Says Maureen Comber

Download the report here

Here are some suggestions and questions re the report above.

Point 1 The Eco-town is no longer achievable because it was only sought in the first place on the basis of European funding which would deliver the infrastructure to support 4,000 houses.

Question Why are Eco town proposals still on the table considering the original funding is no longer available? Why not instead a smaller number of houses more in keeping with a lower expectation of the infrastructure achievable?

1.4 Horse riders have been disenfranchised for far too long because of the unsafe nature of the minor rural road environments which have speed limits set at 60mph. This is neither a safe speed to travel nor is it there for the safety of anyone.

2.2.1 Although not considered as transport as it was 100 years ago, horses either ridden or pulling carts are not mentioned. Surely as this is the most sustainable transport mode they should not be excluded from the study? To do so does not meet the requirements of sec 130 HA 1980 for the safety and enjoyment of the highway for the public.

2.3.4 Emphasises the need to extend safety measures beyond the villages and provide link routes between villages for mobility scooters and all other sustainable transport.

2.4.2 Significant damage has already resulted in rural areas due to the dominance of motor vehicles. It is no longer safe for non motorised users to access the single track carriageway rural lanes. Horses and their riders are being killed and injured far too frequently, that is where they are brave enough to use the lanes. (BHS web site). Mostly we have been disenfranchised. Surely there must be an expectation that cyclists will wish to enter the Eco-town for work or pleasure from the surrounding settlements. The historic minor roads of which we have an abundance surrounding the Eco-town will make excellent routes for sustainable transport.

2.5.1 I do not agree that a single approach cannot be taken in rural areas. The cheapest and most effective way to make the single track carriageway rural lanes safer and more enjoyable for sustainable transport, is to universally make all roads not wide enough for a white line in the middle, subject to 20/30mph. This will then be obvious to all road users with less need for repeated signage. In other words any road without a white line is subject to a 20/30mph and prioritised for non-motorised use.

The villages are now protected by 30mph but the minor roads in between are not. The bridleway network used by all non-motorised users is so fragmented that the roads in between have to be used to get from one bridleway to the next. This use should be recognised and catered for. Remember bridleways are accessible to all non-motorised users.

3.3.3. 30,000 sq metres of retail and mixed use will surely attract the opposite of what is proposed? Moving away from car use is not feasible during wet periods and will not be profitable for businesses if the public are put off visiting because they are not able to walk or cycle. With 60% of the population nationally being over 50 yrs of age this is a very real possibility.

7.2.3 It is noticeable from the photographs that the 20 & 30mph both have pavements whereas the 40mph single track carriageway with no refuges has none. Where is the sense in that? Why is this not included in the shared space schemes with a 20mph since it is intrinsically rural and suitable for alternative forms of transport?

7.2.8 Query why the village 30 cannot be extended along the minor feeder roads until they reach a junction with a higher class of road or B road. Although it is necessary to assess the rural nature of the road environment this should automatically bring with it the measures to ensure the safe and enjoyable use of the route i.e. Slow speeds with priority for non-motorised use. It is pointless to avoid safety measures just because it is considered rural. The data shows that most accidents happen on rural roads in any case. The problem is that because of disenfranchisement the data will not be an accurate reflection of the situation.

8.2 The severance issues are valid not only in Wrecclesham but along the entire A325 corridor which divides the parishes of Kingsley and Binsted. It also divides the recreationally valuable Alice Holt Forest which is within the SDNP and Broxhead Commons as well as ...

8.6 preventing access to bridleway 62 Binsted at Frith End cross roads and access to Kingsley Common and beyond because it is impossible to cross the A325 safely with a horse. Therefore a Pegasus crossing or light controlled crossing is needed at Frith End , Sleaford and FP44 Binsted between Holt Pound and Bucks Horn Oak.

It is particularly important to link with the greenways in and around the Eco town to provide sustainable through routes for non-motorised users. At some point it must be recognised that motorised use and non-motorised use are no longer compatible due to the speed, volume and size of traffic.

Summary – it is obvious from the data collected that there is a generic problem with regard to traffic volumes and speed in the countryside and villages surrounding Bordon/Whitehill. In order to protect them and the Eco-town itself there should be a direct road link between the A3 and the A31 just to the north or south of the Ham Barn roundabout. Is there an estimatikn in any of the studies, of how much traffic might be removed from all the areas above if a new link route was in place?