Archived decisions
Hampshire County Council Scrutiny Review: Prioritisation of a Lyndhurst Bypass
A response from the New Forest National Park Authority
1. Introduction
1.1 This paper sets out the New Forest National Park Authority's response to the Issues and Questions paper circulated by Cllr Peter Hutcheson as part of Hampshire County Council's Scrutiny Review of the Case for a Bypass for Lyndhurst. It responds to the specific questions raised, recognising that in some areas it will be for the Scrutiny Review itself to draw together the evidence base e.g. on traffic volumes and trends, frequency of congestion, the relative scale of the problem and so on. This paper is a contribution to the Scrutiny Review based on the information available at the present time, it is not a formal Authority position on a Lyndhurst By-pass.
1.2 The National Park Authority is responsible for ensuring the achievement of the two purposes of National Park designation, laid down in the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act (1949):
_ to conserve and enhance the natural beauty, wildlife and cultural heritage of the Park; and
_ to promote the understanding and enjoyment of its special qualities to the public;
and in pursuance of those purposes it has a duty to :
_ foster the social and economic well being of communities within the Park.
1.3 National park status is the highest level of countryside designation and is intended to ensure the strongest permanent protection for the future from increasing development pressures for housing and transport.
1.4 The National Park Authority is the local planning authority for the National Park which includes the village of Lyndhurst.
2. Question 1 : What are the current traffic problems and highway issues in Lyndhurst?
2.1 The current traffic-related issues in Lyndhurst appear mainly to centre on congestion and air quality.
Congestion
2.2 At certain times of the day and year the highway network in and around the village cannot cope effectively with the volume of traffic using it, leading to a build up of static or slow moving traffic on the approach roads and in the village. This is most apparent during the summer months when it is assumed that an increased number of visitors to the New Forest put additional pressure on the Lyndhurst highway network.
2.3 The traffic lights at the junction of the A35 and A337 combined with the volume, cause vehicles to queue back from this junction along the A337 towards Cadnam, the A35 and Shrubbs Hill Road.
2.4 In an attempt to avoid queuing on the approaches to Lyndhurst village centre, a network of alternative routes has become established and is well used by motorists who know of them. These alternative routes are often narrow with poor visibility, and are inappropriate for the volume of traffic attempting to circumvent the queues.
Air quality
2.5 Air quality issues caused by congestion in Lyndhurst led to the High Street area being declared an Air Quality Management Area in 2005. An Air Quality Management Plan is being prepared by New Forest District Council which will set out a range of options for improving air quality in the Area.
Other issues
2.6 Lyndhurst, and in particular it's High Street and village centre, is a popular visitor destination in it's own right, and home to the main Visitor Information Centre in the National Park. Enjoyment of Lyndhurst's special qualities is often undermined by the queuing or slow moving traffic and associated noise and air pollution.
2.7 Congestion in Lyndhurst also causes intermittent problems for public transport operators. A lack of bus priority provision can result in the Lymington - Southampton service number 56 queuing on the approaches to the village centre, resulting in failure to adhere to published timetables thus potentially damaging public confidence in the network. Furthermore Lyndhurst is not served by the rail network.
2.8 Being located in the heart of the New Forest, it is often assumed that Lyndhurst has good direct access to the traffic free cycle network in the New Forest. A cycle hire centre is located in the main village centre car park but customers have no choice but to use part of the main highway network in order to access the traffic free routes in the Forest.
2.9 The South East and South West Regional Spatial Strategies set out proposals to build some 110,000 new dwellings in Hampshire and South East Dorset up to 2026. It is possible that trip generation arising from these additional houses could add to traffic volumes in Lyndhurst, and the New Forest highway network as a whole, unless appropriate mitigation is taken. This additional trip generation might be in the form of `cross park' commuting traffic or recreation trips.
3. Question 2 : What are the possible solutions to these problems?
3.1 Possible solutions to the problems are listed below. None of the options have been subject to any technical or environmental assessment nor formally considered by the National Park Authority and are listed solely to contribute to the evidence gathering and this scoping exercise.
_ Improvements to the operating efficiency and geometry of the A35/A337 junction.
_ Intelligent routeing i.e. making motorists aware of alternative routes which avoid Lyndhurst, before they reach the congested locations.
_ Width restrictions.
_ Better enforcement of existing weight restrictions.
_ Additional weight restrictions, such as a blanket National Park restriction (with access exemptions).
_ Park and ride, both for Lyndhurst and for the New Forest.
_ Improvements to public transport.
_ Implementation of measures contained in the Lyndhurst Air Quality Management Plan.
_ Re-modelling the Lyndhurst highway network, such as:
- utilising both lanes of Shrubbs Hill Road for westbound traffic
- making Gosport Lane two ways, thus avoiding the volume of traffic using the High Street.
- Removing the traffic lights at the A35/A337 junction and making the A337 between Lyndhurst to Cadnam one way northbound.
_ Selected road closures.
_ Demand management measures aimed at making Lyndhurst less appealing for non-essential traffic, such as:
- reintroduction of stock animal grazing to Lyndhurst village, together with associated speed reduction measures which would encourage `cross park' commuters to use the alternative trunk road network
- road user charging.
_ Bypass options.
4. Question 3 : Of the range of possible solutions, would a bypass be a viable and deliverable option?
4.1 In the absence of any specific detailed bypass proposal, and the accompanying appropriate assessment, the Authority cannot form a view on whether a bypass would be a viable and deliverable option. It would however wish to draw to the Council's attention the range of issues which would need to be fully addressed in the decision making process which are set out below.
Environmental considerations
4.2 Any option would need to be assessed for its environmental impact in relation to local, national and international environmental law, planning policy and the National Park's special qualities. In addition to being within the New Forest National Park, Lyndhurst lies within a landscape whose habitats of high nature conservation value are heavily protected by a wide range of designations, some of which include:
_ National Park - National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949
_ New Forest Special Area of Conservation (SAC) - designated pursuant to the European Council Habitats Directive (92/43/EEC)
_ New Forest Special Protection Area (SPA) - classified under the European Council Birds Directive (79/409/EEC)
_ New Forest Ramsar Site - the Convention of Wetlands of International Importance
_ New Forest Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) - Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended)
_ Sites of Interest for Nature conservation (SINC) including Northerwood Inclosure SINC, and Cuffnell's Park SINC, classified due to the presence of ancient semi-natural woodland.
_ The New Forest Acts.
4.3 The landscape consequences of any proposals will have to be carefully evaluated especially in the context of the New Forest's National Park status which is the highest level of protection afforded to landscape in the UK. The UK, as a signatory to the Landscape Convention, has a duty and commitment to ensure it conserves its special landscapes. Concern for the adverse impacts of road development may constitute grounds for refusal and / or require significant mitigation measures if the proposals are deemed to be of over-riding national interest.
In particular, the integrity of the landscape around the village, including the landscape setting of the settlement, especially in the vicinity of Bolton's Bench would need to be considered; together with visual impacts of any new road on the specific landscape character of each part of the village.
4.4 In summary, the development of a bypass scheme in such an environmentally and ecologically sensitive context would need successfully to meet the strict tests laid down in relevant legislation - on which Natural England will also advise. The Panel will also need to take into account the County Council's own statutory responsibilities for designated sites and its duties to conserve biodiversity (i.e. Section 40 of the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006) and of course Section 62 of the Environment Act 1995 which requires it to take into account the impact of any decision on the National Park.
Test for major development proposals in National Parks
4.5 The government has issued specific guidance for assessing major development proposals in National Parks, which it recognises should only occur in exceptional circumstances. This guidance is set out in paragraph 49 of Department of Environment Circular 12/96 which states that:
"Government planning policy towards the National Parks, as well as the Broads and the New Forest, is that major development should not take place in these areas save in exceptional circumstances. Because of the serious impact that major developments may have on their natural beauty, applications for such developments must be subject to the most rigorous examination and should be demonstrated to be in the public interest before being allowed to proceed. Consideration of such applications should therefore normally include an assessment of:
_ the need for the development, in terms of national considerations, and the impact of permitting it or refusing it upon the local economy;
[_ the cost of, and scope for, developing elsewhere outside the area or meeting the need for it in some other way;]
_ any detrimental effect on the environment and the landscape, and the extent to which it should be moderated".
4.6 It is also set out in paragraph 22 of Planning Policy Statement 7
(PPS7) which states that:
"major developments should not take place in these designated areas, except in exceptional circumstances. This policy includes major development proposals that raise issues of national significance. Because of the serious impact that major developments may have on these areas of natural beauty, and taking account of the recreational opportunities that they provide, applications for all such developments should be subject to the most rigorous examination. Major development proposals should be demonstrated to be in the public interest before being allowed to proceed.
Consideration of such applications should therefore include an assessment of:" . the Statement then replicates the criteria listed at paragraph 4.5 above.
4.7 Broadly, the advice in Circular 12/96 and PPS7 is the same, with PPS7 representing the most up to date expression of government policy on this matter. The test for major development in National Parks comprises two elements, both of which must be satisfied. These are whether exceptional circumstances exist and whether the proposals can be demonstrated to be in the public interest. In assessing whether this is the case a number of factors should be assessed including need in terms of national considerations, the scope for meeting the need for the development in some other way and the extent to which any detrimental effects on the landscape can be moderated.
4.8 This test is rightly a demanding one in view of the highest status of protection afforded to National Parks in terms of landscape and scenic beauty.
Current transport policy
4.9 The Department for Transport (DfT) has recently published guidance to Local Authorities which are seeking funding for major transport schemes.
4.10 This states that in taking forward road schemes it is important that it has been clearly demonstrated that a new road is the required solution to the transport problem, and that the full range of alternative options, including demand management measures, have been assessed.
4.11 It also states that to qualify for major scheme funding, a scheme must:
_ be promoted by a Local Transport Plan Authority, i.e. Hampshire County Council
_ have been prioritised by the appropriate regional bodies within the relevant Regional Funding Allocation
_ be supportive of, and aligned with, the Hampshire County Council Local Transport Plan.
_ be supported by a local contribution of at least 10% of the total scheme cost.
4.12 When referring to a Lyndhurst bypass (para 7.99), Hampshire County Council's Local Transport Plan (2006-2010) states that `a scheme of this nature will not be approached within the scope of this Plan. The investigation of a bypass will remain part of the long term strategy for Lyndhurst.'
4.13 When referring to the New Forest National Park, the Plan states (para 3.178) that "An understanding of landscape character, diversity, and sensitivity informs transport planning decisions. This includes decisions made at the national, regional and sub regional scale for large transport schemes."
4.14 As described in sections 4.5 and 4.6, it would need to be demonstrated that the scheme was in the overriding public interest. The Government recognises that overriding public interest could only be considered in exceptional circumstances, however examples include:
_ serious risk to human health and public safety
_ national security
_ clear and direct environmental benefit on a national or international scale
_ failure to proceed would have unacceptable social and/or economic consequences.
The Department of Environment Circular 125/77 - roads and traffic in National Parks
4.15 Despite its 30 year shelf life, DoE Circular 125/77 remains extant and contains a transport-specific expression of the test for major development proposals in National Parks. Paragraph 10 of the Circular states that :
"where there is a compelling need for some solution to be found to the problem of increased through traffic, or to problems of road safety in a National Park, a determined search should be made for alternatives which do not involve upgrading the existing route or new construction. These latter solutions should be adopted only if reasonable alternatives can be shown to be unavailable, and then only with all practicable measures for mitigating the effects on the natural beauty and amenity of the surrounding landscape, in view of its national importance".
4.16 Thus in order for a bypass to be considered acceptable in terms of the government policy set out in this circular, the following must be demonstrated:
_ a compelling need
_ a determined search for alternatives to upgrading or new construction has been made
_ reasonable alternatives have been shown to be unavailable
_ all practicable measures for mitigation are in place.
Implications for the wider New Forest highway network
4.17 Careful consideration should be given to the implications of the bypass on the wider New Forest highway network, and this should be modelled at the earliest opportunity.
4.18 The delivery of a Lyndhurst by-pass may simply shift `the problem' to nearby communities. For example, should traffic be able to bypass Lyndhurst more efficiently, Brockenhurst and other neighbouring communities may see an increase in traffic and the associated problems of congestion and poor air quality. In Brockenhurst the impact of the level crossing is in many ways comparable with the traffic lights in Lyndhurst.
New Forest National Park Authority
11 October 2007