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
directional demand (pcus/hr)100
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
directional demand (pcus/hr)100
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
directional demand (pcus/hr)100
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
existing segregated cycle paths
imminent segregated cycle paths
on-street footways
existing segregated cycle paths
imminent segregated cycle paths
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
limited servicesonly on certain days of the week and/or certain times
regular services
limited servicesonly on certain days of the week and/or certain times
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
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
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
8. Narrower carriageway
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
See Figure B7 for further detail
See Figure B7 for further detail
See Figure B7 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
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
8. Narrower carriageway
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
See Figure B7 for further detail
See Figure B7 for further detail
See Figure B7 for further detail
14
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
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
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
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
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
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
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. Town centre circulation, pedestrian connections & public realm
improvements
1. Upgrade of existing pelican crossing on Battle Road outside
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
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
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
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
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. Town centre circulation, pedestrian connections & public realm
improvements
1. Upgrade of existing pelican crossing on Battle Road outside
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
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
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
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.
Basic Feasibility Benefits Issues
� 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
Pertinent Consented, Planned or Expected Developments Timing
� £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.
Basic Feasibility Benefits Issues
� 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
Pertinent Consented, Planned or Expected Developments Timing
� £90k � Welbury, Woodholm & Woodside Farms
� 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.
Basic Feasibility Benefits Issues
� 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
Basic Feasibility Benefits Issues
� Yes � Modest but worthwhile
� None of any significance
Estimated Cost
Pertinent Consented, Planned or Expected
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.
Basic Feasibility Benefits Issues
� Yes � Significant � Utilities & road camber works
� Traffic & business disruption during construction
Estimated Cost
Pertinent Consented, Planned or Expected
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.
Basic Feasibility Benefits Issues
� Yes � Significant � Utilities & road camber works
� Traffic & business disruption during construction
Estimated Cost
Pertinent Consented, Planned or Expected Developments Timing
� £230k � Existing and future Hailsham development generally; Hailsham town centre LDF development more specifically
� As soon as is practically possible, subject to funding
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
Basic Feasibility Benefits Issues
� Yes � Significant � Traffic & business disruption during construction
Estimated Cost
Pertinent Consented, Planned or Expected
Developments Timing
� £45k for Post Office loading bay
� Existing and future LDF development in Hailsham
� As soon as is practically possible
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.
Basic Feasibility Benefits Issues
� 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
Pertinent Consented, Planned or Expected
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
Basic Feasibility Benefits Issues
� Yes � Modest to significant � None
Estimated Cost
Pertinent Consented, Planned or Expected
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.
Basic Feasibility Benefits Issues
� Yes � Significant � None
Estimated Cost
Pertinent Consented, Planned or Expected
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.
Basic Feasibility Benefits Issues
� Yes � Significant � Business owners & staff parking needs
� Enforcement
Estimated Cost
Pertinent Consented, Planned or Expected
Developments Timing
� Signage & TROs nominal
� Enforcement significant
� General growth within Hailsham, combined with regeneration aspirations
� As town centre pedestrian and public realm improvements are delivered
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.
Basic Feasibility Benefits Issues
� Yes � Substantial � Cannot be implemented in isolation from or in advance of broader county-wide initiatives
Estimated Cost
Pertinent Consented, Planned or Expected
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.
Basic Feasibility Benefits Issues
� 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
Pertinent Consented, Planned or Expected
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
� All existing and future Hailsham development
� 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
Pertinent Consented, Planned or Expected
Developments Timing
� A22 & Hempstead Lane All- Movement Junction
3.2.1 � Yes � Significant local access and broader network relief benefits
� Traffic disruption during construction
� £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
� 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
� As soon as is practically possible
� 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
� £90k � Welbury, Woodholm & Woodside Farms
� 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 …
Scheme Relevant Text
Basic Feasibility Benefits
Known Issues
Estimated Cost
Pertinent Consented, Planned or Expected
Developments Timing
� High Street Works 3.2.6.2 � Yes � Significant � Utilities & road camber works
� Traffic & business disruption during construction
� £540k � Existing and future Hailsham development generally; Hailsham town centre LDF development more specifically
� As soon as is practically possible, subject to funding
� George Street Works
3.2.6.3 � Yes � Significant � Utilities & road camber works
� Traffic & business disruption during construction
� £230k � Existing and future Hailsham development generally; Hailsham town centre LDF development more specifically
� As soon as is practically possible, subject to funding
� 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
� As soon as is practically possible
� 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
� As town centre pedestrian and public realm improvements are delivered
� 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 …
Scheme Relevant Text
Basic Feasibility Benefits
Known Issues
Estimated Cost
Pertinent Consented, Planned or Expected
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
� As town centre pedestrian and public realm improvements are delivered
� 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
� All existing and future Hailsham development
� 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
Pertinent Consented, Planned or Expected
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
� No particular urgency
62
Table 5: Important Local Interventions - continued …
Scheme Basic
Feasibility Benefits Known Issues
Estimated Cost
Pertinent Consented, Planned or Expected
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
� No particular urgency
� 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. 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 � � �
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. Recently Delivered
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
Priority Dependencies, Triggers & Timing Estimated Cost Comment
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
£670k See Figure B4 in Appendix B
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
£520k See Figure B5 in Appendix B
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
£90k See Figure B6 in Appendix B
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
See Figure B7 in Appendix B
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
Priority Dependencies, Triggers & Timing Estimated Cost Comment
4. Important Local Interventions
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
See Figure B10 in Appendix B
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
£45k See Figure B10 in Appendix B
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
See Figure B15 in Appendix B
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
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
Figure B2: New Footway along Marshfoot Lane
Estimated Delivery Cost: £20,000
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
Figure B3: Cycle Connection to Cuckoo Trail from Hellingly Hospital Development
Estimated Delivery Cost: £25,000
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
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
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
100mm flexible surfacing
£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
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
Figure B5: Consolidated South Road, Diplocks Way and Ersham Road Roundabout
Units Amount Material Rate Cost
1 Full road construction m2 1,474.00 600mm excavation and disposal
200mm capping
150mm sub-base
250mm flexible surfacing
£120.00 £176,880.00
2 Road resurfacing/regrading m2 490.00 100mm cold milling and disposal
100mm flexible surfacing
£30.00 £14,700.00
3 Footpaths m2 267.00 50mm HRA
150mm Type 1 and edgings
200mm excavation and disposal in hard material
£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
Contractor Factor (preliminaries, project management) £26,733.25 10%
Traffic Management £16,039.95 6%
Restricted Working Hours £0.00 0%
Sub-Total 2 (Contractor Total) £310,105.70
Preliminary Design £15,505.29 5%
Detailed Design & Supervision £31,010.57 10%
Sub-Total 3 £356,621.56
Optimism Bias £156,913.48 44%
Scheme Delivery Total £513,535.04
Cost Item
Estimated Delivery Cost
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
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
Figure B6 Signalisation of the Junction of South and Western Roads
Units Amount Material Rate Cost
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
Contractor Factor (preliminaries, project management) £4,426.00 10%
Traffic Management £0.00 0%
Restricted Working Hours £6,639.00 15%
Sub-Total 2 (Contractor Total) £55,325.00
Preliminary Design £2,766.25 5%
Detailed Design & Supervision £5,532.50 10%
Sub-Total 3 £63,623.75
Optimism Bias £27,994.45 44%
Scheme Delivery Total £91,618.20
Cost Item
Estimated Delivery Cost
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
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
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
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
High Street Pedestrian & Public Ream Works
Units Amount Material Rate Cost
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
100mm flexible surfacing
£30.00 £21,450.00
3 Footpaths m2 690.00 65mm concrete paviours
35mm sand bed
100mm Type 1 sub-base and edgings
200mm excavation and disposal in hard material
£100.00 £69,000.00
4 Kerbs m 270.00 Concrete kerbs
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
Estimated Delivery Cost
George Street Pedestrian & Public Ream Works
Units Amount Material Rate Cost
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
100mm flexible surfacing
£30.00 £13,500.00
3 Footpaths m2 450.00 65mm concrete paviours
35mm sand bed
100mm Type 1 sub-base and edgings
200mm excavation and disposal in hard material
£100.00 £45,000.00
4 Kerbs m 150.00 Concrete kerbs
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
contractor factor (preliminaries, project management) £10,650.00 10%
traffic management £10,650.00 10%
restricted working hours £15,975.00 15%
contractor total £143,775.00
preliminary design £7,188.75 5%
detailed design & supervision £14,377.50 10%
£165,341.25
optimism bias £72,750.15 44%
scheme implementation total £238,091.40
Cost Item
Estimated Delivery Cost
North Street Loading Bay outside Post Office
Units Amount Material Rate Cost
1 Full construction m2 60.00 600mm excavation and disposal
200mm capping
150mm sub-base
250mm flexible surfacing
Loading bay 40m2
10x 0.5mx4m at crossings
£180.00 £10,800.00
2 Footpaths m2 55.00 65mm concrete paviours
35mm sand bed
100mm Type 1 sub-base and edgings
200mm excavation and disposal in hard material
At loading bay 15m2
10x 4m2 at crossings
£30.00 £1,650.00
3 Kerbs m 60.00 Concrete kerbs
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
contractor factor (preliminaries, project management) £2,107.50 10%
traffic management £2,107.50 10%
restricted working hours £1,053.75 5%
contractor total £26,343.75
preliminary design £1,317.19 5%
detailed design & supervision £2,634.38 10%
£30,295.31
optimism bias £13,329.94 44%
scheme implementation total £43,625.25
Cost Item
Estimated Delivery Cost
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
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
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
Estimated Delivery Cost: £30,000
Bat
tle R
oad
London Road
Community College
Bat
tle R
oad
London Road
Community College
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
Figure B10: Improved Footways Around & Local Widening of Hawks Road outside Hawkes Farm School &Missing A271 Footway
Units Amount Material Rate Cost
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
150mm Type 1 and edgings
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
Contractor Factor (preliminaries, project management) £4,445.20 10%
Traffic Management £2,667.12 6%
Restricted Working Hours £0.00 0%
Sub-Total 2 (Contractor Total) £51,564.32
Preliminary Design £2,578.22 5%
Detailed Design & Supervision £5,156.43 10%
Sub-Total 3 £59,298.97
Optimism Bias £26,091.55 44%
Scheme Delivery Total £85,390.51
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 2 (Contractor Total) £136,102.50
Detailed Design & Supervision £13,610.25 10%
Sub-Total 3 £149,712.75
Optimism Bias £37,428.19 25%
Scheme Delivery Total £187,140.94
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
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
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
Units Amount Material Rate Cost
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
150mm Type 1 and edgings
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
Contractor Factor (preliminaries, project management) £6,782.85 10%
Traffic Management (including protection to properties) £3,391.43 5%
Restricted Working Hours £0.00 0%
Sub-Total 2 (Contractor Total) £78,002.78
Preliminary Design £3,900.14 5%
Detailed Design & Supervision £7,800.28 10%
Sub-Total 3 £89,703.19
Optimism Bias £39,469.40 44%
Scheme Delivery Total £129,172.60
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
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
Figure B12: Proposed Pedestrian Shelters & Cycle Storage at White House Primary School
Estimated Delivery Cost: £7,000
Figure B13: Pedestrian Crossing over London Road Just North of Grovelands Road
Estimated Delivery Cost: £20,000
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
Units Amount Material Rate Cost
1 Carriageway reinstatement m2 71 £30.00 £2,130.00
2 Footpaths m2 337 £60.00 £20,220.00
3 Kerbs m 52 Concrete kerbs
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
Contractor Factor (preliminaries, project management) £2,650.50 10%
Traffic Management £1,590.30 6%
Restricted Working Hours £3,975.75 15%
Sub-Total 2 (Contractor Total) £34,721.55
Preliminary Design £1,736.08 5%
Detailed Design & Supervision £3,472.16 10%
Sub-Total 3 £39,929.78
Optimism Bias £17,569.10 44%
Scheme Delivery Total £57,498.89
Cost Item
Estimated Delivery Cost
A22
A22
A267
A271
A22
A22
A267
A271
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
Figure B15: Physical Modifications to A271 between Bell Bank Cottages and Danum Close
Units Amount Material Rate Cost
1 Full road construction m2 0 600mm excavation and disposal
200mm capping
150mm sub-base
250mm flexible surfacing
£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
4 Kerbs m 235 Concrete kerbs
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
Contractor Factor (preliminaries, project management) £5,130.00 10%
Traffic Management £3,078.00 6%
Restricted Working Hours £7,695.00 15%
Sub-Total 2 (Contractor Total) £67,203.00
Preliminary Design £3,360.15 5%
Detailed Design & Supervision £6,720.30 10%
Sub-Total 3 £77,283.45
Optimism Bias £34,004.72 44%
Scheme Delivery Total £111,288.17
Cost Item
Estimated Delivery Cost
A271
A271
Danum Close
A271
A271
Danum Close
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
Figure B16: Potential Capacity Improvement at Junction of A22 and South Road
Sou
th R
oad
A22
A22
Sou
th R
oad
A22
A22
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
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
Industrial Unit 100sqm 0.153 1.014 0.029 0.030 0.000 0.000 0.807 0.072 0.013 0.006 0.014 0.007
Industrial & Warehousing 100sqm 0.088 0.531 0.021 0.023 0.000 0.000 0.438 0.053 0.015 0.011 0.008 0.004
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
Industrial Unit 100sqm 0.106 0.533 0.021 0.025 0.002 0.007 0.407 0.059 0.008 0.007 0.007 0.002
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
Industrial & Warehousing 100sqm 0.072 0.355 0.024 0.040 0.001 0.004 0.287 0.078 0.029 0.028 0.004 0.001
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%
Weekday AM Peak Hour
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) 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
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
Tables C11 & C12: AM & PM Peak Hour Modelled Delays Version 2
Boship RA Total Delay (hrs)
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)
Weekday AM Peak Hour
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
2027 Do-Something Development + Test 11 Network Test 4 + broader SWETS highways & public transport interventions**** 121.0 12.9 14.6 19.5 37.1 9.3 102.3 20.9 337.6
Boship RA Total Delay (hrs)
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)
Weekday PM Peak Hour
2011 Base 22.4 1.1 26.2 11.4 6.9 8.8 34.0 8.5 119.2
2027 Reference Case Development + Test 1 Network "Committed" improvements 165.2 2.3 16.3 14.6 14.1 14.3 47.0 11.5 285.3
2027 Do-Something Development + Test 1 Network 316.9 3.9 20.4 18.5 23.8 24.4 87.3 17.6 512.7
2027 Do-Something Development + Test 2 Network A22 / Hempstead Lane RA 188.9 43.7 20.4 17.5 30.1 19.7 72.6 21.3 414.1
2027 Do-Something Development + Test 3 Network South / Ersham Roads combined RA 190.7 43.4 18.5 15.4 29.8 8.6 79.7 19.3 405.4
2027 Do-Something Development + Test 3b Network South / Ersham Roads & Diplocks Way combined RA + signalised South / Western Roads Junction 190.0 43.4 17.1 15.2 30.1 8.3 84.8 20.0 408.9
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
2027 Do-Something Development + Test 10 Network Test 3 + broader SWETS highways & public transport interventions**** 201.0 43.4 17.4 25.2 31.3 9.3 91.9 20.5 439.9
2027 Do-Something Development + Test 11 Network Test 4 + broader SWETS highways & public transport interventions**** 200.7 42.1 19.9 24.0 31.5 9.0 96.4 21.4 444.9
notes:
* (1) A271 & North Street, (2) A271 & London Road, (3) A271 & Hawks Road, (4) A271 & Park Road & (5) A271 & Battle Road
** (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) 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 2 Network
2027 Do-Something Development + Test 3 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
2027 Do-Something Development + Test 4 Network
2027 Do-Something Development + Test 5 Network
2027 Do-Something Development + Test 8 Network
2027 Do-Something Development + Test 9 Network
2027 Do-Something Development + Test 10 Network
2027 Do-Something Development + Test 11 Network
Boship RA Total Delay (hrs)
A22 & Hempstead Lane Access Total Delay (hrs)
A22 & Diplocks Way RA Total Delay (hrs)
A22 & South Road RA Total Delay (hrs)
A271 Junctions Total Delay (hrs)*
South Road, Diplocks Way & Ersham Road Total Delay (hrs)
Central Area Junctions Total Delay (hrs)**
Other Junctions Total Delay (hrs)***
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 2 Network
2027 Do-Something Development + Test 3 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
2027 Do-Something Development + Test 4 Network
2027 Do-Something Development + Test 5 Network
2027 Do-Something Development + Test 8 Network
2027 Do-Something Development + Test 9 Network
2027 Do-Something Development + Test 10 Network
2027 Do-Something Development + Test 11 Network
Boship RA Total Delay (hrs)
A22 & Hempstead Lane Access Total Delay (hrs)
A22 & Diplocks Way RA Total Delay (hrs)
A22 & South Road RA Total Delay (hrs)
A271 Junctions Total Delay (hrs)*
South Road, Diplocks Way & Ersham Road Total Delay (hrs)
Central Area Junctions Total Delay (hrs)**
Other Junctions Total Delay (hrs)***
Tables C13 & C14: AM & PM Peak Hour Modelled Delays Version 3
Boship RA Total Delay (hrs)
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)
Weekday AM Peak Hour
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
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
Boship RA Total Delay (hrs)
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)
Weekday PM Peak Hour
2011 Base 22.4 1.1 26.2 11.4 6.9 8.8 34.0 8.5 119.2
2027 Reference Case Development + Test 1 Network "Committed" improvements 165.2 2.3 16.3 14.6 14.1 14.3 47.0 11.5 285.3
2027 Do-Something Development + Test 1 Network 316.9 3.9 20.4 18.5 23.8 24.4 87.3 17.6 512.7
2027 Do-Something Development + Test 2 Network A22 / Hempstead Lane RA 188.9 43.7 20.4 17.5 30.1 19.7 72.6 21.3 414.1
2027 Do-Something Development + Test 3 Network South / Ersham Roads combined RA 190.7 43.4 18.5 15.4 29.8 8.6 79.7 19.3 405.4
2027 Do-Something Development + Test 3b Network South / Ersham Roads & Diplocks Way combined RA + signalised South / Western Roads Junction 190.0 43.4 17.1 15.2 30.1 8.3 84.8 20.0 408.9
2027 Do-Something Development + Test 10 Network Test 3 + broader SWETS highways & public transport interventions**** 201.0 43.4 17.4 25.2 31.3 9.3 91.9 20.5 439.9
notes:
* (1) A271 & North Street, (2) A271 & London Road, (3) A271 & Hawks Road, (4) A271 & Park Road & (5) A271 & Battle Road
** (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) 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 2 Network
2027 Do-Something Development + Test 3 Network
2027 Do-Something Development + Test 3b Network
2027 Do-Something Development + Test 10 Network
Boship RA Total Delay (hrs)
A22 & Hempstead Lane Access Total Delay (hrs)
A22 & Diplocks Way RA Total Delay (hrs)
A22 & South Road RA Total Delay (hrs)
A271 Junctions Total Delay (hrs)*
South Road, Diplocks Way & Ersham Road Total Delay (hrs)
Central Area Junctions Total Delay (hrs)**
Other Junctions Total Delay (hrs)***
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 2 Network
2027 Do-Something Development + Test 3 Network
2027 Do-Something Development + Test 3b Network
2027 Do-Something Development + Test 10 Network
Boship RA Total Delay (hrs)
A22 & Hempstead Lane Access Total Delay (hrs)
A22 & Diplocks Way RA Total Delay (hrs)
A22 & South Road RA Total Delay (hrs)
A271 Junctions Total Delay (hrs)*
South Road, Diplocks Way & Ersham Road Total Delay (hrs)
Central Area Junctions Total Delay (hrs)**
Other Junctions Total Delay (hrs)***
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
2027 Proposed Development Demand + Test 2 Network
2011 Base
2027 Proposed Development Demand + Do-Nothing Network
2027 Reference Case Demand + Test 1 Network
2027 Proposed Development Demand + Test 1 Network
2027 Proposed Development Demand + Test 2 Network
2027 Proposed Development Demand + Test 3 Network
2027 Proposed Development Demand + Test 3b Network
2027 Proposed Development Demand + Test 3c Network
2027 Proposed Development Demand + Test 4 Network
2027 Proposed Development Demand + Test 5 Network
2027 Proposed Development Demand + Test 8 Network
2027 Proposed Development Demand + Test 10 Network
2027 Proposed Development Demand + Test 11 Network
2027 Proposed Development Demand + Test 3 Network
2027 Proposed Development Demand + Test 3b Network
2027 Proposed Development Demand + Test 3c Network
2027 Proposed Development Demand + Test 4 Network
2027 Proposed Development Demand + Test 5 Network
2027 Proposed Development Demand + Test 8 Network
2027 Proposed Development Demand + Test 10 Network
2027 Proposed Development Demand + Test 11 Network
2027 Proposed Development Demand + Test 9 Network
2027 Proposed Development Demand + Test 9 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
South Straight South Straight South Straight
Right Right Right
Northwest Left Northwest Left Northwest Left
Straight Straight Straight
Station & Park Roads South Left South Left South Left
Straight Straight Straight
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
South Straight South Straight South Straight
Right Right Right
North Left North Left North Left
Straight Straight Straight
New Road, Cowbeech Road & A271 Northeast Left Northeast Left Northeast Left
Right1 Right1 Right1
Right2 Right2 Right2
East Straight East Straight East Straight
Right1 Right1 Right1
Right2 Right2 Right2
West Left1 West Left1 West Left1
Left2 Left2 Left2
Straight Straight Straight
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 �
North Left North Left North Left
Straight � � � � � � Straight � � � � � � � � Straight �
Right � � � � � � Right � � � � � � � � � Right �
A271 & North Street East Straight East Straight East Straight
Right Right Right
West Left West Left West Left
Straight Straight Straight
North Left � North Left North Left
Right � Right Right
A271 & London Road East Left East Left East Left
Straight Straight Straight
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
West Straight West Straight West Straight
Right Right Right
A271 & Park Road East Straight East Straight East Straight
Right Right Right
West Left West Left West Left
Straight Straight Straight
North Left � North Left North Left
Right � � Right � � Right
A271 & Battle Road East Left East Left East Left
Straight Straight Straight
South Left South Left South Left
Right Right Right
West Straight West Straight West Straight
Right Right Right
A22 & Hempstead Lane Limited Movement Access & Full Movement 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
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
2027 Proposed Development Demand + Do-Nothing Network
2027 Reference Case Demand + Test 1 Network
2027 Proposed Development Demand + Test 1 Network
2027 Proposed Development Demand + Test 2 Network
2011 Base
2027 Proposed Development Demand + Do-Nothing Network
2027 Reference Case Demand + Test 1 Network
2027 Proposed Development Demand + Test 1 Network
2027 Proposed Development Demand + Test 2 Network
2027 Proposed Development Demand + Test 3 Network
2027 Proposed Development Demand + Test 3b Network
2027 Proposed Development Demand + Test 3c Network
2027 Proposed Development Demand + Test 4 Network
2027 Proposed Development Demand + Test 5 Network
2027 Proposed Development Demand + Test 8 Network
2027 Proposed Development Demand + Test 10 Network
2027 Proposed Development Demand + Test 11 Network
2027 Proposed Development Demand + Test 3 Network
2027 Proposed Development Demand + Test 3b Network
2027 Proposed Development Demand + Test 3c Network
2027 Proposed Development Demand + Test 4 Network
2027 Proposed Development Demand + Test 5 Network
2027 Proposed Development Demand + Test 8 Network
2027 Proposed Development Demand + Test 10 Network
2027 Proposed Development Demand + Test 11 Network
2027 Proposed Development Demand + Test 9 Network
2027 Proposed Development Demand + Test 9 Network
Hempstead Lane & Gleneagles Drive East Left East Left East Left
Straight Straight Straight
South Left � South Left South Left
Right � Right Right
West Straight West Straight West Straight
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
Straight Straight Straight
Right Right Right
West Left West Left West Left
Straight � Straight � � � � � � � Straight �
Right � Right � � � � � � � Right �
North Left North Left North Left
Straight Straight Straight
Right Right Right
London & Summerheath Road Southeast Left Southeast Left Southeast Left
Straight Straight Straight
South Left South Left South 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
North Left North Left North Left
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
Straight Straight Straight
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
Straight Straight Straight
Northwest Left Northwest Left � Northwest Left
Right Right � Right
A22 & Diplocks Way 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
North Left North Left North Left
Straight � Straight Straight
Right Right Right
Diplocks Way & Gleneagles Drive East Straight East Straight East Straight
Right Right Right
West Left West Left West Left
Straight Straight Straight
North Left North Left North Left
Right Right Right
A22 & South Road 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
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
Straight Straight Straight
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 � �
West Straight West Straight West Straight
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