Letters: We need a Lyndhurst bypass for health not just traffic
SIR - For many years, many of us have been aware of the long hold-ups on the A337 into Lyndhurst from Cadnam, particularly during the hot summers when the queues can extend a considerable distance, with both the elderly and the young suffering.
Lyndhurst high street is rather narrow and roads connecting to it are subject to heavy traffic spewing out poisonous carbon monoxide from which all including pedestrians are suffering.
In the interest of good health, with particular consideration for both the young and elderly, I would like to see the present interest shown in a bypass by New Forest District Council come to fruition.
A Defra air quality action plan in 2008 concerning Lyndhurst, reported an "exceedance of the annual mean objective for nitrogen dioxide pollution" as a serious issue.
It has long been mooted that the solution to Lyndhurst's traffic problem is to build a bypass through the surrounding Forest land.
As early as 1947 the government's Baker Report accepted that a bypass might be necessary, and provision was made in the 1949 New Forest Act to construct roads through the Forest with the consent of the verderers.
Green campaigners, including New Forest Friends of the Earth and the New Forest Association, have long opposed bypass plans, but frequent traffic jams increasing since 1949 to the present day have left many thinking a bypass is the only solution.
It is understandable that the Forest people, including the verderers, would raise serious objections to a bypass, but their views hardly reflect the views of the millions of other people who visit the area throughout the year, many of whom go through Lyndhurst, and visit the museum located there.
It should be borne in mind that Lyndhurst is located on main routes to other destinations including Brockenhurst and Lymington, as well as being on the A35 between Christchurch and Southampton.
What is needed is a common sense solution, even to consideration of a cut and cover tunnel in some places. One was rejected at Boltons Bench in an earlier proposal.
Robert Wolton, Bransgore