. The most obvious opportunity available

to increase capacity on the southern approach of the junction of the A22 and

South Road involves offside widening and provision on an additional lane

within the existing inner circle for the south to northeast movement.

Figure B16 shows the layout in view. Such an improvement would be

beneficial to the proposed Hailsham-Eastbourne Express Bus Service running

via Polegate.

• Irresolvable capacity issues at the junction of South and Station Roads and, to

a lesser extent, the junction of Market Street and Vicarage Road, suggest

a cautious approach to further development in southeast Hailsham.

37 e.g. no more than 95% and, ideally, well below. 38 The locations in view here include:

� the junction of the A22 and Hempstead Lane (more particularly, the north approach in the

weekday afternoon peak);

� the junction of the A271 and London Road (more particularly, the left turn from south to west

in the weekday morning peak);

� the junction of London Road, Hawks Road and Hempstead Lane (more particularly, the

Hawks Road approach in the weekday morning peak and Hempstead Lane approach in the

weekday afternoon peak); and

� the junction of Market Street and Vicarage Road (more particularly, the straight movement

from south to north in the weekday morning peak).

39 e.g. new as opposed to just improved road links.

• Making Vicarage Lane one-way over its entire length would be fairly

straightforward to implement, and would involve relatively modest costs.

However, its effect on existing traffic movements through the town centre is

sufficient to rule it out. First, traffic from southeast Hailsham would have to

negotiate the entire lengths of George and North Streets before it can access

Vicarage Lane. Traffic originating in Marshfoot Lane would have to negotiate

Vicarage Road in addition. Second, although these volumes are not necessarily

high, they are high enough to put the junction of London Road and High and

North Streets under unacceptable pressures in the long term. Incidentally,

modelling revealed that the only standard junction type capable of handling

Vicarage Lane and Marshfoot Lane traffic conflicts is a mini-roundabout –

a simple priority junction, with Vicarage Lane as an entry-only minor arm,

cannot supply the capacity necessary in the afternoon peak.

• There is only one further network improvement that offers to ease traffic

conditions generally in the central area, although not actually at the point of

improvement. Currently, the southbound approach to the junction of

London Road and North and High Streets forks into North and High Streets,

with Vicarage Lane comprising a one-way exit off High Street. Not only does

the existing layout take up a lot of space, but it unnecessarily allows traffic to

continue down High Street. Further, the exit into Vicarage Lane can be easily

missed. Thorough re-modelling of the currently complex and large junction, so

that a two-way Vicarage Lane becomes the T-arm, London Road and

North Street continue to comprise the continuous element and High Street

becomes a minor exit-only arm off a newly-aligned and two-way

Vicarage Lane, is recommended to simplify wayfinding and also reduce land

take. Figure B8 in Appendix B shows the type of scheme in view.40 Apart from

simplifying vehicular and pedestrian routing and wayfinding, this scheme

offers to deflect substantial amounts of northwest and north –bound traffic

from George and North Streets, particularly in the afternoon peak, significantly

reducing delays in the central area. Additional work needs to be undertaken to

confirm that a safe and efficient layout is possible that effectively addresses all

movements, particularly traffic seeking to enter High Street.41

• With just one exception, the implementation of major highway network

improvements in the vicinity of but outside Hailsham – e.g. A22/A27

Cophall Roundabout signalisation, A27/A22 Golden Jubilee Way

improvements, A22 / Dittons Road improvements, A2270 Quality Bus

Corridor, A259 Quality Bus Corridor and Hailsham-Eastbourne Express Bus

40 A roundabout solution has also been explored. While physically challenging to implement,

a roundabout doesn’t have the operational issues associated with the T-junction solution. It may,

as a result, deserve continued attention.

41 The lastmentioned - traffic seeking to enter High Street – is perhaps the most important issue

that needs to be explored and confirmed before the proposal is progressed any further.

Service – have very little impact on highway traffic volumes and patterns

within or passing Hailsham. The exception comprises traffic increases on

Ersham Road. As already stated in section C.5 above, the standard SWETS

package of public transport improvements generates significant shifts to public

transport, especially in the afternoon peak – shifts that are all the more

significant given the major highway network improvements proposed in the

vicinity of but outside Hailsham that were tested in parallel. Inspection of the

shifts to public transport to ascertain the amounts associated with Hailsham

and Hellingly (i.e. has at least one trip end if not two in Hailsham or Hellingly)

revealed effectively none in the morning peak hour and no more than a quarter

in the afternoon peak. This is almost certainly an underestimate on the part of

the model.

• Analysis of forecast demand matrices in the light of proposed network

operating conditions - more specifically, remaining over-saturated movements

in the Hailsham vicinity - revealed that the reductions in forecast trip-making

across Hailsham and Hellingly42 necessary to contribute to but not fully resolve

remaining over-saturated movements on the proposed network are sufficiently

low and evenly spread to suggest only fairly modest reductions in weekday

peak hour trip-making via, say, peak spreading or greater public transport use.

Analysis of the same demand matrices in the light of “committed” network

operating conditions, on the other hand, revealed forecast trip-making

reductions which are not only multiples higher but of magnitudes that would

be challenging if not impossible to achieve through pure peak spreading or

greater public transport use.

• Neither the underestimate in public transport shift for trips associated with

Hailsham and Hellingly (see end of section C.5 and the ninth bullet in this

section), nor the relatively small reduction in forecast trip-making necessary to

contribute to broadly acceptable highway operating conditions across

Hailsham (see previous bullet), undermine the case for the three key proposed

network improvements - (1) the proposed A22 and Hempstead Lane

Roundabout, (2) the proposed South Road, Diplocks Way and Ersham Road

consolidated four-arm roundabout and (3) the proposed signalisation of the

junction of South and Western Roads. Existing capacity and routing option

issues already argue for all three schemes, and two of the three schemes offer

significant benefits to public transport. Indeed, the improvement proposed for

South Road, Ersham Road and Diplocks Way is essential for the effective

operation of the proposed Hailsham-Eastbourne Express Bus Service and the

proposed signalisation of South and Western Road will benefit local bus

services.

42 There are OD-pairs involved that do not have a trip end in Hailsham (e.g. passing traffic on the

A22 and through traffic on the A271).

• There are only three significant capacity-related highway interventions being

proposed for Hailsham. Importantly, not one of them can be described as

a “luxury”. Further, the justification of none of them is in question given

generally-accepted and known travel demand forecasting and modelling

uncertainties (both generally-accepted uncertainties and those specific to the

model used).

Tables C7 & C8: AM & PM Peak Hour Modelled Delays Version 1

Weekday AM Peak Hour

2011 Base 154 20 22 33 38

2027 Do-Something Development + Do-Nothing Network 563 267% 113 455% 124 459% 173 423% 77 101%

2027 Reference Case Development + Test 1 Network "Committed" improvements 207 35% 45 121% 48 114% 71 114% 49 28%

2027 Do-Something Development + Test 1 Network 500 226% 141% 95 366% 111% 108 387% 127% 158 380% 124% 126 228% 157%

2027 Do-Something Development + Test 2 Network A22 / Hempstead Lane RA 425 177% 105% -15% 87 331% 95% -8% 100 351% 110% -7% 152 359% 115% -4% 89 132% 82% -29%

2027 Do-Something Development + Test 3 Network South / Ersham Roads combined RA 315 105% 52% -37% 112 450% 148% 18% 124 460% 161% 15% 177 436% 151% 12% 86 123% 75% -32%

2027 Do-Something Development + Test 3b Network South / Ersham Roads & Diplocks Way combined RA + signalised South / Western Roads Junction 324 111% 57% -35% 116 470% 158% 22% 128 477% 169% 19% 188 469% 166% 19% 86 124% 76% -32%

2011 Base + Test 3b Network 110 14 24 43 36

2027 Reference Case Development + Test 3b Network 182 58 70 93 51

2027 Do-Something Development + Test 3c Network South / Ersham Roads & Diplocks Way combined RA + mini-circle at South / Western Roads Junction 417 171% 101% -17% 131 545% 191% 38% 144 547% 202% 33% 216 554% 206% 36% 154 299% 213% 22%

2027 Do-Something Development + Test 4 Network Summerheath Road full "bypass" 346 126% 67% -31% 129 535% 187% 36% 142 537% 197% 31% 197 496% 179% 24% 99 156% 101% -22%

2027 Do-Something Development + Test 5 Network Vicarage Lane one-way Southbound with simple priority Junction at Vicarage Lane & Marshfoot Lane 336 119% 62% -33% 115 466% 156% 21% 127 473% 167% 18% 188 468% 166% 18% 98 154% 99% -22%

2027 Do-Something Development + Test 5b Network Vicarage Lane one-way Southbound with mini-circle at Junction at Vicarage Lane & Marshfoot Lane 334 118% 61% -33% 114 463% 155% 21% 127 471% 166% 17% 187 466% 165% 18% 98 154% 99% -22%

2027 Do-Something Development + Test 8 Network High Street closed to all but buses 325 112% 57% -35% 116 470% 158% 22% 128 477% 169% 19% 188 469% 166% 19% 87 127% 78% -31%

2027 Do-Something Development + Test 9 Network Complete re-configuration of Junction of London Road, North Street, High Street & Vicarage Lane 323 111% 56% -35% 116 472% 158% 23% 129 478% 170% 19% 190 476% 169% 20% 83 115% 69% -34%

2027 Do-Something Development + Test 10 Network Test 3 + broader SWETS highways & public transport interventions*** 321 109% 55% -36% 110 442% 145% 16% 123 451% 157% 13% 181 447% 156% 14% 87 127% 78% -31%

2027 Do-Something Development + Test 11 Network Test 4 + broader SWETS highways & public transport interventions*** 345 124% 66% -31% 121 497% 170% 28% 134 502% 181% 24% 189 472% 167% 19% 102 166% 108% -19%

PM Peak Hour

2011 Base 122 22 23 36 34

2027 Do-Something Development + Do-Nothing Network 621 410% 344 1439% 346 1377% 413 1046% 78 131%

2027 Reference Case Development + Test 1 Network "Committed" improvements 288 137% 165 638% 167 614% 189 425% 47 39%

2027 Do-Something Development + Test 1 Network 518 325% 80% 317 1316% 92% 321 1268% 92% 359 894% 89% 87 157% 85%

2027 Do-Something Development + Test 2 Network A22 / Hempstead Lane RA 419 244% 45% -19% 189 744% 14% -40% 233 892% 39% -28% 281 680% 49% -22% 73 114% 54% -17%

2027 Do-Something Development + Test 3 Network South / Ersham Roads combined RA 410 237% 42% -21% 191 752% 15% -40% 234 898% 40% -27% 280 676% 48% -22% 80 135% 69% -9%

2027 Do-Something Development + Test 3b Network South / Ersham Roads & Diplocks Way combined RA + signalised South / Western Roads Junction 414 240% 44% -20% 190 749% 15% -40% 233 895% 39% -27% 280 677% 48% -22% 85 150% 80% -3%

2011 Base + Test 3b Network 121 16 29 49 38

2027 Reference Case Development + Test 3b Network 235 99 120 144 49

2027 Do-Something Development + Test 3c Network South / Ersham Roads & Diplocks Way combined RA + mini-circle at South / Western Roads Junction 459 277% 59% -11% 189 744% 14% -40% 237 912% 42% -26% 296 722% 56% -17% 119 250% 152% 36%

2027 Do-Something Development + Test 4 Network Summerheath Road full "bypass" 421 246% 46% -19% 189 745% 14% -40% 232 891% 39% -28% 279 673% 47% -22% 92 171% 95% 5%

2027 Do-Something Development + Test 5 Network Vicarage Lane one-way Southbound with simple priority Junction at Vicarage Lane & Marshfoot Lane 423 247% 47% -18% 192 757% 16% -39% 236 906% 41% -26% 282 680% 49% -21% 93 174% 98% 7%

2027 Do-Something Development + Test 5b Network Vicarage Lane one-way Southbound with mini-circle at Junction at Vicarage Lane & Marshfoot Lane 416 242% 44% -20% 191 752% 15% -40% 234 897% 40% -27% 281 679% 48% -22% 86 154% 84% -1%

2027 Do-Something Development + Test 8 Network High Street closed to all but buses 421 246% 46% -19% 191 753% 16% -40% 234 899% 40% -27% 281 680% 49% -22% 91 168% 94% 4%

2027 Do-Something Development + Test 9 Network Complete re-configuration of Junction of London Road, North Street, High Street & Vicarage Lane 412 238% 43% -20% 191 753% 15% -40% 237 910% 41% -26% 283 683% 49% -21% 84 148% 79% -3%

2027 Do-Something Development + Test 10 Network Test 3 + broader SWETS highways & public transport interventions*** 444 265% 54% -14% 201 798% 22% -37% 244 942% 46% -24% 293 712% 55% -18% 92 171% 95% 5%

2027 Do-Something Development + Test 11 Network Test 4 + broader SWETS highways & public transport interventions*** 449 269% 56% -13% 201 797% 21% -37% 243 935% 45% -24% 292 711% 54% -18% 96 184% 105% 11%

notes:

* (1) Boship RA, (2) A271 & North Street, (3) A271 & London Road, (4) A271 & Hawks Road, (5) A271 & Park Road, (6) A271 & Battle Road, (7) A22 & Hempstead Lane Access, (8) Hempstead Lane & Gleneagles Drive & (9) London Road, Hawks Road & Hempstead Lane RA

** (1) London & Summerheath Road, (2) London & Battle Roads, (3) London Road & High & North Streets, (4) North & George Streets, (5) High & George Streets, (6) Market Street & Vicarge Road, (7) Vicarage Lane, Vicarage Road & Marshfoot Lane & (8) South & Western Roads & (9) South & Station Roads

*** (1) A27 & A22 Cophall RA signalisation, (2) A27 & A22 Golden Jubilee Way signalisation, (3) A22 & Dittons Road signalisation, (4) A2270 Quality Bus Corridor, (5) A259 Quality Bus Corridor & (6) Hailsham-Eastbourne Express Bus Service

Central Area Junctions** Total

Delay (hrs)

Central Area Junctions** Total

Delay (hrs)

Total Delay (hrs) Boship RA Total Delay (hrs)

Boship RA Total Delay (hrs)

Northern Junctions* Alone Total

Delay (hrs)

Northern Junctions* Alone Total

Delay (hrs)

Boship RA & A22 & Hempstead

Lane Access Total Delay (hrs)

Boship RA & A22 & Hempstead

Lane Access Total Delay (hrs)Total Delay (hrs)

Tables C9 & C10: AM & PM Peak Hour Modelled Queues, Stops and Movements with Saturations Greater than 95%


2011 Base 82 79 14,488 8 8

2027 Do-Something Development + Do-Nothing Network 190 133% 434 449% 42,714 195% 32 300% 34 325%

2027 Reference Case Development + Test 1 Network "Committed" improvements 112 37% 124 57% 23,031 59% 12 50% 12 50%

2027 Do-Something Development + Test 1 Network 187 129% 67% 354 349% 185% 39,266 171% 70% 24 200% 100% 26 225% 117%

2027 Do-Something Development + Test 2 Network A22 / Hempstead Lane RA 167 105% 49% -10% 292 269% 135% -18% 34,283 137% 49% -13% 16 100% 33% -33% 16 100% 33% -38%

2027 Do-Something Development + Test 3 Network South / Ersham Roads combined RA 159 96% 42% -15% 188 138% 52% -47% 30,899 113% 34% -21% 12 50% 0% -50% 13 62% 8% -50%

2027 Do-Something Development + Test 3b Network South / Ersham Roads & Diplocks Way combined RA + signalised South / Western Roads Junction 173 113% 55% -7% 195 147% 57% -45% 32,580 125% 41% -17% 14 75% 17% -42% 14 75% 17% -46%

2011 Base + Test 3b Network 74 34 9,118 0 0

2027 Reference Case Development + Test 3b Network 106 93 17,646 6 6

2027 Do-Something Development + Test 3c Network South / Ersham Roads & Diplocks Way combined RA + mini-circle at South / Western Roads Junction 160 97% 43% -14% 275 248% 121% -22% 35,187 143% 53% -10% 22 175% 83% -8% 23 187% 92% -12%

2027 Do-Something Development + Test 4 Network Summerheath Road full "bypass" 182 124% 63% -2% 206 161% 66% -42% 32,258 123% 40% -18% 10 25% -17% -58% 14 75% 17% -46%

2027 Do-Something Development + Test 5 Network Vicarage Lane one-way Southbound with simple priority Junction at Vicarage Lane & Marshfoot Lane 181 121% 61% -3% 203 156% 63% -43% 33,688 133% 46% -14% 16 100% 33% -33% 17 112% 42% -35%

2027 Do-Something Development + Test 5b Network Vicarage Lane one-way Southbound with mini-circle at Junction at Vicarage Lane & Marshfoot Lane 179 120% 60% -4% 201 155% 62% -43% 33,322 130% 45% -15% 16 100% 33% -33% 17 112% 42% -35%

2027 Do-Something Development + Test 8 Network High Street closed to all but buses 175 115% 57% -6% 197 149% 59% -44% 33,059 128% 44% -16% 15 87% 25% -37% 15 87% 25% -42%

2027 Do-Something Development + Test 9 Network Complete re-configuration of Junction of London Road, North Street, High Street & Vicarage Lane 172 111% 54% -8% 193 145% 56% -45% 31,357 116% 36% -20% 13 62% 8% -46% 13 62% 8% -50%

2027 Do-Something Development + Test 10 Network Test 3 + broader SWETS highways & public transport interventions*** 169 107% 51% -9% 187 136% 50% -47% 31,222 116% 36% -20% 15 87% 25% -37% 17 112% 42% -35%

2027 Do-Something Development + Test 11 Network Test 4 + broader SWETS highways & public transport interventions*** 180 121% 61% -4% 199 152% 60% -44% 31,587 118% 37% -20% 14 75% 17% -42% 14 75% 17% -46%

PM Peak Hour

2011 Base 85 53 12,595 3 3

2027 Do-Something Development + Do-Nothing Network 183 116% 450 741% 35,161 179% 25 733% 36 1100%

2027 Reference Case Development + Test 1 Network "Committed" improvements 122 44% 187 250% 18,789 49% 7 133% 9 200%

2027 Do-Something Development + Test 1 Network 180 113% 48% 345 546% 85% 32,971 162% 75% 14 367% 100% 18 500% 100%

2027 Do-Something Development + Test 2 Network A22 / Hempstead Lane RA 179 112% 47% 0% 277 418% 48% -20% 32,734 160% 74% -1% 17 467% 143% 21% 19 533% 111% 6%

2027 Do-Something Development + Test 3 Network South / Ersham Roads combined RA 163 93% 34% -9% 265 395% 42% -23% 29,138 131% 55% -12% 10 233% 43% -29% 13 333% 44% -28%

2027 Do-Something Development + Test 3b Network South / Ersham Roads & Diplocks Way combined RA + signalised South / Western Roads Junction 181 113% 48% 0% 268 401% 43% -22% 29,700 136% 58% -10% 10 233% 43% -29% 13 333% 44% -28%

2011 Base + Test 3b Network 88 38 9,043 0 0

2027 Reference Case Development + Test 3b Network 124 133 18,142 5 5

2027 Do-Something Development + Test 3c Network South / Ersham Roads & Diplocks Way combined RA + mini-circle at South / Western Roads Junction 162 91% 33% -10% 304 469% 63% -12% 31,305 149% 67% -5% 19 533% 171% 36% 21 600% 133% 17%

2027 Do-Something Development + Test 4 Network Summerheath Road full "bypass" 194 129% 59% 8% 270 404% 44% -22% 30,192 140% 61% -8% 11 267% 57% -21% 15 400% 67% -17%

2027 Do-Something Development + Test 5 Network Vicarage Lane one-way Southbound with simple priority Junction at Vicarage Lane & Marshfoot Lane 181 113% 48% 0% 279 422% 49% -19% 30,419 142% 62% -8% 12 300% 71% -14% 15 400% 67% -17%

2027 Do-Something Development + Test 5b Network Vicarage Lane one-way Southbound with mini-circle at Junction at Vicarage Lane & Marshfoot Lane 182 115% 49% 1% 269 404% 44% -22% 30,113 139% 60% -9% 10 233% 43% -29% 13 333% 44% -28%

2027 Do-Something Development + Test 8 Network High Street closed to all but buses 183 116% 50% 2% 276 416% 48% -20% 30,849 145% 64% -6% 12 300% 71% -14% 16 433% 78% -11%

2027 Do-Something Development + Test 9 Network Complete re-configuration of Junction of London Road, North Street, High Street & Vicarage Lane 186 120% 53% 4% 268 401% 43% -22% 28,962 130% 54% -12% 10 233% 43% -29% 12 300% 33% -33%

2027 Do-Something Development + Test 10 Network Test 3 + broader SWETS highways & public transport interventions*** 190 125% 56% 6% 284 431% 52% -18% 33,422 165% 78% 1% 13 333% 86% -7% 17 467% 89% -6%

2027 Do-Something Development + Test 11 Network Test 4 + broader SWETS highways & public transport interventions*** 202 139% 66% 12% 284 431% 52% -18% 33,527 166% 78% 2% 16 433% 129% 14% 20 567% 122% 11%

notes:

* (1) Boship RA, (2) A271 & North Street, (3) A271 & London Road, (4) A271 & Hawks Road, (5) A271 & Park Road, (6) A271 & Battle Road, (7) A22 & Hempstead Lane Access, (8) Hempstead Lane & Gleneagles Drive & (9) London Road, Hawks Road & Hempstead Lane RA


*** (1) A27 & A22 Cophall RA signalisation, (2) A27 & A22 Golden Jubilee Way signalisation, (3) A22 & Dittons Road signalisation, (4) A2270 Quality Bus Corridor, (5) A259 Quality Bus Corridor & (6) Hailsham-Eastbourne Express Bus Service

Maximum Transient Queue (vehs) Average Queue (vehs) No. Stops

No. Movements V/C > 0.95

Actual Flow Demand Flow

No. Movements V/C > 0.95

Actual Flow Demand FlowMaximum Transient Queue (vehs) Average Queue (vehs) No. Stops



A22 & Hempstead Lane Access Total Delay (hrs)

A22 & Diplocks W

ay RA Total Delay (hrs)

A22 & South Road RA Total Delay (hrs)

A271 Junctions Total Delay (hrs)*

South Road, Diplocks W

ay & Ersham Road Total Delay

(hrs)

Central Area Junctions Total Delay (hrs)**

Other Junctions Total Delay (hrs)***

Total Delay (hrs)


2011 Base 20.3 2.0 52.7 11.3 6.5 12.4 38.5 7.0 150.7

2027 Reference Case Development + Test 1 Network "Committed" improvements 44.9 2.8 13.5 37.7 15.4 29.6 49.1 10.6 203.6

2027 Do-Something Development + Test 1 Network 94.6 13.6 13.9 117.8 35.8 72.9 126.0 17.4 492.2

2027 Do-Something Development + Test 2 Network A22 / Hempstead Lane RA 87.5 12.8 13.9 99.5 34.8 60.1 89.4 19.6 417.5

2027 Do-Something Development + Test 3 Network South / Ersham Roads combined RA 111.5 13.0 14.3 17.5 37.4 9.3 85.7 18.4 307.1

2027 Do-Something Development + Test 3b Network South / Ersham Roads & Diplocks Way combined RA + signalised South / Western Roads Junction 115.7 12.7 13.3 17.6 36.9 8.7 86.3 25.4 316.6

2011 Base + Test 3b Network 14.2 10.1 10.7 10.9 11.3 5.5 35.5 9.3 107.4

2027 Reference Case Development + Test 3b Network 58.2 11.8 12.6 13.6 14.2 6.3 50.7 11.3 178.8

2027 Do-Something Development + Test 3c Network South / Ersham Roads & Diplocks Way combined RA + mini-circle at South / Western Roads Junction 130.8 13.2 13.5 16.1 38.3 7.7 153.6 36.3 409.4

2027 Do-Something Development + Test 4 Network Summerheath Road full "bypass" 128.9 12.9 14.6 16.9 37.2 8.9 98.5 21.0 338.8

2027 Do-Something Development + Test 5 Network Vicarage Lane one-way Southbound 114.8 12.6 13.4 17.6 36.9 8.8 97.7 26.1 327.9

2027 Do-Something Development + Test 8 Network High Street closed to all but buses 115.7 12.7 13.3 17.6 37.0 8.7 87.2 25.4 317.6

2027 Do-Something Development + Test 9 Network Complete re-configuration of Junction of London Road, North Street, High Street & Vicarage Lane 116.0 12.7 13.4 17.6 37.0 8.7 82.7 27.4 315.4

2027 Do-Something Development + Test 10 Network Test 3 + broader SWETS highways & public transport interventions**** 110.0 12.7 13.4 19.9 37.2 9.1 87.5 23.8 313.6




A22 & Diplocks W






(hrs)



Total Delay (hrs)

Weekday PM Peak Hour

2011 Base 22.4 1.1 26.2 11.4 6.9 8.8 34.0 8.5 119.2






2011 Base + Test 3b Network 15.5 13.8 12.7 11.2 11.3 5.9 38.0 11.1 119.5

2027 Reference Case Development + Test 3b Network 98.8 21.2 16.2 13.4 13.9 7.1 48.6 13.4 232.5

2027 Do-Something Development + Test 3c Network South / Ersham Roads & Diplocks Way combined RA + mini-circle at South / Western Roads Junction 188.7 48.7 16.4 14.4 30.7 6.7 118.8 31.1 455.5

2027 Do-Something Development + Test 4 Network Summerheath Road full "bypass" 189.1 43.2 19.3 14.9 30.0 8.2 91.9 19.8 416.5

2027 Do-Something Development + Test 5 Network Vicarage Lane one-way Southbound 191.8 44.1 17.4 15.0 29.5 8.2 93.1 19.2 418.4

2027 Do-Something Development + Test 8 Network High Street closed to all but buses 190.9 43.5 17.0 15.2 30.0 8.3 91.1 20.0 416.0

2027 Do-Something Development + Test 9 Network Complete re-configuration of Junction of London Road, North Street, High Street & Vicarage Lane 190.8 46.1 17.5 11.7 30.1 8.3 84.2 18.6 407.3



notes:

* (1) A271 & North Street, (2) A271 & London Road, (3) A271 & Hawks Road, (4) A271 & Park Road & (5) A271 & Battle Road


*** (1) Hempstead Lane & Gleneagles Drive, (2) London Road, Hawks Road & Hempstead Lane RA & (3) Diplocks Way & Gleneagles Drive

**** (1) A27 & A22 Cophall RA signalisation, (2) A27 & A22 Golden Jubilee Way signalisation, (3) A22 & Dittons Road signalisation, (4) A2270 Quality Bus Corridor, (5) A259 Quality Bus Corridor & (6) Hailsham-Eastbourne Express Bus Service

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 550

2011 Base

2027 Reference Case Development + Test 1 Network

2027 Do-Something Development + Test 1 Network



2027 Do-Something Development + Test 3b Network

2011 Base + Test 3b Network

2027 Reference Case Development + Test 3b Network

2027 Do-Something Development + Test 3c Network









A22 & Diplocks Way RA Total Delay (hrs)



South Road, Diplocks Way & Ersham Road Total Delay (hrs)



0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 550

2011 Base






2011 Base + Test 3b Network

2027 Reference Case Development + Test 3b Network

2027 Do-Something Development + Test 3c Network


















A22 & Diplocks W






(hrs)



Total Delay (hrs)


2011 Base 20.3 2.0 52.7 11.3 6.5 12.4 38.5 7.0 150.7









A22 & Diplocks W






(hrs)



Total Delay (hrs)

Weekday PM Peak Hour

2011 Base 22.4 1.1 26.2 11.4 6.9 8.8 34.0 8.5 119.2







notes:

* (1) A271 & North Street, (2) A271 & London Road, (3) A271 & Hawks Road, (4) A271 & Park Road & (5) A271 & Battle Road


*** (1) Hempstead Lane & Gleneagles Drive, (2) London Road, Hawks Road & Hempstead Lane RA & (3) Diplocks Way & Gleneagles Drive

**** (1) A27 & A22 Cophall RA signalisation, (2) A27 & A22 Golden Jubilee Way signalisation, (3) A22 & Dittons Road signalisation, (4) A2270 Quality Bus Corridor, (5) A259 Quality Bus Corridor & (6) Hailsham-Eastbourne Express Bus Service

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 550

2011 Base















0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 550

2011 Base















Table C15: AM & PM Peak Hour Movements with Saturations Greater than 95%

AM PM

2011 Base

2027 Proposed Development Demand + Do-Nothing Network

2027 Reference Case Demand + Test 1 Network

2027 Proposed Development Demand + Test 1 Network


2011 Base






2027 Proposed Development Demand + Test 3b Network

2027 Proposed Development Demand + Test 3c Network
















A267 & North Street East Left East Left East Left

Right Right Right

South Straight South Straight South Straight

Right Right Right

North Left North Left North Left

Straight Straight Straight

North Street & Station Roads Northeast Left � Northeast Left Northeast Left

Right � Right Right


Right Right Right

Northwest Left Northwest Left Northwest Left


Station & Park Roads South Left South Left South Left


West Left West Left West Left

Right Right Right

North Straight North Straight North Straight

Right Right Right

Park & New Roads East Left East Left East Left

Right Right Right


Right Right Right



New Road, Cowbeech Road & A271 Northeast Left Northeast Left Northeast Left

Right1 Right1 Right1


East Straight East Straight East Straight



West Left1 West Left1 West Left1

Left2 Left2 Left2


Northwest Left1 � � Northwest Left1 Northwest Left1

Left2 � � Left2 Left2

Right � � Right Right

Boship RA East Left � � � East Left East Left

Straight � � � � � � � Straight � � � � � � � � Straight �

Right Right Right

South Left � � � � South Left � � � � � � � � South Left �

Straight � � � � Straight � � � � � � � � Straight �

Right � � � Right Right

West Left � � � � West Left � � � � � � � � West Left �

Straight � � � � Straight � � � � � � � � Straight �

Right � � � � Right � � � � � � � � Right �


Straight � � � � � � Straight � � � � � � � � Straight �

Right � � � � � � Right � � � � � � � � � Right �

A271 & North Street East Straight East Straight East Straight

Right Right Right



North Left � North Left North Left


A271 & London Road East Left East Left East Left


South Left � � � South Left � � � � � � � � South Left �

Right Right Right

West Straight West Straight West Straight

Right Right Right

A271 & Hawks Road Northeast Left Northeast Left Northeast Left

Straight Straight � � � � Straight

South Left South Left South Left

Right Right Right


Right Right Right

A271 & Park Road East Straight East Straight East Straight

Right Right Right



North Left � North Left North Left

Right � � Right � � Right

A271 & Battle Road East Left East Left East Left



Right Right Right


Right Right Right

A22 & Hempstead Lane Limited Movement Access & Full Movement RA East Left � � East Left East Left


Right Right Right



Right Right Right



Right Right Right

North Left � North Left � � � � � � � � North Left �

Straight � Straight � � � � � � � � Straight �

Right � Right � � � � � � � � Right �

Turn

Weekday AM Peak Hour Weekday PM Peak HourWeekday AM Peak Hour Weekday PM Peak Hour

Approach TurnJunction Approach Turn Approach

Table C15: AM & PM Peak Hour Movements with Saturations Greater than 95% - continued …

AM PM

2011 Base





2011 Base























Hempstead Lane & Gleneagles Drive East Left East Left East Left


South Left � South Left South Left



Right Right Right

London Road, Hawks Road & Hempstead Lane RA Northeast Left � Northeast Left � � � � � � Northeast Left �

Straight � Straight � � � � � � � � Straight �

Right Right � � � � Right �

Southeast Left Southeast Left Southeast Left


Right Right Right


Straight � Straight � � � � � � � Straight �

Right � Right � � � � � � � Right �



Right Right Right

London & Summerheath Road Southeast Left Southeast Left Southeast Left



Right Right Right

Northwest Straight Northwest Straight Northwest Straight

Right Right Right

London & Battle Roads Southeast Straight Southeast Straight Southeast Straight

Right Right � � Right

Northwest Left � Northwest Left Northwest Left

Straight � � Straight Straight


Right Right Right

London Road & High & North Streets North Left1 North Left1 East Left

Left2 Left2 � � � � Right

Right � Right South Straight

South Straight South Straight Right

Right1 Right1 North Left

Right2 Right2 Straight

North & George Streets East Left East Left � East Left

Right Right Right

Southwest Straight Southwest Straight Southwest Straight

North Right North Right North Right

High & George Streets Southeast Left Southeast Left Southeast Left

Northwest Straight Northwest Straight Northwest Straight

Right Right Right

Market Street & Vicarge Road Southeast Straight � � Southeast Straight � � � � � Southeast Straight

Right � � Right � � � Right

Northwest Left Northwest Left Northwest Left


Northeast Left Northeast Left Northeast Left

Right Right Right

Vicarage Lane, Vicarage Road & Marshfoot Lane Northeast Straight Northeast Straight � Northeast Straight

Right Right � Right

Southwest Left Southwest Left Southwest Left


Northwest Left Northwest Left � Northwest Left

Right Right � Right

A22 & Diplocks Way East Left � � � East Left East Left

Straight � � � Straight Straight

Right � � � Right Right



Right Right Right

West Left � West Left West Left

Straight � Straight Straight



Straight � Straight Straight

Right Right Right

Diplocks Way & Gleneagles Drive East Straight East Straight East Straight

Right Right Right




Right Right Right

A22 & South Road East Left East Left � � East Left

Right Right Right

South Straight � � � � South Straight � � � � � � � � South Straight �

Right � � � � Right � � � � � � � � Right �


Straight � � Straight � � Straight

South Road & Diplocks Way Northeast Straight Northeast Left Northeast Left

Right Straight Straight

Southwest Left Right Right

Straight Southeast Left Southeast Left

Northwest Left � � � � � Straight Straight

Right � � � � � Right Right

South & Ersham Roads Northeast Left Southwest Left Southwest Left


Southwest Left � � � � � Right Right

Right � � � � � Northwest Right Northwest Right

Southwest Straight � � � � � � � � Straight Straight

Right � � � � � � Right Right

South & Western Roads East Straight East Straight � � � East Straight

Right Right � � Right

Southwest Left Southwest Left � � Southwest Left

Straight Straight � � Straight

North Left � North Left � North Left

Right � � � � Right � Right

South & Station Roads Northeast Left Northeast Left � � Northeast Left

Straight Straight � � Straight

South Left � � � � � � � � South Left � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � South Left � �

Right � � � � � � � � Right � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � Right � �


Right Right Right

8 32 12 24 16 3 25 7 14 17 12 14 22 10 16 15 15 14 10 10 19 11 12 12 13 16 13 10

4%

17%

6%

13%

8%

2%

13%

4%

7%

9%

6%

7%

11%

5%

8%

8%

8%

7%

5%

5%

10%

6%

6%

6%

7%

8%

7%

5%

Turn

Weekday AM Peak Hour Weekday PM Peak HourWeekday AM Peak Hour Weekday PM Peak Hour

Approach TurnJunction Approach Turn Approach

Figures C1 & C2: AM & PM Peak Hour 2027 Consented & Planned Development Traffic Growth over 2011 Base Year Assuming 2011 Base Year and 2027

Committed Networks

Figures C3 & C4: AM & PM Peak Hour Traffic Impacts of Committed Network Assuming 2027 Consented & Planned Development Traffic

Figures C5 & C6: AM & PM Peak Hour Traffic Impacts of Proposed A22 & Hempstead Lane Roundabout Assuming 2027 Consented & Planned

Development Traffic

Figures C7 & C8: AM & PM Peak Hour Traffic Impacts of (a) Proposed A22 & Hempstead Lane Roundabout & (b) Consolidated South Road, Diplocks Way

& Ersham Road Roundabout Assuming 2027 Consented & Planned Development Traffic

Figures C9 & C10: AM & PM Peak Hour Traffic Impacts of Signalisation of the Junction of South & Western Roads assuming (a) Proposed A22 &

Hempstead Lane Roundabout, (b) Consolidated South Road, Diplocks Way & Ersham Road Roundabout & (c) 2027 Consented & Planned

Development Traffic

Figures C11 & C12: AM & PM Peak Hour Traffic Impacts of Proposed Vicarage Lane One-Way Assuming (a) Proposed A22 & Hempstead Lane Roundabout,

(b) Consolidated South Road, Diplocks Way & Ersham Road Roundabout, (c) Signalised South & Western Roads Junction, (d) Simple Priority

Junction at Marshfoot & Vicarage Lanes with Vicarage Lane Minor Arm & (e) 2027 Consented & Planned Development Traffic

Figures C13 & C14: AM & PM Peak Hour Traffic Impacts of Proposed Vicarage Lane One-Way Assuming (a) Proposed A22 & Hempstead Lane Roundabout,

(b) Consolidated South Road, Diplocks Way & Ersham Road Roundabout, (c) Signalised South & Western Roads Junction, (d) Mini-Roundabout

at Marshfoot & Vicarage Lanes & (e) 2027 Consented & Planned Development Traffic

Figures C15 & C16: AM & PM Peak Hour Traffic Impacts of Proposed Complete Re-Configuration of the Junction of London Road, North Street, High Street

& Vicarage Lane Assuming (a) Proposed A22 & Hempstead Lane Roundabout, (b) Consolidated South Road, Diplocks Way & Ersham Road

Roundabout, (c) Signalised South & Western Roads Junction & (d) 2027 Consented & Planned Development Traffic

Figures C17 & C18: AM & PM Peak Hour Traffic Impacts of Broader SWETS Highways & Public Transport Interventions Assuming (a) Proposed A22 &

Hempstead Lane Roundabout, (b) Consolidated South Road, Diplocks Way & Ersham Road Roundabout, (c) Signalised South & Western Roads

Junction & (d) 2027 Consented & Planned Development Traffic

Appendix D Options Considered but not Progressed

The movement and access options mentioned in the main part of the document do

not exhaust the possibilities that were actually considered during the study but not

progressed for various reasons (most often, the issue of deliverability within the

given fifteen year horizon with likely funding constraints). The following table lists

the most significant of such possibilities and the primary reasons for their

elimination.

Table D1: Options Considered but not Progressed

Options Primary Reasons for Early Elimination

Northern Bypass or Relief Road � Affordability

� Land

Eastern Bypass or Relief Road � Affordability

� Land

Demolition of South Road humpback bridge � Affordability

� Cycle/pedestrian/vehicle conflict

Junction of Battle and London Roads � Options available given local physical constraints (mostly dictated by land acquisition and demolition costs)

� Broader network capacities (capacity of the current junction matches capacities of key junctions in the vicinity or serving the same routes into and out of Hailsham)

Boship Roundabout improvements � Options available given local physical constraints (mostly dictated by land acquisition costs)

Further improvement of the mini-roundabout at the junction of Hawks Road, London Road and Hempstead Lane

� Options available given local physical constraints (particularly the angles of intersecting roads)

� Desire to actively discourage excessive use of Hawks Road by extraneous traffic

� Broader network capacities (capacity of the current junction matches capacities of key junctions in the vicinity or serving the same routes into and out of Hailsham)

For details of your nearest Halcrow office, visit our website halcrow.com