Decision due on Eastbourne bus lanes

Controversial plans for new bus lanes in Eastbourne are set to go in front of county councillors.

On Wednesday (October 15), East Sussex County Council’s planning committee is due to make a decision on a pair of Traffic Regulation Orders (TROs), which would allow for the creation of new bus lanes within the town.

The TROs, which come as part of the council’s wider Bus Service Improvement Plan (BSIP), cover a range of changes in two broad areas of the town.

One TRO covers a significant part of both Seaside and St Anthony’s Avenue (which both form part of the A259), focusing on a stretch of road between Windermere Crescent and the Langney Roundabout.

The measures proposed in this TRO include the creation of an eastbound bus lane between the Windermere Crescent junction and Seaside Roundabout and a westbound bus lane between Langney Roundabout and Seaside Roundabout.

It also sets out proposals to both upgrade existing and create new pedestrian crossings in several areas. This includes the creation of three new puffin crossings: one would replace an existing zebra crossing in Seaside, which sits between the road’s junctions with Southbourne Road and Finmere Road; while the other two would sit on either side of Seaside Roundabout.

Creating the bus lanes would involve the loss of on-street parking spaces in several areas. A new area of limited wait parking will also be introduced on the south side of Seaside, between its junctions with Rye Street and Winchelsea Road.

The proposals have proven to be controversial among Eastbourne residents. In all, the Seaside/St Anthony’s Avenue TRO saw 544 objections raised over several formal consultations.

In a report to the committee, officers say these objectors have raised a wide range of concerns, including the loss of parking, crossing safety and the potential for increased congestion, among other issues.

But officers conclude these concerns do not provide “sufficient grounds for the proposals to be withdrawn.”

Officers also note how the proposals had seen changes as a result of public feedback during an earlier stage of the consultation process. These changes included: the creation of the new limited waiting parking area in Seaside; the addition of extra zig-zag strokes across Southbourne Road, Finmere Road and Queens Crescent; and allowing cyclists to use the bus lanes.

In a report to the committee, a council planning spokesman said: “Consideration to the loss of on street parking has been given throughout the design of the scheme and it was one of the key reasons for the further consultation in summer 2024.

“However, a key scheme objective is to promote bus service journey time improvements in lieu of journeys otherwise being undertaken by car. Therefore, a balanced approach has been taken throughout the design of the route.

“This has reflected that there are competing needs for the available roadspace along the corridor, and therefore the design sought to provide for buses and mitigate safety risks for pedestrians and cyclists whilst also minimising impact on vehicles and parking."

The report adds: “Having considered the objections, officers are satisfied that there are not sufficient grounds for the proposals to be withdrawn and that the objections should not be upheld.”

The second TRO covers another stretch of the A259, focused on the area surrounding Eastbourne’s railway station.

It includes the introduction of a new eastbound bus lane between Wharf Road and the railway station, as well as upgrades to an existing staggered pedestrian crossing on Station Parade.

It also includes changes to the road layout in other areas, including a ‘no right turn’ restriction for vehicles entering Upperton Road from the Enterprise Shopping Centre’s car park. The TRO had initially been expected to also prohibit a right hand turn in the opposite direction (into the shopping centre’s carpark from Upperton Road), but officers are recommending this element of the TRO be dropped in light of comments received during the consultation process.

Overall, this TRO was significantly less controversial than the other, generating only 29 public representations during consultation. According to officers, 14 of these representations were submitted in support and 15 were objections.