HUGE TURNOUT: hundreds packed last night's meeting
HUNDREDS of angry New Forest residents met last night to unite in their fight against bypass proposals for their village.
More than 250 Lyndhurst residents attended an emergency meeting to agree how their views should be represented when the controversial proposals reach the county council's table on Monday.
Hampshire County Council's Cabinet will consider two proposals designed to take traffic away from the village centre - one to the east and one to the west.
Five former suggested routes have been whittled down and amended following consideration by independent consultants Mott MacDonald and the county's environment and transport select committee. Lyndhurst Parish Council's suggestion of an eastern bypass with a tunnel under Bolton's Bench has been dismissed on ecological grounds.
Hundreds of residents at the meeting, staged by the Lynd-hurst, Emery Down and Bank Residents' Association, were unanimous in their opposition to both routes, and still supportive of the rejected parish council proposal for an outer bypass.
Tony Herbert, residents' association chairman, told the meeting: "We are strongly opposed to an inner route, eastern or western. 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."
advertisement
The top choice being recommended for Cabinet approval is an eastern inner link road, leaving the A337 north of Racecourse View, then joining the A35 opposite Bolton's Bench.
The second suggestion is a western link road leaving the A337 further north of Lyndhurst and joining the A35 Bournemouth Road near its junction with Chapel Lane.
District councillor Pat Wyeth said: "Each suggestion will impact on somebody. The time has come for the village to say we don't want any of these suggestions'. If we cannot have the outer bypass, we will retain the status quo."
If the Cabinet supports any suggestions, it will bid for funding from the South East Regional Transport Board.
Read the reports in full
Click HERE for
Summary of recommendations for the Cabinet to approve:
Click HERE for
Lyndhurst Bypass Scrutiny Committee Review findings:
Click HERE for
Report by independent consultants Mott MacDonald:
Click HERE for
Report by Hampshire County Council director of environment Stuart Jarvis: (last 2 pages of this include graphics of favoured routes)
Click HERE for
Overview report by HCC environment department:
Posted by: Harry Remmington, New Forest on 9:39am Fri 28 Mar 08
Judging by the general age of people attending the meeting the fastest thing they drive is a zimmer frame. The long tailbacks of traffic in the summer are poluting the Forest to eventual extinction.
Get real Lyndhurst, stop be loathed as a traffic bottleneck and be loved as a quaint pedestrian friendly village.
Judging by the general age of people attending the meeting the fastest thing they drive is a zimmer frame. The long tailbacks of traffic in the summer are poluting the Forest to eventual extinction.
Get real Lyndhurst, stop be loathed as a traffic bottleneck and be loved as a quaint pedestrian friendly village.
Posted by: Stu-Pid, North BadAssLee on 9:44am Fri 28 Mar 08
[quote][bold]Harry Remmington[/bold] wrote:
Judging by the general age of people attending the meeting the fastest thing they drive is a zimmer frame. The long tailbacks of traffic in the summer are poluting the Forest to eventual extinction. Get real Lyndhurst, stop be loathed as a traffic bottleneck and be loved as a quaint pedestrian friendly village.[/quote] To be fair, with a name like Harry, you are either very old or your parents didn't like you.
Harry Remmington wrote:
Judging by the general age of people attending the meeting the fastest thing they drive is a zimmer frame. The long tailbacks of traffic in the summer are poluting the Forest to eventual extinction. Get real Lyndhurst, stop be loathed as a traffic bottleneck and be loved as a quaint pedestrian friendly village.
To be fair, with a name like Harry, you are either very old or your parents didn't like you.
Harry Remington is right. The average age of these sorts of meetings is always up there in about the 60s. From personal experience some of these people have nothing better to do, and are unwilling to accept change.
Instead on relying on meetings formed 90% or more of retired people, why don't the council send out the vote to all households, so that working families with busy lifestyles can get a say in the matter?
I'll probably get fired down for ageism, but just try it, attend your local parish meeting or whatever it may be, and work out the average age.
Harry Remington is right. The average age of these sorts of meetings is always up there in about the 60s. From personal experience some of these people have nothing better to do, and are unwilling to accept change.
Instead on relying on meetings formed 90% or more of retired people, why don't the council send out the vote to all households, so that working families with busy lifestyles can get a say in the matter?
I'll probably get fired down for ageism, but just try it, attend your local parish meeting or whatever it may be, and work out the average age.
Posted by: Forest Dweller, New Forest on 9:59am Fri 28 Mar 08
Tony Herbert, residents' association chairman, told the meeting: "We are strongly opposed to an inner route, eastern or western. [bold]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[/bold] , and fundamentally will not work."
Looks like you have contradicted yourself in one sentence.
No NIMBYism..then planning blight for homes?
From the picture it looks like the average age at the meeting is 75.
[italic]Same story with all local villages, elderly residents who don't like the following:[/italic]
1. Outsiders
2. Young Families
3. Change of any sort
4. Soap
5. Female Vicars
OK, joking about No4 but the principle is the same...
I've lived in the Forest all my life, but I'm sick to the back teeth (yes still my own) of old people dictating to others whether they are hypocritical church goers [bold](Boldre Parish take note because you lost the best Vicar you've had in years!).[/bold]
A Bypass around Lyndhurst would probably give them a few more years with less pollution !
If you don't like it, sell your house to a developer, move to New Milton and buy a Batricar...
[bold]Cue Abuse!![/bold]
Tony Herbert, residents' association chairman, told the meeting: "We are strongly opposed to an inner route, eastern or western. 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."
Looks like you have contradicted yourself in one sentence.
No NIMBYism..then planning blight for homes?
From the picture it looks like the average age at the meeting is 75.
Same story with all local villages, elderly residents who don't like the following:
1. Outsiders
2. Young Families
3. Change of any sort
4. Soap
5. Female Vicars
OK, joking about No4 but the principle is the same...
I've lived in the Forest all my life, but I'm sick to the back teeth (yes still my own) of old people dictating to others whether they are hypocritical church goers (Boldre Parish take note because you lost the best Vicar you've had in years!).
A Bypass around Lyndhurst would probably give them a few more years with less pollution !
If you don't like it, sell your house to a developer, move to New Milton and buy a Batricar...
[quote][bold]Forest Dweller[/bold] wrote:
Tony Herbert, residents' association chairman, told the meeting: "We are strongly opposed to an inner route, eastern or western. [bold]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[/bold] , and fundamentally will not work." Looks like you have contradicted yourself in one sentence. No NIMBYism..then planning blight for homes? From the picture it looks like the average age at the meeting is 75. [italic]Same story with all local villages, elderly residents who don't like the following:[/italic] 1. Outsiders 2. Young Families 3. Change of any sort 4. Soap 5. Female Vicars OK, joking about No4 but the principle is the same... I've lived in the Forest all my life, but I'm sick to the back teeth (yes still my own) of old people dictating to others whether they are hypocritical church goers [bold](Boldre Parish take note because you lost the best Vicar you've had in years!).[/bold] A Bypass around Lyndhurst would probably give them a few more years with less pollution ! If you don't like it, sell your house to a developer, move to New Milton and buy a Batricar... [bold]Cue Abuse!![/bold][/quote] No abuse from me because you are correct.
Forest Dweller wrote:
Tony Herbert, residents' association chairman, told the meeting: "We are strongly opposed to an inner route, eastern or western. 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." Looks like you have contradicted yourself in one sentence. No NIMBYism..then planning blight for homes? From the picture it looks like the average age at the meeting is 75. Same story with all local villages, elderly residents who don't like the following: 1. Outsiders 2. Young Families 3. Change of any sort 4. Soap 5. Female Vicars OK, joking about No4 but the principle is the same... I've lived in the Forest all my life, but I'm sick to the back teeth (yes still my own) of old people dictating to others whether they are hypocritical church goers (Boldre Parish take note because you lost the best Vicar you've had in years!). A Bypass around Lyndhurst would probably give them a few more years with less pollution ! If you don't like it, sell your house to a developer, move to New Milton and buy a Batricar... Cue Abuse!!
Posted by: Forest Dweller, New Forest on 10:13am Fri 28 Mar 08
[quote][bold]Perry Bond[/bold] wrote:
[quote][bold]Forest Dweller[/bold] wrote: Tony Herbert, residents' association chairman, told the meeting: "We are strongly opposed to an inner route, eastern or western. [bold]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[/bold] , and fundamentally will not work." Looks like you have contradicted yourself in one sentence. No NIMBYism..then planning blight for homes? From the picture it looks like the average age at the meeting is 75. [italic]Same story with all local villages, elderly residents who don't like the following:[/italic] 1. Outsiders 2. Young Families 3. Change of any sort 4. Soap 5. Female Vicars OK, joking about No4 but the principle is the same... I've lived in the Forest all my life, but I'm sick to the back teeth (yes still my own) of old people dictating to others whether they are hypocritical church goers [bold](Boldre Parish take note because you lost the best Vicar you've had in years!).[/bold] A Bypass around Lyndhurst would probably give them a few more years with less pollution ! If you don't like it, sell your house to a developer, move to New Milton and buy a Batricar... [bold]Cue Abuse!![/bold][/quote] No abuse from me because you are correct. [/quote] Thanks...
Do you reckon we could club together a new committee?
'Foresters against Elderly Dictating Upthemselves Pensioners?' - FED UP for short?
When are the next Parish Council elections?[bold]bold[/bold]
Perry Bond wrote:
Forest Dweller wrote: Tony Herbert, residents' association chairman, told the meeting: "We are strongly opposed to an inner route, eastern or western. 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." Looks like you have contradicted yourself in one sentence. No NIMBYism..then planning blight for homes? From the picture it looks like the average age at the meeting is 75. Same story with all local villages, elderly residents who don't like the following: 1. Outsiders 2. Young Families 3. Change of any sort 4. Soap 5. Female Vicars OK, joking about No4 but the principle is the same... I've lived in the Forest all my life, but I'm sick to the back teeth (yes still my own) of old people dictating to others whether they are hypocritical church goers (Boldre Parish take note because you lost the best Vicar you've had in years!). A Bypass around Lyndhurst would probably give them a few more years with less pollution ! If you don't like it, sell your house to a developer, move to New Milton and buy a Batricar... Cue Abuse!!
No abuse from me because you are correct.
Thanks...
Do you reckon we could club together a new committee?
'Foresters against Elderly Dictating Upthemselves Pensioners?' - FED UP for short?
Posted by: John, Lyndhurst on 10:53am Fri 28 Mar 08
Quite frankly I read in disbelief the two proposed options the coucil wishes to progress. The concept of a bypass is to divert traffic away from a town. It is not to build something that streamlines the flow of traffic so residents end up having to living next to fast flowing busier road!
Of the two options it is correct to reject both as not meeting the residents or travellers needs. This though will probably bring the whole debate to grinding halt again.....probably what the council wants anyway!
Quite frankly I read in disbelief the two proposed options the coucil wishes to progress. The concept of a bypass is to divert traffic away from a town. It is not to build something that streamlines the flow of traffic so residents end up having to living next to fast flowing busier road!
Of the two options it is correct to reject both as not meeting the residents or travellers needs. This though will probably bring the whole debate to grinding halt again.....probably what the council wants anyway!
Posted by: Andy, Locks Heath on 11:18am Fri 28 Mar 08
Nor from me Forest Dweller - you are right on the button with you comments. And Not So Old too. It's the same everywhere. Round here the "Residents" (ie the Pensioners)have worked themselves into a frenzy of fear and loathing about a proposed gravel pit but the photo and the gist of the comments made by the NIMBY organisation are always the same, and they are always irrelevant inaccurate or exagerrated.
Nor from me Forest Dweller - you are right on the button with you comments. And Not So Old too. It's the same everywhere. Round here the "Residents" (ie the Pensioners)have worked themselves into a frenzy of fear and loathing about a proposed gravel pit but the photo and the gist of the comments made by the NIMBY organisation are always the same, and they are always irrelevant inaccurate or exagerrated.
[quote][bold]John[/bold] wrote:
Quite frankly I read in disbelief the two proposed options the coucil wishes to progress. The concept of a bypass is to divert traffic away from a town. It is not to build something that streamlines the flow of traffic so residents end up having to living next to fast flowing busier road!
Of the two options it is correct to reject both as not meeting the residents or travellers needs. This though will probably bring the whole debate to grinding halt again.....probably what the council wants anyway![/quote] They probably should bite the bullet and have a sweeping bypass going fully around the town with a link road into it. But that would mean large clearances of land etc.
The council should put forward a number of solutions for a public vote - and one WILL be build. Stops the NIMBYs from dominating.
John wrote:
Quite frankly I read in disbelief the two proposed options the coucil wishes to progress. The concept of a bypass is to divert traffic away from a town. It is not to build something that streamlines the flow of traffic so residents end up having to living next to fast flowing busier road!
Of the two options it is correct to reject both as not meeting the residents or travellers needs. This though will probably bring the whole debate to grinding halt again.....probably what the council wants anyway!
They probably should bite the bullet and have a sweeping bypass going fully around the town with a link road into it. But that would mean large clearances of land etc.
The council should put forward a number of solutions for a public vote - and one WILL be build. Stops the NIMBYs from dominating.
Posted by: Norman, Christchurch on 12:22pm Fri 28 Mar 08
I started work in Lyndhurst in August 1951 and the main topic of debate was opposition to plans for a bypass.
Here we are 57years later and still no agreement.
It just puzzles me that the people of Lyndhurst still like living in their traffic polluting/congested environment and continually settle for 'talking shops' rather than positive decision making councils.
Surely something must be wrong if an acceptable agreement cannot be reached after all these years.
I started work in Lyndhurst in August 1951 and the main topic of debate was opposition to plans for a bypass.
Here we are 57years later and still no agreement.
It just puzzles me that the people of Lyndhurst still like living in their traffic polluting/congested environment and continually settle for 'talking shops' rather than positive decision making councils.
Surely something must be wrong if an acceptable agreement cannot be reached after all these years.
Posted by: Noi-face-noi, Winchester on 12:33pm Fri 28 Mar 08
One word. TUNNEL.
An engineering feat that could only be marvelled at and there would be no need to go around the town.
Just ensure that those who appose what ever solution is commissioned aren't allowed to use it.
One word. TUNNEL.
An engineering feat that could only be marvelled at and there would be no need to go around the town.
Just ensure that those who appose what ever solution is commissioned aren't allowed to use it.
Posted by: Derek, Dibden Purlieu on 1:18pm Fri 28 Mar 08
A number of people seem to be working themselves in to a lather as they perceive certain groups of the population seem to be dictating policies. This group is largely made up of people who made the effort to attend the appropriate meetings to register their feelings. All of the Cyber whingers and whiners who think Coronation street is more important or prefer to watch twenty two idiots kicking a bag of wind up and down a field can moan all they like but the people who go to the meetings will be the only ones who are listened to.
As for Lyndhurst, the people blocking the bypass suffer the poor air quality generated by their actions. Do what I do and avoid the place if possible.
A number of people seem to be working themselves in to a lather as they perceive certain groups of the population seem to be dictating policies. This group is largely made up of people who made the effort to attend the appropriate meetings to register their feelings. All of the Cyber whingers and whiners who think Coronation street is more important or prefer to watch twenty two idiots kicking a bag of wind up and down a field can moan all they like but the people who go to the meetings will be the only ones who are listened to.
As for Lyndhurst, the people blocking the bypass suffer the poor air quality generated by their actions. Do what I do and avoid the place if possible.
Posted by: Forest Dweller, New Forest on 1:50pm Fri 28 Mar 08
[quote][bold]Sod it[/bold] wrote:
Dont build it, then over the next 20 years Lyndhurst will become a smog infested hell hole.[/quote] What do you mean in 20 years time ?!!!!!
Sod it wrote:
Dont build it, then over the next 20 years Lyndhurst will become a smog infested hell hole.
[quote][bold]Forest Dweller[/bold] wrote:
[quote][bold]Sod it[/bold] wrote: Dont build it, then over the next 20 years Lyndhurst will become a smog infested hell hole.[/quote] What do you mean in 20 years time ?!!!!![/quote] Over. Should have gone to specsavers.
HTH
Forest Dweller wrote:
Sod it wrote: Dont build it, then over the next 20 years Lyndhurst will become a smog infested hell hole.
[quote][bold]Forest Dweller[/bold] wrote:
[italic]It's called sarcasm....[/italic] Lyndhurst already is a smog infested hell hole.[/quote] Im the lowest form of wit.
Forest Dweller wrote: It's called sarcasm.... Lyndhurst already is a smog infested hell hole.
[quote][bold]Noi-face-noi[/bold] wrote:
One word. TUNNEL. An engineering feat that could only be marvelled at and there would be no need to go around the town. Just ensure that those who appose what ever solution is commissioned aren't allowed to use it.[/quote] I am not sure which route you would like the Tunnel to take, but you will find a lot of Lyndhurst is built on "Running Sand" indeed most of the houses in the Meadows had to be built on rafts, could prove difficult, but i agree some solution needs to be found.
Noi-face-noi wrote:
One word. TUNNEL. An engineering feat that could only be marvelled at and there would be no need to go around the town. Just ensure that those who appose what ever solution is commissioned aren't allowed to use it.
I am not sure which route you would like the Tunnel to take, but you will find a lot of Lyndhurst is built on "Running Sand" indeed most of the houses in the Meadows had to be built on rafts, could prove difficult, but i agree some solution needs to be found.
Posted by: bemused onlooker, Southampton on 3:14pm Fri 28 Mar 08
The New Forest is a unique National Treasure and should be zealously guarded. Consequently Lyndhurst should not be by-passed, but there is no reason that the existing roads could not be widened to two lane and rerouted where necessary, so that Lyndhurst becomes a car free hub in a large roundabout.
The New Forest is a unique National Treasure and should be zealously guarded. Consequently Lyndhurst should not be by-passed, but there is no reason that the existing roads could not be widened to two lane and rerouted where necessary, so that Lyndhurst becomes a car free hub in a large roundabout.
[quote][bold]bemused onlooker[/bold] wrote:
The New Forest is a unique National Treasure and should be zealously guarded. Consequently Lyndhurst should not be by-passed, but there is no reason that the existing roads could not be widened to two lane and rerouted where necessary, so that Lyndhurst becomes a car free hub in a large roundabout.[/quote] Pray tell how you widen lyndhurst High Street? Oh and i thought 2 lanes each way, is a bypass? So your saying no to a bypass, and then lets build a bypass, by making the road 2 lanes each way. When that is an impossibility.
How bizarre
bemused onlooker wrote:
The New Forest is a unique National Treasure and should be zealously guarded. Consequently Lyndhurst should not be by-passed, but there is no reason that the existing roads could not be widened to two lane and rerouted where necessary, so that Lyndhurst becomes a car free hub in a large roundabout.
Pray tell how you widen lyndhurst High Street? Oh and i thought 2 lanes each way, is a bypass? So your saying no to a bypass, and then lets build a bypass, by making the road 2 lanes each way. When that is an impossibility.
Posted by: Andy -pandy, Chandlers ford on 6:44pm Fri 28 Mar 08
Before the war (WW2) they began to build the bypass, Kerbstones could be seen until resontly, Adolf stopped it for some reason or another. So there was an agreed course for it! Now Adolf is out the way, why not restart where work left off after all someone must of Agreed the route that time !
Before the war (WW2) they began to build the bypass, Kerbstones could be seen until resontly, Adolf stopped it for some reason or another. So there was an agreed course for it! Now Adolf is out the way, why not restart where work left off after all someone must of Agreed the route that time !
Posted by: tinanews, southampton on 7:15pm Sat 29 Mar 08
I am opposed to any new road and belive that HCC should look at better traffic management, using existing road networks. Ban all HGV's from the village, this is possible with the use of enforcment cameras that detect the axle weight that also collect data for prosecution, the fines should be increased from the poultry current £30 to £100 as in London plus penalty points. I strongly advise all traffic travelling to Lymington/Brockenhur
st from the Southampton and the east to use the M27/junction 2, A326/A35 Colbury junction into Lyndhurst ( drive time 11 mins) and they will have a clear run through the bottom of the village. The Mott Gifford report states that option 2 will only improve traffic flow by 17%, this improvement will be absorbed within months, so back to square one. Queues will still happen as it is proposed to swop one set of traffic lights at the HIgh Street for 2 roundabouts and another set of traffic lights at the bottom of the High Street. Plus this route will still allow HGV's and cars turning left at the top of the High Street onto the A337 towards Cadnam. Romsey Road will be one way northbound only meaning that all local traffic from the north and west will have to use the new road to access the school and top of the High Street. The High Street will not be predestrianised as cyclists, buses and delivery lorries will still have access.
Finally queues into the village are not 24/7 in fact for probably less than 9% of the total time in a year. Please do work this out, I estimated 2 hours per day, every day (this is in fact a great over estimation, as there are no queues into the village in Jan, Feb, Mar, Oct, Nov, Dec).
HCC should concentrate on improving the A32 into Gosport as this road is known to a nightmare as well as danger to cyclists and pedestrians
I am opposed to any new road and belive that HCC should look at better traffic management, using existing road networks. Ban all HGV's from the village, this is possible with the use of enforcment cameras that detect the axle weight that also collect data for prosecution, the fines should be increased from the poultry current £30 to £100 as in London plus penalty points. I strongly advise all traffic travelling to Lymington/Brockenhur
st from the Southampton and the east to use the M27/junction 2, A326/A35 Colbury junction into Lyndhurst ( drive time 11 mins) and they will have a clear run through the bottom of the village. The Mott Gifford report states that option 2 will only improve traffic flow by 17%, this improvement will be absorbed within months, so back to square one. Queues will still happen as it is proposed to swop one set of traffic lights at the HIgh Street for 2 roundabouts and another set of traffic lights at the bottom of the High Street. Plus this route will still allow HGV's and cars turning left at the top of the High Street onto the A337 towards Cadnam. Romsey Road will be one way northbound only meaning that all local traffic from the north and west will have to use the new road to access the school and top of the High Street. The High Street will not be predestrianised as cyclists, buses and delivery lorries will still have access.
Finally queues into the village are not 24/7 in fact for probably less than 9% of the total time in a year. Please do work this out, I estimated 2 hours per day, every day (this is in fact a great over estimation, as there are no queues into the village in Jan, Feb, Mar, Oct, Nov, Dec).
HCC should concentrate on improving the A32 into Gosport as this road is known to a nightmare as well as danger to cyclists and pedestrians
If you liked this article and would like to share it with others on the web who might be searching for good content we've made it easy for you to do it.
At the bottom of all articles, you'll see links to six sites. These sites - commonly called 'social bookmark' or 'social news' sites - have large communities of web users who share and rate interesting, useful and fun things on the web.
Clicking the links will automatically add the address of the story you are reading to one of these sites, letting you share it with others. Each site will ask you to register to share stories. Registration is free and once a member, you can store, recommend and search for stories that interest you.
We ask you to keep your comments respectful and bear in mind the subject matter. Please avoid tasteless and abusive language. We reserve the right to pass on details to the police/and or the business which owns any computers being used to place inappropriate material. For more information see our terms and conditions.
Print
Email this
Comment
