The recommendations of the Scrutiny Review Panel and the Director of Environment were put to a meeting of the Association, attended by some 300 people, on 27th March 2008.
The recommendations are set out below with the responses offered from the chair. These responses were all accepted overwhelmingly by the meeting.
1. 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.
We would endorse this proposal, though it would take a long time to take effect.
2. 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.
We are not sure what this means. Journeys which either start or finish in the village can be residents going to and returning from work, shopping, etc., or visitors coming in and later leaving. The latter are not necessarily ‘local’. In any case, only about 20% of road use comes from non-through traffic.
3. 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.
We have long advocated this. The black motorway signs should say ‘Brockenhurst & Lymington’, not ‘Lyndhurst’. We would also advocate signs for westbound M27 traffic to use the M271, rather than the Totton western bypass.
4. Hampshire County Council should use its influence, together with partners, to support a review of the level of penalty fine for HGV’s contravening the lorry restrictions to enhance its effect, and to ensure greater efforts are made by the police to enforce the restrictions.
We would endorse this view. We would further like to see investigation of the use of ANPR (automatic number plate recognition) or similar systems, as are used to enforce the London Congestion Charge, to back up the HGV restrictions.
5. 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.
The primary route for communication should certainly be between the County and Parish Councils, however we would hope that the Association would also receive information directly from the County, and that further means of distribution, such as use of the Parish Council website would be fully exploited.
6. Outcomes from the planned Hampshire County Council led local engagement, and further consideration of the 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.
We agree with this
7. 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 routing tourists to park and ride pick up points for the open top New Forest tourist bus.
Using detection of static traffic somewhere like the hunt kennels to trigger signs warning of congestion on A337 southbound is reasonable. Directing more traffic to come towards the village on A35 from the east does have implications for Ashurst and Southampton Road in to Gosport Lane, but it should be remembered that traffic on that road was reduced by the completion of the M27.
8. 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.
Fine, but we would not expect much effect.
9. In the light of the 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 cost 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.
This is not actually a recommendation. We remain frustrated that ecological concerns seem to have such a stranglehold, and the manifest benefit to the environment of a great number of people, not just the residents of Lyndhurst, counts for nothing against the sacrifice of a miniscule portion of forest land. It is not as though there were another dozen bypass proposals queuing up behind us. It’s a pity that three newts and a flower can outvote 3000 people!
We note that though the environmental impact of the Parish Council route has received significant attention in the scrutiny, no mention at all is made of the impact of the proposed alternative, and Professor Barber has some interesting information on that which we will come to in a moment.
10. 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 et. In the village, as identified by Hampshire County Council/Mott Gifford, (See page 17).
We see no point in expenditure exploring inner link roads which would have widespread village opposition. We would welcome, and would be pleased to cooperate in, detailed traffic modelling to examine what if any better use can be made of the existing road network to reduce congestion and atmospheric pollution in critical areas of the village.
From the Director of Environment:
1. That the Cabinet approves the preferred option 7B (based on the Lyndhurst inner eastern link road and associated car park relocation, traffic management and partial pedestrianisation of the High Street) as a basis for further technical development work and consultation with the local community and stakeholders, and .
2. That the Cabinet considers submitting an advance outline bid for a package of measures for Lyndhurst to the Regional Transport Board in April 2008 (based on the preferred option 7B) for consideration in the formulation of its advice on regional transport funding priorities due to be submitted to the Secretary of State.
As we are categorically opposed to an inner route (eastern or western) which hives off part of the village, we strongly urge the Cabinet not to proceed along this route.
This is not just a case of nimbyism, but is based on our view that the proposed route will involve its own environmental damage, create planning blight for many homes over many years, and fundamentally will not work!
After a period of discussion the meeting concluded with the following resolution:
Lyndhurst, Emery Down & Bank residents are disappointed that the HCC review has concluded that the only effective bypass route is not deliverable, and are unanimous in rejecting the alternatives offered by the Council and by Councillor Kendal.
In the absence of any apparently acceptable bypass, the Association would urge Hampshire County Council to put in place the palliative measures previously identified (signs, HGV, etc.) and further provide resource to allow proper traffic flow modelling, supported by detailed origin and destination data (as identified in the NFDC report relating to the Air Quality Action Plan).
This to be conducted in detailed collaboration with representatives of the local community who have the benefit of many years of local knowledge of the realities of travelling in and around the village, with the aim of optimising the use of the existing road network.
This resolution was accepted with one person voting against. |
