The Lymington Society

REDROW Development of Waterside Property Near Lymington Town Station
(Formerly the Webb's Chicken Factory)

Mini-Roundabout Public Enquiry

 

Dr Ivor Johnston's Evidence to the Enquiry:

I am Dr. Ivor Johnston, Secretary of the Lymington Society.

We are opposed to the proposed mini-roundabout at the Webb’s Site/Bridge Road Junction.

We are particularly concerned by the risk of queuing vehicles interfering with the closing of the level crossing gates

or getting trapped in the crossing.  The distance from the proposed roundabout to the gates would be one car length.  I think today they agreed 3 “pcus” or “private car units” (as below), but it is worth repeating the point made by Brown (and below) that one or more of them could easily be an HGV, especially since the new ferries appeared

Vehicles leaving the Webb’s site turning right would have priority over traffic heading from Lymington over the bridge.  We are astonished by the assertion that only a maximum of 3 cars queue there at peak times.  It is our regular experience that summer traffic backs up well into Gosport Street and not infrequently right back into East Hill and Marsh Lane.   It would be interesting to know on which two days the appellants took their traffic survey as hear told today

The WSP survey was done before the introduction of the new IoW ferries which have nearly double the car carrying capacity and regularly transport 44 tonne articulated trucks.

The 308 units on the Webb site will increase the resident population of the town by 5-10% and will generate a considerable increase in car movements.

We therefore oppose the suggested mini-roundabout and consider that traffic lights linked to the crossing closure would be a safer solution.. (and its effect on congestion? - eg Waterloo Road, and the case where the lights favour exit from the site but there is no exiting traffic)

May I ask Mr. King to talk about the impact on pedestrians and cyclists?

Mr Nicholas King's evidence to the enquiry: (to follow)

Mr Nicholas King's feedback from the enquiry:

The Public enquiry has just finished. I would not like to call the result (perhaps I'd go for 60:40 on refusal of the appeal).

NFDC had seemed to have it sewn up by lunchtime today - the 2nd day. Their QC had done well largely in spite of the Council witnesses. e.g. he clearly established that, contrary to Redrow's case, the Council's failure to decide the roundabout application was NOT what is holding up the development.

He had - following Ivor's prompting - got Redrow's traffic witness to agree that his evidence on the safety of mini roundabouts, which he had claimed was based on data from 300 mini roundabouts did not in fact tell us anything reliable about safety at this location as it did not include any roundabouts so close to a level crossing. Any rational process would have concluded that traffic signals linked to the level crossing was safer and more 'other-road-user' friendly (my point) than a mini-roundabout. But after lunch, the Redrow QC seemed to me to succeed in casting doubt on some of the main points previously conceded and in making it a tight finish. Inspector felt he would have to spend another night in Lymington to do a site visit in daylight (probably a good sign; according to Elisabeth he knows the town quite well already). Decision expected soon after Easter.

Nic

Dr Ivor Johnston's feedback from the enquiry:

Some interesting points came out - don't rely on my numbers!

Redrow could have built the mini roundabout under section 178 without planning permission, but Highways could have later imposed conditions (section 278??)which Redrow might not like, hence their desire for planning permission. Powergen did a similar thing then successfully sued when highways tried to impose conditions.

NFDC QC successfully got across the point that Redrow's motive might be to avoid a Network Rail ransome or refusal for the traffic signals which are assumed in the 2005 permission.

Redrow made great play of the benefits of getting on with the development and of the (section 106!) 2005 permission (£300k, affordable housing etc.). I said that Redrow had further possibilities as shown by their recent presentation (when presumeably the NFDC could require similar benefits). Their QC asked if our objective was to thwart the 2005 permission. I said no.

Nic had a killer point that Southlands School for learning difficulties send their kids to walk into town as part of their living skills training.

Elizabeth Lewis made a good speech on traffic, caravans, coaches etc.

After all the interminable discussion of sight lines, deflections, average speeds, traffic numbers etc. I am convinced that a mini roundabout would be a dangerous nuisance and that Redrow want one for other reasons. The Inspector visits Lymington regularly and is familiar with it.

Ivor

{Body}