THE LYNDHURST, EMERY DOWN & BANK

RESIDENTS' ASSOCIATION

59 The Meadows

Lyndhurst

Hants

SO43 7EJ

023 80 283895

October 2007

Philippa Smart, Scrutiny Team

Chief Executives Department

Elizabeth 11 Court

The Castle

Winchester SO23 8UJ

Dear Ms Smart

Lyndhurst Bypass

In response to Councillor Hutcheson's letter of 3^rd September, I would like to offer the following comments to the Committee. They are deliberately kept brief as I know that the Parish Council will be making a substantial representation.

1. What are the current traffic problems and highways issues in Lyndhurst?

1.1 We have frequent and substantial congestion on the A337 north and south bound, and on the A35 eastbound into the village. This is not confined to commuter rush hours and summer weekends but can be experienced on a daily basis for the majority of the year. The consequences range from frustration through economic cost on commercial traffic to potentially life threatening where emergency services vehicles are delayed.

1.2 The situation at the A35/A337 junction in the village is such that traffic sourced atmospheric pollution levels exceed acceptable limits and an air quality management area has been declared.

2. What are the possible solutions?

2.1 A variety of local traffic management measures have been proposed as part of the air quality action plan. It seems unlikely that any of these would reduce congestion overall, and some would be likely to increase the average time for through traffic to transit the village.

2.2 Measures to have any material effect on the capacity of the traffic light controlled junction of the A35/A337 would only be possible with the demolition of significant property. Though reducing congestion it is not clear that such measures would have a significant effect on atmospheric pollution.

2.3 Substantial diversion of traffic from the A337 south to use the A326 (Totton western bypass) or M271 would make better use of the A35 through Ashurst into the village. There would be safety and practical implications within Ashurst, with the number of roads meeting the A35 from the north. Measures such as intelligent signing on the M27 could produce some improvement, but only at the expense of our neighbours in Ashurst.

2.4 A north-south bypass, to the east of the village would allow essentially free flow of at least one half of the traffic currently passing through the village. By any measure in terms of traffic management this would be the one thing which would have the effect of dramatically reducing congestion in and around the village and pollution within the village centre.

3. Would a bypass be a viable and deliverable option?

3.1 The bypass route advocated by the Parish Council appears practical in terms of traffic management.

3.2 As far as we are aware there are no significant engineering problems associated with the proposal to include a `cut and cover' section to maintain the link between Bolton's Bench and the open forest to the east.

3.3 We therefore see no practical reasons why this option should not be deliverable and it has our full support.

4. Additional comments.

4.1 The greatest objections to the bypass proposal arise from the fact that it would require land currently designated as part of the New Forest, and therefore subject to various forms of environmental protection.

4.2 The Highways Agency has a good record for environmental sensitivity and the ability (where found necessary) to translocate habitats. Remember the Newbury snails.

4.3 Though a bypass would have some environmental consequences it must be remembered that the state of the New Forest is not set in aspic. The decision by the Forestry Commission to make a reversal in the proportion of broadleaved and coniferous planting on coming years is a case in point. The very act of managing the forest makes it an artificial and changing environment.

4.4 Whilst we accept that the case on traffic grounds does not have an automatic right to succeed, we equally believe that the scrutiny of a bypass must not be subject to an environmental veto from anybody.

4.5 The case for a bypass made in the 1980's was not rejected on grounds of lack of need, nor on environmental grounds. Our needs have increased and our ability to undertake such a project in an environmentally sensitive manner has improved since then.

4.6 The case for a Lyndhurst bypass should be considered in context. Despite reducing traffic volumes on the A31 from Winchester to Guildford, with the completion of the M3 and M27, both Alresford and Bentley have been bypassed. The costs and the benefits to a great many inhabitants of and visitors to south Hampshire of a Lyndhurst bypass deserve to be considered in direct comparison with similar analyses for Alresford and Bentley.

4.7 Much may be made of such legislation as the Habitats Directive. Lyndhurst is the temporary or permanent habitat for many people. It would seem perverse that human beings who brought the directive into being seem to be the one species who derive no benefit from it.

On behalf of the Association I would like to thank you for this opportunity to put forward our views.

Yours sincerely

Tony Herbert

Chairman