Hampshire County Council

Environment and Transportation Select Committee

Report of the Lyndhurst bypass scrutiny review

31 January 2008

Table of Contents

Section Page

Foreword 3

Executive Summary 4

Introduction 8

Terms of Reference 8

Review Organisation 9

Findings of the Review:

- Current traffic problems and highway issues in Lyndhurst 9

- Possible solutions to Lyndhurst's problems 15

- Viability and deliverability of a bypass option 19

Conclusions 28

Recommendations 30

Appendices:

Appendix One: Those contributing to the review

Appendix Two: Programme for the oral evidence meeting in public

Appendix Three: Background documents

Further information regarding this report can be obtained from:

Lead Review Officer: Philippa Smart

Reports that have been submitted to Council can be downloaded from: http://www3.hants.gov.uk/scrutiny/scrutiny-committees/environment-transportation/cx-policyunitlyndhurstbypass.htm

LYNDHURST BYPASS SCRUTINY REVIEW REPORT

December 2007

Foreword

By Councillor Peter Hutcheson,

Chairman, Environment and Transportation Select Committee

Congestion has been a long standing issue for the residents of Lyndhurst, and for the greater number of people who both visit and pass through this delightful `capital of the New Forest'.

Hampshire County Council has worked with partner agencies and the public over the years to put in place traffic solutions that would relieve the congested roads, and some of these have had good effect. The desire for a bypass to route traffic that does not need to come into Lyndhurst away from the village has been a constant theme of local discussion and led to the promotion of a Bill in Parliament in the 1980s. Following the demise of that Bill, other measures have been pursued, and further local dialogue has resulted in additional improvements.

However, the strength of feeling for further consideration of a bypass has never gone away. Accordingly, Hampshire County Council's Environment and Transportation Select Committee welcomed the opportunity to include this in its work programme for 2007/08.

Ultimately, there are many people in Hampshire, as well as visitors to that part of the county, who have an interest in the outcome of this scrutiny, as well as the outcome of the ongoing work led by the Hampshire County Council Environment Department in its work as Highways Authority. We hope that our review group deliberations will be accepted as a contribution to identifying the right steps for the future.

LYNDHURST BYPASS SCRUTINY REVIEW REPORT

Executive Summary

Background

1.1 This scrutiny review, which was set up as part of the Environment and

1.2 The scrutiny was carried out against a lengthy history of discussions about a

bypass solution for Lyndhurst's problems

1.3 The purpose of the review was to arrive at a view about whether or not to

1.4 The review group set its objectives through posing three questions:

Conclusions

1.5 Considerable information came to the review group's attention regarding the

1.6 The review group recognises and sympathises with the traffic and highways

issues encountered by Lyndhurst residents as well as other drivers passing

through the village. However, from the evidence received, it inclines to the

view that these are in many ways intrinsically connected to those of

neighbouring villages and, indeed, to those of the New Forest as a whole, and

therefore need to be understood in that context.

1.7 The group is also convinced that air quality must be given equal weight to that

of congestion. Any measures to tackle the latter must be capable of addressing

the former, in particular, by keeping the traffic free flowing along the High

Street and the substantial removal of HGVs from the worst affected areas.

1.8 With regard to possible solutions to Lyndhurst's problems, these appeared to

1.9 The level of detail varied in relation to the possible solutions, as might be expected. The opinion formed by the end of the review was that detailed identification of both bypass options and non bypass options had been undertaken, though this information only became available towards the conclusion of the review. These options now need to be fully explored with local people.

1.10 Although the focus of the review was on the merits of a bypass solution, the review group came to the view that there were further opportunities to explore the scope for building on the work undertaken by Hampshire County Council in the 1990s. There was also a wish for short term measures to be put in place, for example to deal with the problems associated with HGVs in the village.

1.11 All the Lyndhurst focused bypass options made known to the review had been subject to a rigorous assessment against local criteria, cost and Department of Transport objectives. No evidence was received to suggest that similar work was underway or had been carried out with regard to a New Forest wide bypass solution.

1.12 While there appear to be no obvious design feasibility barriers, the review group are concerned that the costs of some of the bypass options, including the Lyndhurst Parish Council option, are too high in relation to the benefits.

1.13 The review group noted that regional and national transport policy required that additional highway capacity should only be promoted when all other options had been exhausted. From evidence received it is apparent that a number of non bypass solutions are available and therefore should be pursued.

1.14 In terms of the Regional Transport Board prioritisation methodology, the group could not envisage that a bypass would score highly in terms of policy compatibility with key regional strategies.

1.15 The nature of the environmental constraints are considerable for any bypass solution given that they would impact on one, or more than one, type of designated site. The pathway through an Appropriate Assessment under the European Union Habitats Directive, for example, is stringent, and it is the conclusion of the review group that a bypass solution would be likely to fall under this Assessment. In addition, the group believes that National Park requirements in relation to the public interest and the exploration of alternatives, as well as the Verderer power of veto over this type of development under the New Forest Acts, would also work against a bypass solution.

1.16 The review group cannot support additional road development, as outlined in the New Forest wide bypass proposal, in the light of background research that suggests that more road space generates extra traffic. The affordability and environmental considerations would present insurmountable problems.

1.17 Taking account of the above points, particularly those in para 1.15, the review group's conclusion is that they could not recommend to Hampshire County Council Cabinet that a bypass solution be prioritised as a major scheme bid to the Regional Transport Board in 2008. The review group does not believe that, at this point in time, it is possible to demonstrate that the stringent criteria relating to planning, the environment and legislation can be met. Key reasons for this include:

1.18 Finally, in addition to advising against the prioritisation of a bypass for Lyndhurst the review group supports the implementation of various short term measures, as well as the further exploration of the non bypass options prioritised in the Hampshire County Council/Mott Gifford Transport Study Report 2007.

Recommendations

A Hampshire County Council should exercise whatever influence it can,

either in its own right, or in partnership with other County Councils, to

ensure that manufacturers of satellite navigation systems include road

restriction information.

B Given current information from Lyndhurst traffic surveys that a large percentage of vehicles are local as opposed to through traffic, the review group would wish to see exploratory work on the potential for smarter travel choices in Lyndhurst reducing the need to travel by private car.

C As a short term measure, Hampshire County Council should seek the cooperation of the Highways Agency to make the signage on the M27 and at Cadnam directed at Heavy Goods Vehicles more explicit regarding restrictions on accessing Lyndhurst, except for lorries making local deliveries.

D Hampshire County Council should use its influence, together with partners, to support a review of the level of penalty fine for HGVs contravening the lorry restrictions to enhance its effect, and to ensure greater efforts are made by the police to enforce the restrictions.

E Hampshire County Council should put in place a communication plan which would make it clear to people what information they can expect to receive at different stages of the work to resolve Lyndhurst's traffic problems, and how they can contribute to and inform this process.

F Outcomes from the planned Hampshire County Council led local engagement, and the further consideration of options identified in the 2007 Study Report should be communicated to the Environment and Transportation Select Committee in summer 2008 as part of the scrutiny monitoring work of the committee.

G The review group recommends further trialling of the use of variable message signs on the M27 to direct drivers away from congestion hot spots in the New Forest such as Lyndhurst and routeing tourists to park and ride pick up points for the New Forest open top tourist bus.

H Hampshire County Council should prioritise New Forest wide approaches to traffic management with a view to known hot-spots such as Lyndhurst benefiting from such measures.

I In the light of viability and deliverability issues examined, the review group could not support the prioritisation of either a Lyndhurst focused bypass or a New Forest wide bypass at the present time. Concerns are those connected with the costs over benefits, as well as those relating to environmental impacts, given the stringent tests associated with an Appropriate Assessment under the Habitat Regulations, the potential adverse effects identified and the range of alternative measures that would be likely to have lesser environmental effect than a bypass, and have yet to be tested.

J The group supports the further exploration of the two package options and the lower cost option of demand management measures, such as junction improvements, one way system revisions etc. in the village, as identified by Hampshire County Council/Mott Gifford. (See page 17)

1. Introduction

1. 1 At the 5 April 2007 meeting of the Environment and Transportation Select

Committee, the traffic and highways issues of Lyndhurst was adopted as a

subject for scrutiny review.

1.2 The immediate background to the review was the identification of the topic by those attending a New Forest Transport Seminar in Beaulieu in 2006. Prior to the Seminar, the idea of a bypass as a possible solution for Lyndhurst's congestion problems had received attention from a sub group of the New Forest Transport Strategy Panel. This Panel had considered a range of traffic management and road based solutions for Lyndhurst, but had issued a statement in 2006 saying that a Lyndhurst bypass was not deliverable. Local debate continued on the topic, voiced in particular by Lyndhurst Parish Council. In order to respond to the strength of local opinion, the Leader of Hampshire County Council decided to refer the matter to the Environment and Transportation Select Committee for a scrutiny review of the case for a bypass in Lyndhurst. The decision identified for scrutiny to influence was whether Hampshire County Council would prioritise a bypass proposal in the list of major schemes to be submitted to the Regional Transport Board in 2008.

1.3 The scrutiny was carried out against a lengthy history of discussions about a bypass solution for Lyndhurst's problems. The review group was advised that such an idea was first mooted a hundred years earlier; a more recent chronology, dating from the 1950s was available to the review, and this included information about bypass routes identified in public consultations carried out by Hampshire County Council in the 1980s which preceded a Private Bill to Parliament in 1987. That Bill, having been rejected by the House of Commons Select Committee in 1988, was not followed by any further initiative led by Hampshire County Council to pursue a bypass option.

2. Terms of Reference

2.1 Purpose:

2.2 The review group set its objectives through posing three questions:

3. Review Organisation

3.1 Cllr Peter Hutcheson agreed to lead the scrutiny review group. The full

membership was:

3.2 The review group held its first meeting on the 31 July 2007, where it agreed

the project plan for the review, received initial background information and

began work on identifying key stakeholders.

3.3 The evidence was received in a select committee style review, which included evidence gathering through:

In addition, the group familiarised itself, first hand, with the road layout in the

village.

4. Findings of The Review Group

4.1 Current traffic problems and highways issues in Lyndhurst

4.1.1 The review posed the question of `what are the current traffic and highway issues in Lyndhurst?'

4.1.2 Written and oral evidence received provided information to the review from a variety of stakeholders, including local authorities, other statutory agencies, residents groups and members of the public, including a MORI residents' public opinion survey carried out in November 2007. Salient issues considered by the review group based on evidence received are:

e) Severe congestion

Comments

4.2 Possible Solutions to Lyndhurst's problems

4.2.1 The question considered by the review group was - `what are the possible solutions to the current traffic and highway issues in Lyndhurst?'

4.2.2 The review group was provided with a number of ideas for solving the village's problems, as perceived by the respondents, in both written and oral evidence. These ranged from solutions that were specifically Lyndhurst focused, to those that were much broader, encompassing other parts of the New Forest.

4.2.3 In addition, detailed options for relieving Lyndhurst's traffic issues and congestion was provided by Hampshire County Council/Mott Gifford in the `Lyndhurst Transport Study Report' December 2007.

4.2.4 The level of detail of the various solutions put forward varied considerably, as would be expected. The review group has given equal attention to the less detailed and the more detailed ideas, recognising that brief contributions, received from individual members of the public for example, are valuable in that they originate from people's experience of living in or near to the traffic problems.

Lyndhurst focused solutions

4.2.5 Solutions that had been developed to any level of detail were the various bypass routes, as contributed by Lyndhurst Parish Council and Hampshire County Council/Mot Gifford, demand management options and packages of options. In addition, an outline idea for a New Forest wide bypass option was submitted by Brockenhurst Parish Council.

a) Lyndhurst bypass options

The Lyndhurst Parish Council route is an outer eastern route, being a two mile diversion of the A337 to the east of Lyndhurst, rejoining the A337 south of Lyndhurst, close to Goose Green. This option includes a cut and cover tunnel to minimise the impact on high quality landscape, with a number of animal underpasses and farm bridges.

In the Hampshire County Council/Mott Gifford report, the bypass options originally consisted of six outer eastern routes, including the Lyndhurst Parish Council option, ten inner eastern, 4 inner western, an outer western option, and four ¾ options. These had been narrowed down to five best performing bypass options. The Lyndhurst Parish Council route was not included in these.

(i) an outer eastern route

(ii) an inner eastern route

(iii) an inner western route

(iv) a ¾ option comprising inner east and outer west links

(v) a ¾ option comprising inner west and inner east links

Fifty four per cent of the MORI survey respondents were familiar with the idea of a bypass scheme passing away from the village and a similar percentage with a bypass separated from but running fairly close to the edge of the village. More people supported the idea of the latter than the former, but a clear proportion of people would be opposed to both as a scheme for Lyndhurst.

b) New Forest wide option - Brockenhurst Parish Council

Brockenhurst Parish council are of the opinion that, `it is unlikely that a series of small bypass solutions along the A35/A337 route will resolve the long-term problem'. They have however, highlighted three possible alternative routes for forest-wide options.

(i) Ashurst to Brockenhurst, running parallel to the railway line.

(ii) A route west of Brockenhurst to Picket Post, using much of the disused

Brockenhurst to Ringwood railway line.

(iii) A modification of the above idea - a route to Picket Post from Lymington.

c) Non bypass options

Various non bypass possible options for Lyndhurst were outlined by Hampshire County Council/Mott Gifford:

Three junction modification options were appraised as likely to have slight beneficial as opposed to neutral or adverse impact outcomes: High Street/A337 Romsey Road, Gosport Lane two way, Gosport Lane two way and signalling at Shrubbs Hill/High Street.

As well as stand- alone demand management options above, the review received information from the same source about possible packages of options comprising of road provision combined with traffic management measures. A new link road would be an integral part of any such package; only a link that had featured as part of the recommended best performing bypass options was included.

Two packages were identified -

(i) a north western link road away from the village, with demand management measures: closure of the High Street, modifications to the one-way system and relocation of the village car park

(ii) a north eastern link road close to the village, with closure of the High Street,

modifications to the one-way system, and relocation of the car park

Both link roads would lead to impacts on and loss of internationally designated natural habitat, the north western link more so than the north eastern link. Although these packages would involve slightly more loss of land than the stand-alone demand management options, they would still provide the necessary air quality improvements to the High Street. No buildings are expected to be lost as junction improvements could be more easily accommodated in the existing highway. They would require a higher level of land take than the stand-alone demand management options, and would result in significant adverse landscape impact.

Other key demand management measures which would be part of any Hampshire County Council/Mott Gifford solution would be:

Comments

4.3 Viability and deliverability of a bypass option for Lyndhurst

4.3.1 The third question that the scrutiny review group members posed at the outset

of the review was:

Of the range of possible solutions to Lyndhurst's traffic and highways

issues, would a bypass be a viable and deliverable option ?

Viability

4.3.2 In its deliberations, the group took `viability' to refer to the bypass being able to be put in place; constraints would be those intrinsic to the project such as affordability and design feasibility.

4.3.2.1 With regard to Lyndhurst focused bypass options, some estimations of costs

were provided by Hampshire County Council/Mott Gifford for the five best

performing routes ranging from £7m to £16.5m (plus development and

process costs). As their work had also included the Lyndhurst Parish Council

proposal, costs had been estimated for that option as well and were given as

£51.4m with a tunnel and £18.9m with a land bridge. No cost data was

available from any sources in relation to the New Forest bypass routes.

4.3.2.2 No funding has been identified within Hampshire County Council capital

programmes for a bypass scheme; reliance would be on securing funding from

regional government for schemes in excess of £5m. The Regional Transport

Board has allocated all its funds up to 2016.

4.3.2.3 Evidence of detailed design was not available for possible Lyndhurst

bypass routes. Certain engineering considerations such as carriageway

standards, assumptions about junctions where existing roads would meet

the bypass, and the provision of a tunnel or a land bridge for any option were

described in the Hampshire County Council/Mott Gifford report. Costs and

major engineering constraints were identified for a tunnel, for example

associated with the likelihood that its construction would be below the level of

the ground water table. However, no insurmountable design difficulties were

identified at this stage.

4.3.2.4 Estimates of the cost of an Appropriate Assessment under conservation

regulations ranged from £235,000 to £1m.

Comments

Deliverability

4.3.4 `Deliverability' was taken as referring to any scheme being seen through from start to finish; constraints here would be those contexts that would affect the progression of a bypass, such as legislative and regulatory contexts.

4.3.5 The review group, through background research in the preparatory stage of the review, became aware of the various constraints affecting a bypass solution: planning, legislative, environmental, policy, as well as those specific to the New Forest such as the Verderers Court. Within the time and resourcing available to the review, the members focused their attention on policy and environmental constraints.

4.3.6 Alignment with national, regional and local policy

4.3.6.1 National policy

a) national transport policy

Background research and written and oral evidence made mention of :

Comments

b) National Park Policy

Written and oral evidence made reference to the fact that:

Comments

4.3.6.2 Regional policy

Background research and written evidence made reference to:

Comments

be promoted when all other options had been exhausted. From evidence

received from a number of contributors, it is apparent to the review group that

a number of non bypass options could be pursued.

4.3.6.3 Alignment with local policy

Background research and written evidence made reference to:

Comments

4.3.7 Environmental impacts

4.3.7.1 Background research, written and oral evidence made reference to:

4.3.7.7 The review was interested to learn that research was being undertaken

systems. While preliminary findings were showing there to be hot

Comments

improvements, one way system revisions etc. in the village, as identified by

Hampshire County Council/Mott Gifford (See page 17)

5 Conclusions

5.1 The key questions the review sought answers to were:

5.2 Considerable information came to the review group's attention regarding the

5.3 The review group recognises and sympathises with the traffic and highways

issues encountered by Lyndhurst residents as well as other drivers passing

through the village. However, from the evidence received, it inclines to the

view that these are in many ways intrinsically connected to those of

neighbouring villages and, indeed, to those of the new Forest as a whole, and

therefore need to be understood in that context.

5.4 The group is also convinced that air quality must be given equal weight to that

of congestion. Any measures to tackle the latter must be capable of addressing

the former, in particular, by keeping the traffic free flowing along the High

Street and the substantial removal of HGVs from the worst affected areas.

5.5 With regard to possible solutions to Lyndhurst's problems, these appeared to

5.6 The level of detail varied in relation to the possible solutions, as might be expected. The opinion formed by the end of the review was that detailed identification of both bypass options and non bypass options had been undertaken, though this information only became available towards the end of the review. These options now need to be fully explored with local people.

5.7 Although the focus of the review was on the merits of a bypass solution, the review group developed a concern that there were further opportunities to explore the scope for building on the work undertaken by Hampshire County Council in the 1990s. There was also a wish for short term measures to be put in place, for example to deal with the problems associated with HGVs in the village.

5.8 All the Lyndhurst focused bypass options made known to the review had been subject to a rigorous assessment against local criteria, cost and Department of Transport objectives. No evidence was received to suggest that similar work was underway or had been carried out with regard to a New Forest wide bypass solution.

5.10 While there appear to be no obvious design feasibility barriers, the review group are concerned that the costs of some of the bypass options, including the Lyndhurst Parish Council option, are too high in relation to the benefits.

5.11 The review group noted that regional and national transport policy required that additional highway capacity should only be promoted when all other options had been exhausted. From evidence received it is apparent that a number of non bypass solutions are available and therefore should be pursued.

5.12 In terms of the Regional Transport Board prioritisation methodology, the group could not envisage that a bypass would score highly in terms of policy compatibility with key regional strategies.

5.13 The review group cannot support additional road development, as outlined in the New Forest wide bypass proposal, in the light of background research that suggests that more road space generates extra traffic. The affordability and environmental considerations of such schemes would present insurmountable problems.

5.14 The nature of the environmental constraints are considerable for any bypass solution given that they would impact on one, or more than one, type of designated site. The pathway through an Appropriate Assessment under the EU Habitats Directive, for example, is stringent, and it is the conclusion of the review group that a bypass solution would be likely to fall under this Assessment. In addition, the group believes that National Park requirements in relation to the public interest and the exploration of alternatives, as well as the Verderer power of veto over this type of development under the New Forest Acts, would also work against a bypass solution.

5.15 The review group's conclusion is that they could not recommend to Hampshire County Council Cabinet that a bypass solution be prioritised as a major scheme bid to the Regional Transport Board in 2008. The review group does not believe that, at this point in time, it is possible to demonstrate that the stringent criteria relating to planning, environment and legislation can be met. Key reasons for this include:

5.16 Finally, in addition to advising against the prioritisation of a bypass for Lyndhurst, the review group supports the implementation of various short term measures, as well as the further exploration of the non bypass options prioritised in the Hampshire County Council/Mott Gifford Transport Study Report 2007.

6 Recommendations

A Hampshire County Council should exercise whatever influence it can,

either in its own right, or in partnership with other County Councils, to

ensure that manufacturers of satellite navigation systems include road

restriction information.

B Given current information from Lyndhurst traffic surveys about a large percentage of vehicles being local as opposed to through traffic, the review group would wish to see exploratory work on the potential for smarter travel choices in Lyndhurst reducing the need to travel by private car.

C As a short term measure, Hampshire County Council should seek the cooperation of the Highways Agency to make the signage on the M27 and at Cadnam directed at Heavy Goods Vehicles more explicit regarding restrictions on accessing Lyndhurst, except for lorries making local deliveries.

D Hampshire County Council should use its influence, together with partners, to support a review of the level of penalty fine for HGVs contravening the lorry restrictions to enhance its effect, and to ensure greater efforts are made by the police to enforce the restrictions.

E Hampshire County Council should put in place a communication plan which would make it clear to people what information they can expect to receive at different stages of the work to resolve Lyndhurst's traffic problems, and how they can contribute to and inform this process.

F Outcomes from the planned Hampshire County Council led local engagement, and the further consideration of options identified in the 2007 Study Report, should be communicated to the Environment and Transportation Select Committee in summer 2008 as part of the scrutiny monitoring work of the committee.

G The review group recommends further trialling of the use of variable message signs on the M27 to direct drivers away from congestion hot spots in the New Forest such as Lyndhurst and routeing tourists to park and ride pick up points for the New Forest open top tourist bus.

H Hampshire County Council should prioritise New Forest wide approaches to traffic management with a view to known hot-spots such as Lyndhurst benefiting from such measures.

I In the light of viability and deliverability issues examined, the review group could not support the prioritisation of either a Lyndhurst focused bypass or a new Forest wide bypass at the present time. Concerns are those connected with the costs over benefits, as well as those relating to environmental impacts, given the stringent tests associated with an Appropriate Assessment under the Habitats Regulations, the potential adverse effects identified and the range of alternative measures that would be likely to have lesser environmental effect than a bypass, and have yet to be tested.

J The group supports the further exploration of the two package options and the lower cost option of demand management measures, such as junction improvements, one way system revisions etc. in the village, as identified by Hampshire County Council/Mott Gifford. (See page 17)

Appendix One - Those contributing to the Review

Appendix Two - Programme for oral evidence meeting in public

Appendix Three - Background Documents

Appendix One: Those Contributing to the Review

Stakeholder group

Organisation

Local Authority:

Brockenhurst Parish Council

Copythorne Parish Council

Hampshire County Council

Lyndhurst Parish Council

Minstead Parish Council

New Forest District Council

Statutory Agencies

Hampshire Constabulary

Hampshire Fire and Rescue

Health Protection Unit

Natural England

New Forest National park

Verderers of the New Forest

Residents Groups

Friends of Brockenhurst

Lyndhurst, Emery Down and Bank Residents

Business Groups

Lyndhurst Chamber of Trade

Other Interest Groups

Council for National Parks

Lyndhurst Area Plan Steering Group

New Forest Association

New Forest Tourism Association

New Forest Transport Community Action Network

Public Representative

Member of Parliament

Bypass Interest Groups

New Forest Friends of the Earth

Members of the Public

Appendix Two : Programme for the oral evidence meeting in public

HAMPSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL

ENVIRONMENT AND TRANSPORTATION SELECT COMMITTEE

SCRUTINY REVIEW: PRIORITISATION OF A LYNDHURST BYPASS

Select Committee style meeting, Monday, 5 November 2007

Lyndhurst Community Centre, 10.00 to 4.00pm

Agenda

Focus: Of the range of possible solutions to the traffic and highway issues in

Lyndhurst, could a bypass be a viable and deliverable option ?

Time

Line of Enquiry

Written evidence

10.00 - 11.00

Current traffic problems and highways issues in Lyndhurst

Witnesses:

    - Cllr. Pat Wyeth, Nick Hunt, New Forest District Council

    - John Charlesworth, Lyndhurst Parish Council

    - Residents views:

      a) Trevor English, Chairman, Lyndhurst

      Chamber Of Trade

    b) Tony Herbert, Chairman, Lyndhurst

    Residents Association

Appendix One

Appendix Two

Appendix Three

Appendix Four

11.00 - 12.00

The range of bypass solutions and other options for Lyndhurst

Witnesses:

    - John Charlesworth, Lyndhurst Parish Council

    - Brockenhurst Parish Council

Appendix Two

Appendix Five

12.00 - 12.15

Witness:

    - Oliver Crossthwaite - Eyre, Verderers of the New Forest

Appendix Six

12.15 - 1.00

LUNCH

1.00 - 1.30

Witness:

    - Cllr M Kendal, Executive Member for the Environment

1.30 - 2.30

Acceptability of a bypass: environmental impacts on Lyndhurst and surrounding areas

    a) air quality b) quality of life

    c) noise d) economy

Witnesses:

    - John Charlesworth, Lyndhurst Parish Council

    - Carole Gallagher, New Forest District Council

    - Deb Ingram, South Central Ambulance Service

    - Residents views:

      a) Trevor English, Chairman, Lyndhurst Chamber of Trade

      b) Tony Herbert, Chairman, Lyndhurst Residents Association

Appendix Two

Appendix One

Appendix Three

Appendix Four

2.30 - 3.15

Impacts unique to the New Forest

Witnesses:

    - Rachel Green, Natural England, Judy Halpin, Hampshire County Council

    - Stephen Trotter, New Forest National Park Authority

Appendix Seven

Appendix Eight

3.15 - 3.55

Current Traffic problems and highways issues in Lyndhurst, and improvements

Witnesses:

    - Stuart Jarvis and Hannah Baker, Hampshire County Council

3.55 - 4.00

Close of meeting

Appendix Three: Background Documents

Hampshire documents

Lyndhurst Air Quality Action Plan, consultation document May - August 2007

Minutes of the Planning and Transportation Committee of Hampshire County

Council, 11 September 1995

Officers Report and Minutes of the Planning and Transportation Committee of

Hampshire County Council, 12 September 1988

Hampshire County Council Lyndhurst Bypass Consultation Leaflet, 1982

The New Forest, precious wilderness or...suburban park ? The Verderers of the

New Forest. September 2007

Regional documents

South East England Regional Transport Board, Prioritisation Methodology -

Guidance Note Version 1.0

Annexe 2 - National, Inter-Regional and Regionally Significant Infrastructure - of

the South East Plan Implementation Plan

National documents

House of Commons Special Report from the Committee on the Hampshire

(Lyndhurst Bypass) Bill (Lords) July 1988

Other documents

Briefing Note on national and regional policies as they affect major road schemes. Prof. J.Preston. November 2007

New Forest Notes. April 2007. How to Build a Lyndhurst Bypass. A.Passmore

Lyndhurst Bypass Scrutiny - bypass research summary paper. August 2007

Lyndhurst Bypass Scrutiny - Strategy and Issues background paper. July 2007

Habitats Regulations and International Sites. T.Cosgrove. August 2007

Summary of the Special Report from the Committee on The Hampshire (Lyndhurst Bypass) Bill (Lords) 1987 - 1988. November 2007

Habitat Designations maps. August 2007

Lyndhurst Issues and Questions Paper - Summary of Responses. October 2007

Better than Bypasses. Friends of the Earth. 1997

The Impact of the Okehampton Bypass. Transport Research Laboratory Report 268. RAC Foundation for Motoring and the Environment. 1997