CRAZY GREEN AGENDA! PROTECT FAIR ACCESS FOR PHVs IN HASTINGS
TOWN CENTRE - COULD YOUR TOWN BE NEXT?
Currently PHVs are permitted northbound access only into Hastings town centre. For years, the local trade has campaigned for southbound access from Hastings Station into Havelock Road. This would provide direct,
fair and sustainable access for
passengers. Instead of progress, the latest ‘green’ proposals suggest removing northbound access too - leaving PHVs completely excluded.
Below is a letter from Stew Smith of 27/7 Transport Solutions, St Leonards on Sea, explaining the myriad inequities, deficiencies and dangers with this so- called ‘green’ project which has prompted him to organise a petition to raise awareness of the situation and aid fair transport access in Hastings.
Please show your support - this could be you!
Dear Hastings Town Centre Public Realm & Green Connections Project Team
“Thank you for your reply of 20 September. I appreciate the acknowledgement of our concerns, but I must be clear, many of the substantive issues raised in my original correspondence remain unanswered or have been set aside rather than addressed.
You have confirmed that PHVs are currently classified as general traffic. That classification is at the heart of the problem. It strips licensed operators, who are a regulated, insured and accountable part of the public transport network, of recognition, while gifting special status to hackneys, delivery drivers and cyclists. Delivery riders, many of whom operate with no regulation or licensing duties, are afforded infrastructure and access, yet licensed PHVs who move the elderly, the disabled, patients and school children are excluded. This contra- diction has never been justified, and risks undermining the credibility of the scheme from the outset.
Your suggestion of limited evening or overnight access for PHVs does not solve the problem. It creates public confusion, operational inconsistency, and worsens passenger confrontation with drivers who are forced to explain why access is permitted at 8pm but not 8am. It does nothing for elderly or vulnerable passengers travelling during the day, nor does it support carbon- reduction goals; detours of five times the distance remain, regardless of what happens at night.
24
You also failed to provide clarity on why the scheme presentation and stakeholder meetings never disclosed that northbound access was also to be restricted. This is a fundamental omission. Stakeholder engagement is only meaningful if information is shared transparently. To conceal or omit material elements until challenged is unacceptable.
Equally, your response side-stepped the looming issue of devolution and deregulation. Local authorities cannot plan for a future that will not exist. Once licensing regimes merge, or PHVs convert to hackney carriage status en masse, these restrictions become unenforceable. Operators will simply license elsewhere or switch category, and all the modelling underpinning your design will collapse. This is not speculation; it is a proven outcome in other parts of the UK. Unless the scheme is future-proofed to recognise PHVs properly, you are building in legal, financial and reputational risk.
On safety, your reply makes reference to CCTV and “safe by design” reviews. But this skirts over the central issue: the biggest safety risk in the town centre will not come from licensed, regulated PHVs, but from the growing volume of e-bikes, e-scooters and modified delivery vehicles. These are already operating at high speeds, often illegally, in pedestrian zones.
To exclude PHVs while giving delivery riders a “safe zone” is not just inconsistent, it is negligent. Licensed PHVs
are regulated, insured, DBS-checked and
accountable. Delivery riders are not. Yet your current design affords the latter privileged access while penalising the former. That is the exact reverse of what safety-led, evidence-based policy should deliver.
There is also the carbon issue. You have stated that the scheme supports Hastings’ 2030 pledge and ESCC’s 2050 net-zero plan. Yet the design forces PHVs into needless detours, in some cases five times longer than the direct route, which increases emissions. A wheelchair user travelling 0.2 miles from Hastings Station to Wellington Place is instead driven 1.1 miles via Cornwallis Street, Priory Street, and White Rock. That is additional mileage, additional carbon, additional congestion, and additional passenger frustration. The trade cannot reconcile how this squares with your stated environmental objectives. If anything, it directly undermines them.
OCTOBER 2025 PHTM
”
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74
