Your Comments

We fought a good battle over the PC Route but it has been ruled out as undeliverable.

The decision yesterday means that we will not have undesirable alternatives foisted upon us.

All the councillors seemed aware of the strong feelings expressed at the Emergency Meeting of the Residents' Association on 27 March - this helped us enormously.
Keith Barber - Lyndhurst 

We note that "Option 7B" is the County Council's preferred route for a link road around Lyndhurst.  Whilst one can appreciate from a much broader perspective it might appear to be a neat and cheap solution, this option is significantly flawed.

1) Shrubbs Hill Road is marked on the diagram in the County's proposals as northbound only.  This would have a dramatic negative impact on the daily life of villagers. 

With the High Street pedestrianised (which we believe is an excellent aspiration for the village), the only route out of Lyndhurst (in every direction except westwards) for residents living on or adjacent to Shrubbs Hill Rd, Chapel Lane and Bournemouth Rd (i.e. the western half of the village) would be extremely tortuous. 

These villagers, from the western side of the Romsey Rd traffic lights, would have to travel northwards through the Romsey Rd/High St junction to the new link road. 

All villagers who live on or adjacent to Romsey Rd would also have to drive upto the new link road near Racecourse View to get out of the village (in any direction except north). 

To go to Southampton or Hythe or Lymington/Brockenhurst, villagers would then have to join the new link road and go east round to the A35 near the Fire Station, and then turn east to Southampton, or west to Lymington/Brockenhurst (via Gosport Lane) or to Hythe (via Beaulieu Rd) or, for residents north of the Shrubbs Hill Rd/High St junction, to the westbound A35.  

When looked at in more detail, one can see that more than 75% of the village's householders would be significantly disadvantaged in their day-to-day travel with Option 7B compared to the existing situation we have in the village.

2) The loss of the current recreation facilities off Wellands Road to make way for the proposed visitors' car parking adjacent to the new link road, would be a real disaster for the village.  Alternative replacement facilities would be very difficult to accommodate elsewhere in the village. 

The loss of car-parking in the centre of the village would significantly hurt attendance levels at Community Centre events and to the Tourist office and Museum and Library.  Car parking centrally must be made be available.

3) The Natwest Bank corner of Gosport Lane and the High Street would be a horrendous bottleneck - thereby moving the traffic difficulties in the village from the Romsey Road traffic lights down to the other end of the High St - also surrounded by high Victorian buildings where air pollution will no doubt accumulate in the same way it does between the School and the traffic lights at the moment! 

Will there really be any advantage in this change?  We doubt it!

SUMMARY

We strongly recommend that the Lyndhurst Parish Council representatives at the Cabinet meeting on Mar 31st 2008 deliver a robust rejection of Option 7B.

Cathy and Rupert Cook - Lyndhurst 

• Better traffic management of existing roads in and around Lyndhurst

• New routing of traffic travelling to Lymington, Brockenhurst off M27, junction 2 along A326. Road alternations were made at A326 and A35, so why not make use of the expenditure.

• Better use of the matrix signs on the M27, to use A326 if travelling to Lymington.

• Currently the only sign to the New Forest is at M27/ junction 1/A337, the New Forest is accessible at junction 2, Beaulieu and Junction 1 at Brook, Fritham. Signs of other New Forest locations could also be more effectively sited along the A35 Christchurch road. All would reduce the belief of visitors that the New Forest starts and ends around Lyndhurst.

• Variable speed limits along A337 at busy periods from 60mph to 40mph to flow traffic through village better. As existing system used on M25.

• Queues into the village along the A337 occur on sunny summer weekends, bank holidays for a few hours. This only happens when the volume of traffic on the M27/A31 travelling to the coast is at capacity and cars are queuing on the M27, drivers divert off at junction 1, to the A337/A35 as an alternative route. The queues on the A337 also occur if there is an accident on the A31, often at Stoney Cross or Picket Post.

• The hill and sharp bend at the start of the A31 slows all traffic up at all busy times, it is also an accident black spot as a number of fatal accidents have occurred there over the years. The solution would be to widen the A31 to 3 lanes west bound at Stoney Cross & Picket Post, this would reduce accidents and queues at the end of the M27 and our traffic congestion along A337 would be dramatically reduced.

• The frequency and period of time that the queues occur are in fact very short, much less than those that we experience into on a daily basis into and out of Southampton A35 in commuter times. We accept those queues, so why not Lyndhurst? 

• Do lorries really need to travel through our village?

I do not believe so. Those travelling to Lymington and New Milton should come in along the recommended route via Netley Marsh and Southampton Road but they often ignore the ban and use the A337 into the village, causing congestion by just being there. Those travelling from Bournemouth and Christchurch should use the A338, A31, and M27. Distribution companies can plan alternative routes if they are made to.

An effective total ban of HGV’s through village is possible. The installation of specialist camera units at strategic points of the village that identify plate numbers, axle weights, length, photographic images of the vehicles etc, producing data to enable authorities to prosecute offenders breaking the weight limit ban.

• More info on the equipment click on the following link:

http://www.roadtraffic-technology.com/contractors/photo_enforcement/truvelo2/

• Use of this type of equipment would reduce poor air quality around the affected areas and allow the green filter light to be used at the top of the High Street, therefore reducing the queues into the village from the A337.

I believe that these are cost effective solutions that will bring benefits to road users and the village with a lesser impact to the environment, the New Forest, its residents throughout far more than any by-pass can achieve.

Who knows what the price of petrol will be in 10 years time, if too expensive will the village be left with a redundant pink elephant of tarmac across its core that nobody really wanted or needed afterall?
Tina Simmens - Lyndhurst

I was surprised to learn recently that there was a public meeting regarding the investigation of a Lyndhurst bypass scheme.

There was almost no publicity regarding the meeting and I only learnt about it by chance on the morning of the meeting. I was horrified to learn that all the same (or very similar) points were being dragged up again.

It is disingenuous to ask people if they want a Lyndhurst bypass. In a perfect world yes I am sure the residents of Lyndhurst would like a bypass.

However the true question should be “do you want a noisy bypass that will run near your house and cut off part of the village” for this is the only viable and economic solution.

In the same way the people around Stone Henge have been duped into believing a bypass would be constructed in a tunnel the people of The New Forest are being misled into believing that a bypass around the village may adopt a distant route that would have little or no effect on the community of Lyndhurst.

I believe nothing has significantly changed since the last money wasting round of Lyndhurst bypass schemes.

Outer and inner routes will be proposed and investigated. Outer routes will be abandoned on economic grounds and only inner routes will be considered viable, although considered unacceptable by most of the residents of Lyndhurst.

Finally – what will be the benefits of a bypass?

Cars and caravans will rush deeper into the forest before once again staggering to near halt.

Brockenhurst will in all probability bear the brunt with queues of traffic along the A337 towards Lyndhurst simply moving the problem rather solving it.

Let’s face it, we live in one of the nicest parts of the country and people want to visit.

Providing better roads will simply encourage a greater number of visitors with a related increase in traffic and associated pollution.
Jerry Davis, Lyndhurst

As a experiment it would be worth trying to make ALL pedestrian crossings in the highstreet work together and monitor how this would effect traffic flow. 

As often when the lights for the traffic are green there is still a holdup because pedestrian crossings are stopping the traffic, better still remove the pedestrian crossing and replace by pelican crossings like in front of the school, that way passing toddelers cannot press any buttons whilst walking past. 

Just a tought but this again would only be a delaying tactic as a bypass is really what this village needs to stay a village and not just a bottleneck for motorists on their way to or from Lymington and Brockenhurst.
Nancy Hall, Gritnam, Lyndhurst

The Colin Johnson proposal to make do with a new road in the NE Sector only as a way of helping to solve the Lyndhurst traffic problem, sadly, does not stand up to close scrutiny.

The outcome would please no one; the traffic flow would be no better and probably on average slightly worse; the cost would be considerable; merely shifting the weight of traffic and points of traffic conflict from one part of the village to another keeps the effects of congestion and associated pollution within the village environs; and the rural nature of the village approaches from East and South would be lost forever for no apparent benefit.

A major roundabout would be required in front of the Lyndhurst Park Hotel which would effectively cut off the Bench from the village and prevent all those living in the East of the village gaining easy access to the village facilities.

Goose Green would be absorbed into a gyratory system with the possible need for property demolition in the North East corner.

At busy times the traffic back up from both these points of traffic conflict would cause added congestion in Shrubbs Hill,Gosport Lane, and Southampton Road.

In order to take two way traffic in Gosport Lane the tight turn at the High Street end, outside the NatWest Bank, would need traffic light control so to provide for tidal flow.

Short of property demolition a similar scheme would need to be implemented at the approaches to Goose Green. These requirements taken together probably make two way traffic in Gosport Lane unworkable.

In short then no one living in areas of the village most affected by the present traffic conditions (those to the South West, South,South East, East & North East) would see any benefit from the new road and many would find matters much much worse.

As for the traffic itself, there would be a net disbenefit and we would be left with a disfigured village and for no good reason. 

It has always been the view of the majority of Residents that if we cannot have a bypass that serves the village as well as serving the passing motorist then no bypass is the prefered option. A NE sector only road serves neither.

Malcolm Woolley, Lyndhurst

Clearly there are conflicting interests, and two apparently incompatible objectives: to reduce congestion and pollution in Lyndhurst, and to avoid damage to the surrounding Forest.

I have thought about these problems and would like to put forward for consideration the attached suggestions.

These rely mostly on existing roads, with some changes in direction and priorities, thereby minimising costs and environmental impact.

A new road would be needed on the northeast corner of the village, either outside the Golf Course (longer, further from houses, more forest land cut off) or inside the Golf course (shorter, less loss of Forest, closer to houses).

There is no need in these proposals to build southeast, around Bolton’s Bench.

The main disadvantage of this proposal is that it does not separate traffic completely from the villgage.

Careful planning of pedestrian crossing points will be needed at the junction of Gosport Lane and Ashurst Road, perhaps by separate light controlled crossings either side of a pedestrian island separating the two streams of traffic.

However, difficulties here would be more than offset by improved pedestrian access along the High Street, which would no longer have two streams of traffic (N-S and W-E). in addition, the queues of traffic outside the school, and along Shrubbs Hill lane would be removed.

The southeast section of the Parish Council proposal is controversial and costly. I wonder if this proposal could be a partial solution that might be adopted rapidly, while awaiting the outcome of discussions on the tunnel proposal

i am putting forward the following Suggested changes to existing roads

• Build a new road linking A337 and A35 on the northeast of Lyndhurst Either outside the Golf Course, or inside the Golf Course, with roundabouts at each junction

• Two way traffic flow on Gosport Lane (south to north and  north to south)

• Reverse traffic flow on Shrubbs Hill Lane (north to south)

• Reverse traffic flow(east to west) from junction of  Romsey Road/High St to St Michaels Primary School (allow access from the west to school gates)

• Remove traffic lights at junction of Romsey Road and High St

Effects on traffic flows

• N-S passses east of village, then uses existing roads, without holdups

• E-W on A35 flows as at present, possible delays at peak periods from heavy N-s flow east of village

• S-N now routed to east of village, no hold ups (possible delays from E-W traffic on A35)
• 
  
• S-W flows as at present,

• S-E and S-N flows to east of village, no holdups

• W-E flows south and east, no holdups

Colin Johnson

This proposal is what Lyndhurst needs to solve its traffic problem. Any other tinkering schemes will not work and be a waist of public money.

As for putting traffic lights at Shrubbs Hill and Bournemouth Road will only push the queues further back and will not reduce the queues in the High Street, giving more fumes to Shrubbs Hill.

The quicker this bypass is built the better it will be for the residents of Lyndhurst.
R E Payne

I attended the meeting on 21st.

It is clear to me that no by-pass will be built in the forseeable future. Some fundamental change in circumstances must happen, and not just a steady deterioration of traffic flow and air quality, before there is the slightest chance.

Until then, the council ought not to devote any of its resource to promoting it.

I understand that with the passions the subject arouses, and the investment of energy so far, it will be difficult.

There is no value to be had from flogging it.
Martin Wheat, Lyndhurst

There are already too many roads crossing the New Forest. It's unique character and international conservation status are much affected by the volume of traffic which traverses it daily. 

Rather than creating more roads to alleviate the problem of traffic in Lyndhurst, you should be directing your efforts towards reducing the volume of through traffic by encouraging the Highways Authority to establish effective road diversions to route vehicles around the Forest instead of through it. 

You may recall the situation recently when the A35 was temporarliy closed west of Lyndhurst and the huge reduction in traffic through Lyndhurst which occured as a result.

Just think how much more effective that could have been with a co-ordinated diversion system operating on all main roads into the Forest.
Martin Noble, Holmsley but I work in Lyndhurst

It has always been our opinion that a tunnel is the obvious solution to the Lyndhurst traffic problem and we fully agree with all John Keating's comments.

We have also seen many instances of tunnels in Europe solving similar traffic problems in sensitive areas. 

The proposed bypass would undoubtedly have a large and detrimental impact on an unspoiled area of forest.

If constructed it could lead to pressure for other environmentally insensitive schemes.
David Tonge, New Milton

I commute daily to my work along the M3 via Lyndhurst. 

Although I do some shift work, in general I can not say that the traffic through Lyndhurst is particularly worrying, compared to the queues at twyford down in Winchester for example !

I think it would be a shame to build new roads over forest land. Why doesn't tourist traffic get diverted through Southampton via Junction 2 of the M3 when it is busy?  

Why did the road from Swan Green get downgraded? 

I for one would not relish having an extra two miles added to my route to go around the east of Lyndhurst, and would probably avoid such a road for 11 months of the year if at all possible.

I guess any such road would also generally increase the amount of traffic going through the A35 from New Milton as more people would be encouraged to started commuting.
Simon Parker, New Milton

The comment below is the text of a letter published in the Lymington Times on
10.12.05

SIR - As the expert referred to in Mr Pasmore’s December New Forest Notes (3.12.05) (please visit the following website to read Mr Pasmore’s comments, "Anthony Pasmore’s New Forest Notes") I would like to correct a number of misconceptions in the article with regard to the bypass route recommended by Lyndhurst Parish Council.

The Parish Council deputation, led by Councillor John Charlesworth, had asked to see the Verderers to inform them of the thinking of the Parish Council in our pursuit of openness and transparency on this pressing matter.

We gave all the Verderers present at the meeting a 10 page report, prepared by me for the Parish Council, on the ecology and conservation issues of the recommended route.

I also gave a 27-slide presentation on the route, which I have surveyed on many occasions, making points regarding the age of the plant communities along the route; their development, characteristic species and affinities; their ecological value in relation to other habitats in the New Forest, and the measures that could be taken to mitigate the impact of a new road.  I think that this amounted to rather more than referring to heathland as “…there is a lot of it”.

Mr Pasmore has all this information, which I have tried to write in an accessible style, and it is backed up by maps and detailed references to the literature and internet resources.

The Parish Council have also provided this same report and presentation to Hampshire County Council and to English Nature. I did indeed point out that the proposed route would take only 6.07 hectares (15 acres) of land over its two mile length and that the total area of the New Forest Special Area for Conservation (SAC) is 29,262 ha (72,277 acres) according to the Joint Nature Conservation Committee website; the road land-take therefore represents some 0.207% of the total area that has some conservation interest. 

Mr Pasmore claims that this would have a  “devastating effect..” and would be a “deep intrusion .. on the edge of Rushpole Wood..” but many in Lyndhurst will know that the northern section of the proposed road is at least 150 metres south of the wood and just north of the golf course.

All interested parties can view the route on the Parish Council website or pick up a leaflet at Lyndhurst Community Centre, and make up their own minds as to the scale of this proposed unlit, single carriageway road.

The evidence given by the conservation bodies in the 1983 Public Inquiry and subsequently in Parliament was mainly based on the principle of a new road within areas subject to conservation designations, rather than on ecological facts related to the actual routes under consideration.

We have now sought to identify the real impact of the Parish Council recommended route and to quantify that impact as best we could.

In particular, the methods of heathland restoration have improved substantially since the 1980s and I have a list of 83 scientific papers dealing with this issue.

I estimate that our amendment to the old Route 1 - the replacing of a narrow bridge near our cemetery by a 400 metre “cut and cover” tunnel - would mean that the ecology of the heathland could be re-established in less than a decade.

This change from previous plans is dismissed in the article but the Parish Council view this as very important in that it would maintain the grazing regime around Bolton’s Bench and the present valued relationship between the village and its broader Forest setting.

With regard to Mr Pasmore’s legal points I must comment that at the meeting he framed his questions on this in such an obscure way that we were indeed puzzled.

We are aware of the New Forest Acts of 1877, 1949, 1964 and 1970, and that a Private Bill was promoted in Parliament in 1987.  

A Bill may be necessary again, but that is a matter for the road building authority, Hampshire County Council, and the National Park Authority to pursue and not within the powers of the Parish Council.

I concluded my report by noting that the New Forest is recognised nationally and internationally for its unique mixture of interesting and ecologically important habitats.

However, the roads that criss-cross the Forest now have not rendered it devoid of ecological and conservation interest, and had a Lyndhurst bypass been constructed in the 1980s I am sure that the conservation interest of the area would not now be regarded as significantly lower.

The various old and new nature conservation designations are blanket measures covering large areas of the New Forest, within which there are areas of higher and lower ecological interest.

Threading a short section of new road through part of the open Forest which is not of especially high ecological value (compared, for example, to the Mark Ash Wood area) should be permissible.

I concluded that the impact of this route on the ecology of the Forest would be low and that the measures that can be taken in mitigation would be effective in maintaining the open Forest around Lyndhurst.

The New Forest is home to thousands of people who have legitimate needs and concerns regarding traffic congestion, the economy, air pollution and health.

In particular, pollution is so bad outside our primary school, and all down the High Street, that an Air Quality Management Area was declared by New Forest District Council on 10 June 2005.

It is surely a question of balance and we seek a compromise – a small loss for the open Forest to be set against a great gain for the health of the community, the sustainability of the Forest economy as a whole, and a benefit for all those seeking to travel through and enjoy the Forest.

Prof. Keith Barber, Lyndhurst

Whilst a by-pass seems to be essential, particularly in the summer, the chances of getting the present proposals through the various public consultations and planning are remote to say the least.

The newly formed NF National Park authority are hardly likely to make their first act in power to build a road across one of the most sensitive parts of the forest!

Furthermore you would face years of enquiries, objections, and negotiations, and the costs would escalate in the meantime.

Has anyone actually proposed an undergtround tunnel running from just north of Clayhill directly north to just past the Pikeshill Rd to effect a direct underground A337 link?

This could then be used at a later stage to link the A35 west of Lyndhurst into the system.

Grants are available from the EU for such projects in environmentally sensitive areas (France, Italy, Austria and Germany have all had grants for this purpose).

Also it could be part-funded by a toll (Locals could have a computer readable disk purchased annually at a discount).

Southampton built the Itchen Bridge this way and that looked insurmountable at the time, and now generates additional revenue.

I think it could at least be looked at as a potential route and costed.

If successful it would save years of haggling and public meetings and the savings would be enormous.

The objections would be minimal compared with taking part of the New Forest (and where does that end - precedent for future roads!!!)

Ringwood residents have always regretted not taking a stronger line about their bypass which split the town, and today the queues are just as bad as they were before it was built!

Fight for a tunnel, fight for the funding!

We could have it in a few years rather than a few decades.
John Keating, Ringwood

I live in New Milton, and to avoid the congestion in Lyndhurst, I usually come down from the A31 through Emery Down and join the A35 at Swan Green.

I accept this is a shame for this has become a "rat run".

I am therefore fully in favour of the bypass.

I would hope though, that Chapel Lane might be improved and especially at the junction with Bournemouth Road, the priority ought to be changed in favour of cars emerging from Chapel Lane.
Mr V J Gander

The effect of continual traffic congestion down the high street cannot be good for the local community.

High polution levels and danger to pedestrians using the congested pavements.

My family use the local surgery and chemist on a regular basis and it the traffic volume can be quite alarming when you have 3 children in tow.

I will write to our local MP and to NFDC to voice my support.
Harvey Baker

Related Internal Links:

• Bypass Proposals Homepage
• Bypass Proposals Feedback Form
• The Parish Council Bypass Route Recommendation Map PDF File (780Kb)

• Adobe Acrobat Reader
• Cartographic Unit, University of Southampton