`Future approaches to Transport investment in Lyndhurst, New Forest'

31st March 2008

Summary of Supporting Information:

Introduction

This document sets out an overview and brief summary of the background information prepared by, or on behalf of, the Environment Department to assist decision-making on the issue of traffic in Lyndhurst. Much of the content was prepared as evidence for the County Council's `Lyndhurst Bypass Review Panel'. The Department was one of a number of bodies giving evidence to the Panel.

This document has been prepared to support a report to the Cabinet of Hampshire County Council at a meeting on 31 March.

Purpose of the Document

This document is intended to provide Members with a summary of the available background information to assist the Cabinet in making a decision on the next steps for transport planning for Lyndhurst. The decision is being made at the meeting of the Cabinet on 31 March 2008 and this background document should be read in conjunction with the Cabinet report `Future Approaches to Transport Investment in Lyndhurst'. The Cabinet will also receive the findings and recommendations of the Bypass Review Panel and a `Peer Review' undertaken by Mott MacDonald.

The first four sections of this document set out a summary of evidence prepared for the Lyndhurst Bypass Review Panel. Copies of the full reports supporting this evidence have been placed on deposit in Members' Rooms and for public inspection (see below). The remainder of this document sets out further background information that was made available to assist the Review Panel but not formally presented as evidence.

Further Information

As noted above, this report summarises evidence and information contained in other documents. The following documents set out the evidence and information in greater depth and have been placed in Members' Rooms for possible reference. They have also been made available for public inspection at the following locations:

Hampshire County Council

Environment Department Reception

Castle Avenue

Winchester

Hampshire County Council

Hampshire Highways West

Jacobs Gutter Lane

Totton

Local Venue - New Forest Centre

The supporting documents are:

1. Hampshire County Council (November 2007) Lyndhurst Traffic Surveys

2. Ipsos MORI (December 2007), Lyndhurst Residents' Survey

3. Jonathan Cox Associates (August 2007), Scoping Study for Habitat Regulations: Assessment of a Lyndhurst Bypass

4. Hampshire County Council/MottGifford (December 2007), Lyndhurst Transport Study

Contents

Executive Summary

1.

Traffic Survey Data

2.

Public Opinion Survey Results

3.

Environmental Constraints

4.

Traffic Improvements - `Optioneering' Process and Best Performing Options

5.

History of Traffic in Lyndhurst

6.

Description of the Road Network

7.

Environmental Problems arising from Traffic

8.

Legal and planning processes

9.

Major Scheme Funding and Prioritisation Process

Executive Summary

1.1 Traffic Surveys

1.1.1 Traffic surveys were undertaken during the Summer of 2007.

1.1.2 The surveys revealed that there are 26,500 traffic movements entering the cordon in the 12 hour period. Of these, 60% have been defined as `through trips', passing between cordon points within a 15 minute period. The remaining 40% is traffic travelling to a destination within the cordon, i.e. within the village.

1.1.3 Classified counts revealed that the traffic composition was as follows

1.1.4 Traffic growth over the past 10 years has been low - average annual growth on all routes has been of a maximum of 1.1%. Average traffic levels have dropped marginally on some routes in August.

1.1.5 Earlier traffic surveys identified the proportion of through traffic at 80% and similar levels of overall traffic. However, these surveys use a different methodology and have a different definition of `through traffic'. The two sets of data are not directly comparable with regard to through trips. The 2007 surveys incorporated a number of checks to verify accuracy and, consequently, the data set is considered robust. Source data is not available for the earlier surveys for verification purposes.

1.2 Public Opinion

1.2.1 The Lyndhurst Residents' Survey 2007 was carried out in October and November 2007 by consultants Ipsos/MORI. The objective of the report was to provide a `snapshot' of local opinion on a range of issues, particularly focusing on traffic and transport issues in the Lyndhurst area.

1.2.2 The following key findings are highlighted:

1.3 Environmental Constraints

1.3.1 The area surrounding Lyndhurst is particularly constrained given the high level of environmental protection applied to the New Forest. As well as being subject to National Park status, there are also a number of international and national ecological protection designations that apply. These include Special Protection Areas (SPAs), Special Area for Conservation (SPA), Ramsar Sites and Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSIs). Further `layers' of formal protection arise from other designations and protections, e.g. Historic Parkland, archaeological interest areas.

1.3.2 The village itself incorporates a Conservation Area, protecting the historic built form of parts of the village, including much of the High Street. Locally, the fencing of any part of the Forest, including alongside roads, requires the consent of the Verderers.

1.3.3 The constraints impact significantly upon the process of developing any project or plan in Lyndhurst and its immediate local area. Under Habitat Regulations an `Appropriate Assessment' would be required prior to the promotion of any infrastructure proposal which impacts upon the areas where designations apply.

1.4 Traffic Improvements -`Optioneering' Process

1.4.1 Consultants MottGifford were commissioned to undertake an Transport Study to assess the current traffic conditions in Lyndhurst and identify a wide range of appropriate transport/traffic options.

1.4.2 An `optioneering' study was undertaken based on current `WebTAG' methodology; the basis upon which funding for any potential major scheme would be assessed. The methodology requires the identification of a `best', a `next best' and a `low cost' option.

1.4.3 The option assessed as best performing is option 7B involving village improvements and an eastern link road. This option best reflects the local and national objectives. The next best option is 7A, involving the inner western link road, provides some benefits to Lyndhurst. The low cost options is either one of the preferred demand/traffic management options at under £5m.

1.4.4 As the initial appraisal was carried out at a high level of assessment, the consultant advises that detailed assessments of the best, next best and low cost options should be carried out, if the principle of supporting improvements for Lyndhurst is supported.

1.4.5 The consultants report included a comprehensive risk register outlining the factors that may affect development of a scheme. These risks include; funding, achieving public and stakeholder consensus, impact on protected habitats through Appropriate Assessment, obtaining statutory consents, land acquisition and potential objections at Public Inquiry.

1.5 Recent Background to Traffic Problems in Lyndhurst

1.5.1 Over recent years public concern regarding traffic congestion in Lyndhurst has grown, especially surrounding the view that a bypass would solve the problems caused by traffic queues, poor air quality and journey delays. Lyndhurst Parish Council has run a campaign to promote a bypass running to the east of and separated from the village.

1.5.2 A sub-group of the former New Forest Transport Strategy Group examined the issues around Lyndhurst. The sub-group, set up to examine `Operation of the New Forest Road Network' consisted of County and District members and officers. Over a period of approximately two years, the group considered traffic and transport issues within the New Forest and concluded that a bypass would be extremely difficult to deliver.

1.5.3 Transport Seminars were held by Hampshire County Council in 2006 and 2007. The latter seminar included an announcement by the Leader of the decision to establish a `Select Committee' process to examine the issue. This would look at traffic survey data, public opinion and the range of options that could be pursued to improve traffic congestion in Lyndhurst. The Select Committee met and received evidence in the second half of 2007.

1.6 Description of Road Network

1.6.1 Lyndhurst is situated south of the main strategic road in Hampshire's network, the A31. The village lies at the intersection of the A337, which runs from Cadnam to Lymington, and the A35 which runs from Southampton to Christchurch. This junction is controlled by traffic signals in the centre of the High Street.

1.6.2 The internal village road network is made up of a one-way circulatory system dual carriageway in part. The High Street is one-way eastbound and is a single carriageway road.

1.7 Issues and Problems arising from Traffic

1.7.1 One of the main issues for residents of Lyndhurst is the intrusiveness of traffic queuing and travelling through the village. The use of the High Street as an important traffic route is in distinct conflict with its character and function as a shopping and tourist centre.

1.7.2 Some of the footways in the village, especially Romsey Road and the upper part of the High Street (where it intersects with Bournemouth Road), are narrow and there is little offset from the traffic. The central section of the High Street is greatly improved since the footway widening in 2001.

1.7.3 Although there is a 7.5 tonne lorry ban on the High Street, reports have been received from the community and local members about non-compliance. The impact of HGVs waiting at the Romsey Road traffic signals to turn into the High Street is high, in terms of noise, emissions and visual intrusion.

1.7.4 There are sometimes long periods when there is standing and slow moving traffic within the village. This has led to the declaration of an `Air Quality Management Area' by New Forest District .

1.8 Funding for Major Schemes

1.8.1 It is highly likely that schemes to significantly ease congestion in Lyndhurst would cost upwards of £5m. Transport schemes that cost £5m or above are normally funded by Central Government and are termed "Major Schemes". Submissions for Major Schemes are submitted to the relevant regional body for assessment, who in turn advise the Government on regional priorities. This assessment process encompasses rail and motorway/trunk road investment, as well as `local' schemes promoted by County Councils and other Local Highway Authorities.

1.8.2 In the case of Hampshire, Major Scheme proposals are currently submitted to the South East England Regional Assembly (SEERA), although this function is likely to be transferred to SEEDA in the future. Assessments of regional schemes are carried out against an identified list of priorities, reflecting the Government's guidance that key issues to be considered in the assessment of transport proposals are environment, safety, economy, accessibility and integration. It is likely that a bypass for Lyndhurst would score poorly when assessed against these criteria.

1.8.3 At the time of writing, the Regional Transport Co-ordination Group at SEERA are debating a `refresh' of the regional priorities that are used to assess whether schemes/interventions can be funded by the Government. It should be noted that government funds are already allocated until 2016, so any £5m and above concepts, options or schemes referred to in the context of this report are long term i.e. post 2016.

1 Traffic Survey Data

1.1 In the summer of 2007, Sky High Ltd were commissioned by Hampshire County Council to undertake extensive traffic surveys in the Lyndhurst area. The objective of undertaking the surveys is for the County Council to be able to seek a realistic and quantifiable perspective on the volume and movements of traffic around Lyndhurst.

1.2 The traffic survey included the following elements

1.3 In addition, a review of traffic trends was undertaken based on data gathered from permanent count sites on all the main approaches to the village.

1.4 A full survey was carried out on Thursday 21 June 2007. A further turning count survey was carried out Friday 17 August. Both surveys were 12-hour surveys covering the period 07:00 to19:00. The second survey was carried out to review any possible differential between a `neutral' survey day1 and one of the busiest days of the summer peak.

1.5 The cordon survey data has been used to assess the amount of `through-traffic' passing through a town or village. Cordon points were established around the outskirts of the village, on the four `A' road approaches, the B3056 from Beaulieu and the minor roads from Emery Down. An extensive video camera survey was undertaken, which recorded number plates of vehicles throughout the 12 hour day and which were matched to time periods to achieve a snap-shot of traffic movements.

1.6 Following sensitivity testing, a 15 minute period was established to test whether traffic was travelling through the village or accessing destinations within the village.

Cordon Survey - Thursday 21st June 2007

1.7 Figure 1 below illustrates the movements of traffic between cordon points.

Figure 1. Distribution of Trips between Cordon Points, 2007.

1.8 The survey recorded approximately 26,500 movements entering the cordon during the survey period. Of these 15,840 trips (60%) were matched as exiting the cordon at another point within a 15 minute period and, therefore, is classified as through traffic. The remaining 40% is passing one cordon point and represents traffic travelling to or from a local within the cordon i.e. the village centre.

1.9 The classified counts revealed that the traffic composition was as follows

Network Link Diagrams

1.10 Figure 2 show the number of vehicles travelling between the network links in both June and August 2007, based on turning counts at all key junctions.

Figure 2. Traffic Flows on Individual Links within the Network, 2007

Traffic Trends

1.11 Traffic count data is available for all major approaches into Lyndhurst. An assessment of traffic trends during June and August over the last ten years has been undertaken.

1.12 The assessment has shown that the two way flow of traffic has generally been fairly consistent on all approaches over the ten year period, with minimal growth on most routes and a small decline in traffic on others. The annual average growth is as follows:

1.13 Bearing in mind traffic growth on other routes surrounding Lyndhurst, this suggests that the routes through Lyndhurst are at capacity at the busiest time, and that drivers are avoiding passing through the village, either by following alternative routes or by travelling at different times to avoid the worst peaks.

Consistency with Past Survey Data

1.14 Cordon surveys were undertaken in 1979 and 1993. Both of these surveys showed similar levels of traffic (unsurprisingly, given the findings relating to traffic trends discussed above) but identified a higher level of `through traffic', identified at 80%. This figure is often quoted as justification for a bypass for Lyndhurst.

1.15 It is important to recognise that the two surveys utilised a different methodology from that used most recently. Both were questionnaire surveys, where a sample of drivers were asked detailed questions about their journey, including origin, destination and purpose. It is also known that one of the surveys was undertaken when a large event was taking place in the locality.

1.16 Detailed survey outputs are not available, so it is not possible to verify the survey findings. Nevertheless, it appears likely that a number of journeys were recorded as through trips, even when the vehicle stopped in the village. For example, a holiday maker destined for a camp site might stop in the village to shop for supplies en-route. It is understood that such trips were recoded as `through trips' in the earlier survey. The more recent survey matches number plates entering and exiting the cordon, and therefore gives a robust assessment of trips passing directly through the village, assessing this based on journey time.

1.17 Both approaches are valid survey methodologies. Without detailed information from the earlier surveys it is not possible to directly compare the two sets of findings. Notwithstanding this, the survey carried out in 2007 is considered to be a robust and appropriate data set.

1 Public Opinion Survey Results

1.1 Consultants Ipsos Mori were commissioned by Hampshire County Council to carry out a public opinion survey in Lyndhurst and in the surrounding areas to gain a snapshot of public opinion in October and November 2007. A sample of 527 residents were questioned.

1.2 The full report of survey has been deposited as document two.

1.3 The questionnaires which were carried out in November 2007, covered several broad areas:

1.4 Analysis of the survey takes account of survey responses from residents of the village of Lyndhurst and also those in surrounding towns and villages. Where the text refers to `residents' this means the whole sample, including those who answered from areas other than Lyndhurst. Where there is separate analysis based on Lyndhurst residents only, this has been explicitly stated.

Key Findings

1.5 The following key findings are highlighted:

The findings are discussed in more detail below

The Bad Things

1.6 Half (51%) of residents interviewed considered the bad things about their local area was that there is `too much traffic'. No other single reason was mentioned nearly as often, reflecting the degree of consensus around this issue. The next most frequently mentioned issue is also traffic related, within one in seven (14%) saying that `speed of traffic is a concern'. The other issues mentioned to a lesser extent were `air pollution' and poor `public transport'.

1.7 Residents were asked to think about roads and traffic in and around Lyndhurst and identify the things that needed improving. 31% of people stated that `traffic queues on the approaches to the village' need improving and another 30% mentioned that the `creation of new roads or road links' are needed. Over 1 in 5, (21%) mention `traffic in the High St' as a priority for improvement and a further 12% mention `improving existing road networks'.

Knowledge of ideas from improvements

1.8 Over the years a number of traffic improvement schemes or plans have been aired by various sources (see paragraph 1.3 Lyndhurst Parish Council proposal and paragraphs 2.12-2.18 County Council's interventions). It was revealed that one in six residents (16%) claim to know a `great deal or fair amount' about the ideas. One quarter (25%) claim they know a `little about the schemes' and one fifth (22%) have `never heard anything'. Knowledge of schemes from residents of Lyndhurst is greater than people from surrounding areas (27% and 13% respectively).

Priority factors when considering traffic improvements

1.9 On looking at what criteria should be most important to consider when developing possible road and traffic schemes in and around Lyndhurst, two thirds (65%) see the `protection of the open forest, including protected habitats and wildlife areas' as the most important area to consider. The `removal or reduction of traffic in part or all of the village of Lyndhurst' and `the better flow of traffic in part or all of the village of Lyndhurst' are the next most common criteria, given by half of residents (52% and 50% respectively).

1.10 Again, `protection of the open forest, including protected habitats and wildlife areas' is the most important criteria chosen by those who gave more than one set of criteria from the previous question. This was given as the most important reason by two fifths (41%) of respondents.

Ideas on Traffic Improvements for Lyndhurst

1.11 Asking residents which of a list of schemes/improvement options they would most favour, `a bypass separated from but running fairly close to the edge of the village' and `increasing and enforcing restrictions on HGVs passing through the village' are the most preferred options - around half prefer these two (51% and 49% respectively). Fewer favour an outer bypass - 29%. (Note that respondents could answer more than one category in this question, so some overlap in support is likely.)

1.12 The least preferred options are quite village-specific - `installing traffic lights at the village's entry points to reduce the amount of traffic in the village' and `reducing traffic levels in the village through measures such as increases in parking charges and localised road closures' are the two least favoured (7% and 6% respectively).

1.13 Only 2% claim they `would need more information before making a judgement'.

Traffic Improvements Most Opposed

1.14 Looking at opposition to any of the suggested schemes (or those contained within the questionnaire) similar proportions are opposed to `a bypass passing away from the village through open countryside' (35%), `reducing traffic levels in the village through measures such as increases in parking charges and localised road closures' (35%) and `installing traffic lights at the village's entry points to reduce the amount of traffic in the village' (34%) are the suggestions attracting the most opposition. 13% are opposed to a bypass `separated from but running close to the edge of the village'.

1.15 Linking in with previous responses, `increasing and enforcing restrictions on HGVs passing through the village' and `redirect as much traffic as possible away from Lyndhurst' are opposed by the fewest number of residents (4% and 5% respectively).

1.16 As per the previous question, only 2% claim they `would need more information before making a judgement'.

2 Environmental Constraints

2.1 The New Forest environment is heavily protected due to its unique assemblage of vegetation, animals, insects and birds. Within the hinterland of Lyndhurst lie dry heaths, valley mire, pasture and riverine woodlands, wet heaths and grasslands and gorse scrub.

2.2 As a consequence of the landscape and ecological importance of the New Forest, it is a highly designated area, of both national and international importance. Any proposal for infrastructure improvements, particularly in the open forest area, would necessitate of a great deal of assessment work to demonstrate no adverse impact on the protected areas. This would apply to any potential scheme, including any bypass proposal.

2.3 Jonathon Cox Associates have been commissioned to carry out a scoping study for an `Appropriate Assessment', which would be required under habitat regulations. The report includes maps showing the extent of designations and illustrating the very high levels of protection applying across the area around a potential eastern bypass route.

2.4 The study identified the following key environmental issues:

2.4.1 The following key environmental designations are in place in the local area of Lyndhurst:

2.4.2 These designation arise from the presence of rare birds such as the Dartford warbler, the woodlark, nightjar and honey buzzard and other protected species such as bats, dormice, sand lizards, smooth snakes and great crested newts.

Habitat Regulations

2.4.3 The Conservation (Natural Habitats, &c.) Regulations 1994 transpose Council Directive 92/43/EEC on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora (EC Habitats Directive) into national law . The Regulations came into force on 30 October 1994 and have been subsequently amended in 1997, 2000 (in England only) and 2007 (in England and Wales). Containing five parts and four Schedules, the Regulations provide for the designation and protection of 'European sites', the protection of 'European protected species', and the adaptation of planning and other controls for the protection of European Sites.

2.4.4 Under the Regulations, competent authorities i.e. any Minister, government department, public body, or person holding public office, have a general duty, in the exercise of any of their functions, to have regard to the EC Habitats Directive.

Appropriate Assessment

2.4.5 The Habitat Regulations impose a strict sequential assessment process in order to protect sites of international importance for nature conservation. An Appropriate Assessment is required of any plan or project (such as a transport scheme) that could have a significant adverse effect on an International site. This assessment is undertaken in respect of each interest feature and for each designation where a site is designated under more than one international obligation.

2.4.6 Under the provisions of the Habitat Regulations, if the Appropriate Assessment cannot conclude that there would be no adverse affect, permission can only be granted for the scheme if:

a) there are no alternatives

and

b) there are Imperative Reasons of Overriding Importance.

 

2.4.7 The Jonathan Cox report details a range of potential adverse effects from the Lyndhurst Parish Council bypass route. Although this is not a full Appropriate Assessment, this indicates that this bypass route should only be considered as an option if it is firstly demonstrated that there are no alternatives and if it is then proven that there is overriding public need.

2.4.8 Assessment under the Habitat Regulations would have to be undertaken to determine the viability of transport schemes that affect internationally designated land around Lyndhurst.

2.4.9 Additionally, any scheme or proposal would require impact assessment to take account of legislation and policy relating to a variety of other environmental issues, for example:

  i) Other ecological designations, such as SSSIs

 

Cultural Heritage

2.4.10 Lyndhurst is an historic settlement dating back to Saxon times, however little archaeological fieldwork has been undertaken in the village and its hinterland. It is possible that there may have been a settlement here in prehistoric and Roman times as prehistoric burial mounds lie close the village and prehistoric material has been found in the area.

2.4.11 Given the above, any development in the area is likely to require in-depth analysis or potential surveys to establish if there are any effect on cultural heritage issues.

3 Identification and Assessment of Options for Improvements: The `Optioneering' Process

3.1.1 Mott Gifford was commissioned to undertake a full high level review of potential options to address transport issues in Lyndhurst in the Summer of 2007. An `optioneering' study was undertaken based on current `WebTAG' methodology; the basis upon which funding for any potential major scheme would be assessed. The methodology requires the identification of a `best', a `next best' and a `low cost' option.

3.1 The consultants were tasked at preparing a preliminary consideration of a range of options with respect to defined local and national objectives. The objective was to draw out any `headlines' in terms of opportunities and constraints relating to bypass routes (one defined by Lyndhurst Parish Council), and demand management measures focusing on previous studies and strategies.

3.2 It is important that a study of this preliminary nature assesses a full range of options and not solely the solution that seems most prominent or widely discussed (i.e. bypasses). This is largely because of the environmental policy context of the area and in particular the tests under the Appropriate Assessment procedure oblige all potentially less damaging schemes/options to be assessed. The preliminary nature of this study precludes any in-depth analysis or assessment at the stage.

Methodology

3.3 The study is based upon the guidance set out in the Transport Analysis Guidance units known as WebTAG. Following the Government's Integrated Transport White Paper (998), the New Approach To Appraisal has been adopted for the appraisal of major local transport schemes. Appraisal is required for all 'Major Schemes' (local transport schemes greater than £5m) and other schemes that require Government approval, for example road user charging.

3.4 The methodology has included:

3.5 The optioneering was carried out in two key stages. Following the definition of objectives the initial key stage was to identify and assess the full range of potential options. This was a high level assessment to identify the options with greatest potential, when assessed against the objectives and value for money criteria. The second key stage is to carry out a more detailed appraisal of the schemes with greatest potential from stage one, with the specific aim of identifying the best, next best and low cost options. The methodology is set out in full below.

Figure 3. Optioneering Methodology

3.6 Throughout the TAG process the Government's five objectives for transport as outlined in the White Paper have been central to the appraisal of options:

3.7 As part of the study process, local objectives were clarified with the consultant and these 'nest' within the above Government's five objectives for transport. The following local objectives were derived within this context and reflected those set our in the New Forest Area Transport Strategy.

3.8 The resulting local objectives used for the purpose of this study report are:

Optioneering - Stage 1

3.9 A total of total of 31 schemes or packages were identified as potential options in stage 1. These were as follows:

3.10 These are detailed on pages 31, 52 and 63 of the optioneering report.

3.11 The assessment of all options assumed that a series of common demand management measures underpinned all. These comprised enforcement of HGV restrictions, updated variable message signing, a public transport strategy and improved facilities for pedestrians and cyclists.

3.12 The bypass options are illustrated in Figure 4 and the demand management options in Figure 5 below.

Figure 4 Stage 1 Bypass Options

Optioneering - Stage 2

3.13 The full range of options was refined down to nine options for the more detailed appraisal in stage 2. These are listed in Table 9.1 of the Mott Gifford report, at pages 73-74.

3.14 Following assessment in stage 2, the following were identified as the best, next best and low cost options:

3.15 The consultants recommend that if a decision is made to proceed with improvements for Lyndhurst then the above should form the basis for further, more detailed, assessment. They identify significant costs and risks associated with taking these forward.

3.16 A `do-nothing' option was not formally assessed as part of the study. Nevertheless, this should be considered as an option, particularly given the analysis indicating that the network is currently close to capacity and, therefore, currently suppressing demand.

3.17 The consultants report included a comprehensive risk register outlining the factors that may affect development of a scheme.

3.18 To summarise, these risks include:

3.19 4.30 A risk register is included in Document 1 `Lyndhurst Transport Study' page 75 and 76, which contains more detail.

3.20 The Mott Gifford report review the potential cost of all options assessed (stages 1 and 2). However, not all costs are identifiable at this stage, as many of the specific details are unknown. Hence, costing at this point is partial. Notwithstanding, although not complete, the costing work does provide an indication of the broad scale of expenditure required and provide the basis for comparison between likely relative costs when assessing between options.

5 History of Traffic Issues In and Around Lyndhurst

5.1 Lyndhurst has a long history of traffic problems and has been the subject of numerous studies and schemes attempting to find a solution to the problems of high traffic levels and peak queuing. Indeed, the first calls for a bypass date back to the 1900s.

5.2 In more recent history, a bypass was considered in the 1980s after a failed attempt at promotion in the 1970s. In 1982 the public were consulted on four routes. A further route was introduced at a later consultation and a minor refinement of this route (5A) was eventually adopted by the County Council as its preferred route (see Figure 6 below). This route, located south of the golf course, was a compromise between the `village interests' desire for an outer route and the `Forest interests' pressure for an inner route.

5.3 In July 1986 the County Council's Planning and Transportation Committee resolved that the construction of the bypass be approved. This resolution granted planning permission for route 5A. The bypass would have commenced near Pikes Hill on A337 north of Lyndhurst. The route then passed in an essentially easterly direction over Forest land south of the golf course to a proposed roundabout on Southampton Road east of Bolton's Bench. The route continued in a southerly direction to Beaulieu Road across open Forest Land passing west of the cemetery to Beaulieu Road. Between Beaulieu Road and its termination at a roundabout on A337 near Goose Green the route traversed predominately private land in agricultural use. The proposed route was approximately 1.76 miles long.

5.4 Notwithstanding the grant of planning permission for the construction of the bypass the special status of the Forest required the County Council to promote a Private Bill to enable the bypass to be fenced where it crossed the open Forest. In order to present Parliament with a complete set of proposals, the Bill included the following provisions-

5.5 In December 1986 following consultation on the draft Bill the council confirmed the Bill.

5.6 It is important to note that petitioners against the Bill included the following organisations:-

5.7 By May 1987 the bypass Bill passed successfully through the House of Lords (first and second readings, committee stage and third reading - refer to Special Report from the Select Committee on the Hampshire (Lyndhurst Bypass) Bill 6 May 1987). The committee concluded that route 5A was the right route for the bypass and that the bill should be allowed to proceed to the House of Commons.

5.8 The local member of Parliament Patrick McNair-Wilson felt unable to sponsor the Bill in the House of Commons.

5.9 On 26 July 1988 the House of Common's Select Committee rejected the Lyndhurst Bypass Bill. In rejecting the Bill the committee expressed doubts about the need for the bypass, the route chosen, the adequacy of the exchange land, and the effect upon forest and animal ecology. The committee were also critical of the decision to promote a Bill, rather than deal with the proposal through a statutory planning inquiry.

5.10 Since the failed bypass attempt in the 1980s, the County Council commissioned a traffic and environmental study in 1992 to assess whether there were any new approaches to mitigating the traffic problems.

5.11 The study, produced by Milton Transport Management LTD, highlighted a number of traffic management approaches. After reviewing the report, many of the approaches were included in the County Council's `Traffic and Environmental Study' of 1994 which was subject to widespread local consultation in September of the same year (refer to Document 3).

5.12 A number of schemes were suggested in the county report have been implemented:

5.13 An `Intelligent Routeing Strategy' signing trial was also carried out in the summer of 2006. A strategy of this nature utilising variable message signs was first recommended in the Milton study (1992) but not pursued in the County's 1994 report for consultation.

5.14 The trial utilised two motorway gantry variable message signs (VMS), between junctions 2 and 3 on the M27 and further VMS southbound on the A3090 and eastbound on the A36. The intention was to assess whether it is possible to influence the routeing of traffic southbound from the M27 motorway to reduce pressure on the Romsey Road/High Street junction (via the A337) when traffic conditions were particularly poor.

5.15 The trial showed that there was some potential to influence traffic patterns and a scheme with traffic detection equipment is being implemented at the present time.

6 Description of the Road Network

6.1 Lyndhurst is situated south of the one of the main strategic routes in Hampshire, the M27/A31. The village lies at the intersection of the A337, which runs from Cadnam to Lymington, and the A35 which runs from Southampton to Christchurch.

6.2 The A337 is a road of `not more than local importance' (as defined by Hampshire Local Transport Plan (LTP) 2006-2011) and carries around 13,000 vehicles per 12 hour day (annual average) and is an important route for Heavy Goods Vehicles (HGVs) traffic for large vehicles travelling to Lymington, Milford on Sea and other towns to the South of the New Forest. A 7.5 tonne weight limit covering Lyndhurst High Street prevents HGVs from travelling south along the A337 from Cadnam and forces HGVs use the A326 and A35 signed from junction 2 of the M27.

6.3 The A35, also a road of `not more than local importance' flows west to east through Lyndhurst and carries around 10,000 vehicles per 12 hour day. To the east of Lyndhurst, lies the village of Ashurst, where there a traffic calming features. Speed limits on the route vary from derestricted, where there is no development, to 40mph and 30mph as development begins. To the west of Lyndhurst the A35 is predominately derestricted and lies in a rural forest setting.

6.4 Traffic queues form on the approaches to the village at peak times of the day. Queues are exacerbated on Friday afternoons, weekends and school holidays when tourist traffic adds to the volume of traffic on the road network. The approach on the A35 from the east is the least affected by traffic queues as this route is not signed from the Motorway and Trunk road network for the destination of Lyndhurst, with the exception of HGVs.

6.5 The signed route into Lyndhurst from the M27 is via the A337 from Junction 1.

6.6 The internal village road network is made up of a one-way circulatory system.

6.7 One of the reasons traffic queues develop on the approaches to the village is that some of the internal network of roads and junctions within the one-way system have a varying degree of operational constraints. The following paragraphs outline the details of the constrained network.

A35 High Street/A337 Romsey Road Traffic Signals

6.8 The junction is currently signalised and operates in `vehicle actuated mode' (i.e. is triggered by vehicles approaching the junction), but due to generally consistent approaching queues, all arms mostly run to identical signal timings for both approaches.

6.9 The constrained geometry of this junction does not allow for left turns, in and out of the High Street/ to and from Romsey Road, to operate concurrently. This is in part because long vehicles take up a large amount of space within the junction in making their turning manoeuvre (this includes caravans and most HGVs). Consequently, the existing signals only allow for the left filter light (from High Street/ Romsey Road) to operate on Sundays when there are fewer HGVs (and the likelihood of collisions in the middle of the junction is significantly reduced). The relative inefficiency of these traffic signals couple with large peak flow traffic volumes causes queues to develop.

Shrubbs Hill Road A337/High Street/Bournemouth Road A35 junction

6.10 Traffic from Shrubbs Hill Road typically approaches the merge point with Bournemouth Road traffic from the outside lane. At this point, there is an island where east thereof traffic swap lanes, outside lane to proceed along the A36, inside lane to turn left onto the A337. Filtering/lane swapping mostly happens in turn but in heavy traffic, lane swapping can only occur when traffic is released from the traffic signals ahead. This causes some frustration to motorists. An experimental bus lane scheme is due to be trialled on this section of road during the Summer of 2008.

Shrubbs Hill Road A337

6.11 This road is a dual lane one-way road heading in a northbound direction. The inside lane is usually empty, with occasional traffic using it to turn left into Bournemouth Road or to bypass the queue and cut in further uphill. Along the outside lane queues can develop along its whole length.

Goose Green - Chapel Lane/Shrubbs Hill Road/Gosport Lane Junction

6.12 At Goose Green, three roads meet at the south of the one way system. This traffic system usually operates quite well with the exception of traffic from the south queuing along the A337 and alongside Goose Green to join Shrubbs Hill Road.

The High Street

6.13 The High Street is a single lane one-way eastbound carriageway. It was reduced from a dual lane to single in 2001 when an environmental enhancement scheme was implemented to provide wider footways and new crossing facilities. The aim of this scheme was to improve pedestrian safety and well-being and to make the village a more attractive place. Extensive trialling proved there was no adverse effect to traffic queues in reducing the carriageway to a single lane.

6.14 The road to Beaulieu from Lyndhurst is an unfenced road subject to roaming ponies etc. It is used mainly by people travelling to and from the Waterside.

7 Environmental Problems arising from Traffic

7.1 There can be long periods when there is standing and slow moving traffic within the village. This has recently led to the declaration of an `Air Quality Management Area' by New Forest District Council as required by DEFRA due higher than prescribed levels of Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2 ).

7.2 NO2 is contained within vehicle emissions and in the case of Lyndhurst, the emissions do not freely dissipate due to the composition of the High Street and its buildings. The high-sided buildings of the Victorian period create a `canyon' and trap air borne pollutants rather than allow them to disperse easily.

Requirements by Defra

7.3 The Environment Act 1995 Part IV imposed a duty on the Secretary of State to prepare and publish a National Air Quality Strategy, containing policies with respect to the assessment or management of the quality of air. Included in the Strategy are National Air Quality Standards and Objectives for a number of pollutants.

7.4 The air quality standards in the National Air Quality Strategy are set purely with regard to scientific and medical evidence of the effects of the particular pollutant on health. The air quality objectives in the Strategy represent the Government's present judgement of achievable air quality by the end of the stated years on the evidence of costs and benefits and technical feasibility. It is these pollutants and set objectives which Local Authorities review and assess across their district. Air quality objectives have been set for seven pollutants including nitrogen dioxide.

7.5 Local Authorities undertake a continuous process of review and assessment of the seven pollutants in order to establish if the set objective(s) will be met if there is relevant public exposure. Guidance is supplied by Defra on relevant exposure and review and assessment techniques.

7.6 If through monitoring or modelling it is found that an objective has been or is likely to be exceeded the Authority has a duty to declare an Air Quality Management Area (AQMA), after which Authorities have a duty to produce an Action Plan. Action Plans must set out what measures the Authority intends to introduce in pursuit of the Air Quality Objectives and include timescales to indicate when the measures will be implemented. Local Authorities are not obliged to meet the objectives but they must show they are working towards them.

7.7 The European Union's Air Quality Framework and `Daughter Directives' prescribe limit values for certain pollutants which all member states must meet. The local air quality management system assists the UK in meeting these Directives. The EU limits for nitrogen dioxide are the same for the set UK objectives.

7.8 The AQMA in Lyndhurst was declared by the relevant authority, New Forest District Council, in June 2005 with respect to the likely exceedance of the annual mean objective for nitrogen dioxide. The declaration was based on 2004 monitoring figures that showed two diffusion tube monitoring sites were likely to exceed the objective within the canyon effect of the High Street (close to the junction of the A35 and A337) of 40 µg m3.

7.9 Following the declaration, further diffusion tube sites in Lyndhurst have been erected plus a continuous real time analyser.

7.10 It should be noted that the 2 exceeding sites have continued to exceed the annual mean objective. In addition the continuous analyser (and associated diffusion tubes) is also exceeding the annual mean objective. This site is located within the canyon effect of the High Street.

7.11 Currently the consultation period is finished for the draft Action Plan for Lyndhurst, including the public. It is likely that the Action Plan will be amended following the receipt of a response from Defra on the draft. Adoption of the plan will follow, providing that any concerns of Defra can be satisfactorily addressed.

  Health Implications

7.12 The air quality objectives have been set with regards to health, costs and feasibility. The main reasons for tackling poor air quality is the link between air quality and the quality of life and the need to minimise the risk of poor air quality to human health. Nitrogen dioxide is associated with increased respiratory problems. The levels at which the thresholds apply is not damaging to the health of the general population, although it can exacerbate existing conditions, such as asthma.

7.13 In addition to the air quality implications, traffic in Lyndhurst also has other impacts. One of the main issues for residents of Lyndhurst is the intrusiveness of traffic queuing and travelling through the village. The use of the High Street as an important traffic route is in distinct conflict with its character and function as a shopping and tourist centre.

7.14 Some of the footways in the village, especially Romsey Road and the upper part of the High Street (where it intersects with Bournemouth Road), are narrow and there is little offset from the traffic. This creates general access problems and a poor perception of safety for pedestrians, especially those accessing the primary school. The central section of the High Street is greatly improved since the footway widening in 2001 for noise, community severance and perceptions of safety.

7.15 The use of the High Street as an important traffic route is in distinct conflict with its character and function as a shopping and tourist centre. Some of the footways in the village, especially Romsey Road and the upper part of the High Street (where it intersects with Bournemouth Road), are narrow and there is little offset from the traffic. This creates general access problems and a poor perception of safety for pedestrians, especially those accessing the primary school. The central section of the High Street is greatly improved since the footway widening in 2001.

8 Legal and Planning Process (for highway schemes such as road building)

8.1 This section explains the legal and planning processes the County Council would have to undertake in promoting a major scheme for Lyndhurst, including how it would go about acquiring land. It is presented in a `Q&A' format.

8.2 Should the County Council wish to promote a new highway it should use the general statutory power enabling a local highway authority to construct a road contained principally in Part 3 of the Highways Act 1980. If the County Council were to follow some other method it would b necessary to take further specific legal advice.

8.3 The County Council would have to apply for planning permission to the New Forest National Park Authority since they are the planning authority for the National Park. Normally, the first stage would be the inclusion of such a new local road in the Local Development Framework for the area. If the New Forest National Park Authority considers the proposal to be a departure from the Development Plan then it must advertise the proposal in local newspapers and send a copy of the application to the Secretary of State. The Secretary of State has 21 days in which to decide whether to call in the application for decision but does not normally do so unless the proposal would have wide effects beyond its immediate locality or give rise to substantial regional and national controversy which may conflict with national policy or important matters.

8.4 In that event the New Forest National Park Authority would determine the matter and must take account of all material planning considerations including environmental matters. Having considered all material planning considerations the Authority would reach a decision to either grant planning permission with or without conditions or refuse to grant planning permission.

8.5 The County Council could consider whether to exercise its right of appeal which in the first instance is the Planning Inspectorate and there would then no doubt be a public inquiry.

8.6 If the application is called in a public inquiry must be held into the proposals. Once the inquiry has been held the Secretary of State can decide to grant planning permission with or without conditions or refuse planning permission.

8.7 The County Council could consider whether to seek a judicial review of the process or pursue a challenge under s288 of the Town and Country Planning Act as a "person aggrieved" by the decision wishing to question the validity of that decision (but this can only be done on narrow grounds e.g. that the decision is not within the power of the TCPA 1990, or that any relevant requirements have not been complied with).

8.8 The decision maker will take into account PPG 13 which explains that transport policies and proposals should be developed through the land use planning process. It will take account of the regional plan and the Local Development Framework relevant to the area. The decision maker will also take account of circular advice including that in circular 12/96 which explains that the policy on major developments in national parks applies to transport development. Government planning policy is that major developments should not take place in national parks save in exceptional circumstances because of the serious impact that major developments may have on their natural beauty. Therefore, application for such developments must be subject to the most vigorous examination and should be demonstrated to be in the public interest before being allowed to be pursued. The decision maker will consider an assessment of:-

8.9 The construction of a road comes within schedule 2 of the Environmental Impact Assessment Regulations if the area of the works exceeds one hectare. However, because the New Forest National Park is defined as a sensitive area the threshold criteria of exceeding one hectare does not apply and in fact all development for construction of a road in such a sensitive area will require to be screened for environmental impact assessment. It will be necessary in the screening process to judge whether the likely effect on the environment will be significant by virtue of size, nature or location. In addition, because of the environmental designations within the New Forest there will also need to be an "appropriate assessment" under the Habitat Regulations.

8.10 If the compulsory purchase of third party land is necessary to achieve a scheme the Highway Authority i.e. the County Council would need to make a compulsory purchase order under the Highways Act 1980 and the Acquisition of Land Act 1981. Such order would then be submitted to the Secretary of State at the Department of Transport's order making section for confirmation. These procedures involve giving public notice of the making of the compulsory purchase order by the Highway Authority and requesting that all objections be submitted to the Secretary of State. If there are any outstanding statutory objections the Secretary of State must hold an inquiry. If there are any other non-statutory objections then the Secretary of State may hold an inquiry if it is thought necessary.

8.11 There may be additional formalities if the land to be compulsorily acquired is common land. For example, if it is not possible to provide exchange land it would be necessary to go through Special Parliamentary Procedure which can involve significant delays to the process.

8.12 If it transpires that a compulsory purchase order is required which will affect a building in a conservation area then it would be necessary for the County Council to apply for Conservation Area Consent. This is because any building in a conservation area (although not a listed building) requires Conservation Area Consent for its demolition. It is likely that the Secretary of State for Transport would expect such Consent to have been obtained before confirming the compulsory purchase order.

8.13 The normal principle is that land which is vested in the Crown or held under a tenancy from the Crown is immune from compulsory acquisition.

8.14 There is an exception to this under the Highways Act (s327) which provides for the general application of the Act to Crown land with the consent of the appropriate Crown authority (and in the case of the Forestry Commission this would be DEFRA the relevant Government department). It would be necessary to agree with the "appropriate authority" that particular provisions in the Highway Act (including the compulsory purchase powers) apply to the Crown.

8.15 If the County Council require any land in the forest they may apply to the Verderers for their agreement to the transfer of the land to the Highway Authority. The Verderers should not unreasonably withhold their agreement and there is provision for arbitration if a dispute arises as to whether their agreement has been unreasonably withheld and that is contained within s17 of the New Forest Act 1949. The powers of the Verderers under the New Forest Acts 1877 to 1949 applies to the "perambulation" of the New Forest which is defined on plans deposited at the time the New Forest Act 1964 was being enacted.

8.16 If land in the forest were to be transferred to the Highway Authority under s17 of the New Forest Act 1949 then fencing is not permitted by s17(2). However, s3(6) says that "where the Verderers are satisfied that there is within the "perambulation" of the New Forest ... an unfenced or inadequately fenced source of danger to persons or animals they may with the consent of the Minister erect such fencing as will obviate the danger". However, of course, this is a power of the Verderers rather than a power of the Highway Authority itself.

8.17 Land within the Forest may also be subject to rights of common and the Commons Act 2006 may apply to prohibit the erection of fencing unless the County Council seek the consent of the Secretary of State. When granting such consent the Secretary of State shall have regard to:-

8.18 There may of course be other legal issues or considerations which have not yet become apparent. Formal legal advice would be required to ensure that future work is properly focussed on the correct procedures.

9 Major Scheme Funding Process

Schemes over £5 million

9.1 Generally, transport schemes costing over £5m are funded by the Government. The allocation of funding is based on advice received from the relevant regional body, in Hampshire's case from the South East England Regional Assembly (SEERA), although this is anticipated to transfer in due course to the Regional Development Agency SEEDA. The Department for Transport (DfT) state that the starting point for preparing a major scheme bid is to identify the problems to be addressed, and the objectives that the bid would support. The Eddington report, published in December 2006, confirms the importance of a strategic process to identify transport problems. 

9.2 It is important to start with current and future strategic priorities, and then generate a wide range of options covering different types of interventions or measures including all modes, infrastructure, regulation, pricing and other ways of influencing behaviour and consider all modes and then undertake a high level of assessment of these options. Only following this high level analysis should more detailed analysis be undertaken on specific options and detailed schemes.

9.3 At the current time the programme for the South East region is committed until 2016. Any submission or bid to SEERA for a major scheme for Lyndhurst could only be targeted at post 2016, whether or not it meets the funding criteria.

Intervention Forms and Regional Transportation Prioritisation Framework

9.4 In order for any bid to be prioritised a submission is required through an `Intervention Information Form' which enables the authority to present the scheme and suggest the policy issues to aims to address.

9.5 The general issues to be addressed in the form are as follows:

2008 Refresh of Regional Programme

9.6 In July 2007, the Secretary of State for Transport requested that the regions review their advice on setting regional priorities. New Government guidance is due to be released in late March (unavailable at the time of writing).

9.7 It is currently considered likely that the original criteria will be broadly retained, but that the prioritisation process will be amended to place greater emphasis on:

Schemes under £5million

9.8 Schemes under £5 million are usually funded from the integrated transport LTP block allocation. A scheme for Lyndhurst would therefore compete with other committed or planned schemes and have to be consistent with the overall LTP policy approach.

9.9 However, local authority schemes do not automatically need to be funded or approved by the Department as a Major Scheme if the gross cost is greater than £5m. Authorities are free to use their block allocations to fund schemes, either on their own, or alongside other sources of funding, without submitting schemes for approval by the Department.

9.10 If, in due course, a bid is made for measures in Lyndhurst then it will effectively be in competition with major scheme bids from other sources, including bids for motorway and rail investment. Ultimate success will be determined by the closeness of the match with the regional objectives and scoring criteria following the completion of the refresh. It should also be noted that a bid for Lyndhurst would be unlikely to be the County Council's only bid for major schemes funding.

1 It is standard practice for the County Council to survey traffic on `traffic neutral days' such as Tuesday's and Thursday's when flows are not affected by Monday and Friday peaks in the network.