The presentation on the PC Route was well received by many in the audience of around 80 delegates and praised as “excellent” by some councillors from other parishes.
We argued that the conservation designations affecting the land around Lyndhurst were blanket designations covering large areas of the Forest and that our case rested on the lack of evidence for actual significant harm to the area affected by our route which does not traverse land of the highest ecological value - details on our website at http://www.lyndhurstparishcouncil.org.uk/
We maintained that our route is a good compromise, taking only 0.02% of the Special Area for Conservation, and that by restoring the heathland on top of our proposed tunnel it would be effective in preserving the Open Forest around our village.
However, it was followed by a presentation from Natural England which stressed the strict and exceptional tests that would be applied under the European Habitats Directive regulations and the likely negative response of the Planning Inspectorate.
In discussion the Verderers also expressed their opposition and their views were described as “paramount” by our own County Councillor and leader of New Forest District Council, Mel Kendal.
In his summing up Councillor Ken Thornber put forward detailed proposals, now contained in his statement, for ongoing procedures aimed at alleviating the Lyndhurst problem, which itself is acknowledged to have repercussions Forest-wide.
The Council wish to limit their comments at this stage to just two points:
1. All matters relating to bypass routes have already been aired ad nauseam. We do not feel that the HAT mentioned by Councillor Thornber would be able to come up with any really new ideas.
The PC Route is the result of a long distillation process and is the only route local to Lyndhurst that can gain the majority support of residents.
2. Any route proposed that is closer to the village or through the village will be totally unacceptable to village people.
Inner routes have been considered and decisively rejected before now, by the 1983 Public Inquiry inspector’s report and by the 1987 report of the House of Lords.
We decline Councillor Thornber’s invitation metaphorically to cut our own throats by proposing such a route.
If we are denied the chance of having the extensively researched and publicised Parish Council Route then most people in Lyndhurst would put up with the present situation, alleviated as far as is possible by the traffic management measures proposed by the County Council.
23 January 2007. |
