New Forest Local Cycling and Walking Infrastructure Plan

Shared foreword of support

This Local Cycling and Walking Infrastructure Plan (LCWIP) for the New Forest area is a collaborative effort between Hampshire County Council, New Forest District Council, New Forest National Park Authority, and Forestry England. This plan sets out a shared vision for making walking and cycling more attractive, accessible, and safe for everyday journeys across the New Forest. The LCWIP supports our wider strategic goals, such as Hampshire’s Vision for 2050 and the New Forest National Park Partnership Plan, together with informing the Local Plan reviews for the District Council and National Park Authority.

The New Forest is a unique and sensitive landscape, rich in biodiversity and cultural heritage. This plan recognises the importance of protecting and enhancing this special environment while enabling people to travel actively and sustainably. As part of our commitment to protecting the natural environment within the New Forest area, a Habitat Regulations Assessment has been conducted and its findings integrated into the LCWIP proposals.

Through careful planning and stakeholder engagement, we have developed a framework that respects the character of the area while promoting positive change.

Engagement with local communities, stakeholders, and partners has been central to the development of this LCWIP, and their insights and aspirations have helped shape a plan that reflects local needs and priorities, ensuring it is both ambitious and grounded. Recognising the area’s popularity for leisure travel, the LCWIP includes a dedicated leisure cycling network to support and enhance recreational access while managing visitor pressures responsibly.

The LCWIP will enable us to secure funding for active travel improvements and guide investment in infrastructure that supports walking and cycling. It also plays a vital role in responding to future housing growth and developing our Local Plans that will look to deliver it, ensuring that new development contributes to a more sustainable transport network through developer contributions and integrated planning. This LCWIP aligns with our commitment to sustainable development, helping to shape communities that are healthier, better connected, and more resilient to future challenges.

Together, we are committed to delivering a future where walking and cycling are natural choices for short journeys, contributing to healthier lives, thriving communities, and a protected landscape. Councillor Nick Adams-King
Leader of Hampshire County Council

Section one

Introduction

1 Waterside LCWIP report

This is the Local Cycling and Walking Infrastructure Plan (LCWIP) for the New Forest and it has been prepared by Hampshire County Council in partnership with New Forest District Council (NFDC), New Forest National Park Authority (NFNPA) and Forestry England (FE).

Roles and responsibilities of all LCWIP partners

• Hampshire County Council has responsibility for developing the LCWIP because it is the Highway and Transport Authority for the public highway within New Forest District (excluding the A31 Strategic Road Network, which is the responsibility of National Highways).
• New Forest District Council is the Planning Authority for all areas of the district outside of the boundary of the National Park.
• New Forest National Park Authority is the Planning Authority for everything within the National Park boundary.
• Forestry England is the authority that manages the Crown public forest estate in the National Park, which is nearly 50% of the total area.

This LCWIP covers the whole of the National Park west of the A326 (including crossings of the A326 into the New Forest) with the exception of an area to the north of the B3078, which is within Wiltshire. Walking and cycling infrastructure proposals developed by Wiltshire Council are shown within this document where they fall within the National Park boundary, to ensure the document provides a comprehensive overview of the walking and cycling network in the New Forest. It also covers the southern coastal area around the towns of Lymington and New Milton, the Avon Valley including Ringwood, Fordingbridge and the area around the villages of Damerham and Martin leading onto Cranborne Chase.

This LCWIP sits alongside the New Forest (Waterside) Local Cycling and Walking Infrastructure Plan¹, adopted by Hampshire County Council in 2022. The Waterside LCWIP covers the Waterside area of New Forest that generally lies to the east of A326 and includes Totton. The Waterside LCWIP was developed in advance of the rest of the New Forest area due to specific development pressures in the area and because the area is covered by a successful joint Transforming Cities Fund (TCF) bid secured in partnership with Southampton City Council.

The New Forest LCWIP network connects with route alignments in the LCWIPs that have or are being prepared in adjoining areas of Hampshire, Dorset, Wiltshire and Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole, all of whom have been engaged during the development of this LCWIP.

Hampshire County Council, New Forest District Council (NFDC), New Forest National Park Authority (NFNPA) and Forestry England (FE) are committed to improving the roads and paths in the New Forest and share a desire to invest in sustainable transport measures, including walking and cycling infrastructure. Successful delivery of the network of routes outlined in this LCWIP will offer healthy and safe alternatives to travel by car for local short journeys to work, local services and schools as well as for leisure. In so doing, all residents and visitors in the New Forest area will experience benefits, such as: a reduction in air pollution, fewer delays, a potential decrease in the frequency of road traffic collisions including those involving forest animals, improved accessibility for people of all ages and abilities and enjoyment of the special qualities of the New Forest environment. The outcome will be healthier and friendlier communities with high levels of walking, wheeling, cycling, horse-riding and public transport across the New Forest area.

LCWIP Overview

What is an LCWIP?

Local Cycling and Walking Infrastructure Plans (LCWIPs), as set out in the government’s Cycling and Walking Investment Strategy (CWIS), are a strategic approach to identifying cycling and walking improvements required at the local level. They enable a long-term approach to developing local cycling and walking networks, ideally over a 10-year period, and form a vital part of the government’s strategy to increase the number of trips made on foot or by cycle. They comprise:

• a network plan for walking and cycling which identifies preferred routes and core zones, based on the potential for modal shift for further development;
• a prioritised programme of infrastructure improvements for future investment; and
• a report which sets out the underlying analysis carried out and provides a narrative which supports the identified improvements and network.

2 The second cycling and walking investment strategy - GOV.UK (www.gov.uk)

3 Responding to climate change | Hampshire County Council (hants.gov.uk)

4 newforest.gov.uk/climatechange

5 Climate and nature emergency - New Forest National Park Authority (newforestnpa.gov.uk)

Requirements for an LCWIP

In July 2022, the government published its Second Cycling and Walking Investment Strategy (CWIS)² which has the following aim: ‘To make walking and cycling the natural choices for shorter journeys, or as part of a longer journey by 2040’. The CWIS objectives to 2025 include:

• increase the percentage of short journeys in towns and cities that are walked or cycled from 41% in 2018–2019 to 46% in 2025;
• increase walking activity, where walking activity is measured as the total number of walking stages per person per year, to 365 stages per person per year in 2025;
• double cycling, where cycling activity is measured as the estimated total number of cycling stages made each year, from 0.8 billion stages in 2013 to 1.6 billion stages in 2025; and
• increase the percentage of children aged 5 to 10 who usually walk to school from 49% in 2014 to 55% in 2025.

The CWIS objectives beyond 2025 are:

• increase the percentage of short journeys in towns and cities that are walked or cycled to 50% in 2030 and to 55% in 2035; and
• deliver a world-class cycling and walking network in England by 2040.

Hampshire County Council, as the Highway and Transport Authority, to successfully secure funding from central government for walking and cycling improvements in the New Forest District, must show it has an approved LCWIP in place and will be delivering improvements that will help achieve the objectives set out in the CWIS.

The delivery of this LCWIP is supported by Hampshire County Council’s own strategies including Local Transport Plan 4 and Hampshire Walking and Cycling Strategies. The aims of the respective, county-wide strategies are:

• Walking: By 2025, walking will be the travel mode of choice for short trips and the most popular and accessible means of recreation.
• Cycling: By 2025, cycling will be a convenient, safe, healthy, affordable and popular means of transportation and recreation within Hampshire.

Why do we want an LCWIP for the New Forest?

In June 2019, Hampshire County Council declared a Climate Emergency³, joining more than 70 local authorities across the country in committing to put environmental issues at the heart of everything it does. New Forest District Council published its most recent Climate Change and Nature Emergency Strategy in summer 2023⁴, having declared a Climate and Nature Emergency in 2021. The National Park Authority declared a Nature and Climate Emergency in January 2020⁵, based on the following reasons:

• Only 7% of visitors travel to the New Forest car-free and high levels of car dependency can affect the quality of life of local communities, the quiet enjoyment of the National Park, the welfare of livestock and the integrity of the Forest’s landscape and habitats.
• 40% of the New Forest’s carbon emissions come from road transport.
• The New Forest National Park has one of the lowest ‘easy to use’ footpath network ratings compared with other National Parks and although there are over 100km of off-road cycle paths, they are not always well connected to enable round trips or active travel between destinations.
• The New Forest is closely surrounded by dense urban development with little intervening buffer area.

The National Park has an estimated 16 million day visitors per annum and planned nearby housing growth (about 130,000 dwellings are currently proposed for South Hampshire and southeast Dorset up to 2036 in the zone around the New Forest National Park) means that in the future this figure is only likely to increase. These numbers of visitors alongside the growth in residents can only be accommodated sustainably by achieving a shift from private car trips to active travel in the form of walking, cycling and public transport. This LCWIP document is an essential tool in enabling that shift as well as helping to address a range of rural transport issues by improving transport connectivity, health and wellbeing, and access to recreational opportunities by active travel modes.

Framework for New Forest LCWIP network

The New Forest LCWIP network has been developed to ensure it is coherent, direct, safe, comfortable and attractive. Routes have been identified that link the places people live or stay with key trip attractors, enabling them to make as many local trips as possible by cycling. As residential densities are lower in rural areas, use of rural parts of the network are likely to be lower than in urban areas, but it is still important to ensure there is a plan to improve options for people to access key services without reliance on the private car.

LCWIPs developed in Hampshire to date have generally shown a planned network divided into primary and secondary routes. For the New Forest LCWIP, a third category of leisure routes has been included. This is because there are different patterns of movement during the summer tourist season in the New Forest, with visitors making trips for leisure purposes, as well as the day-to-day journeys by residents.

The New Forest LCWIP goes beyond the identification of a utility trip network to include a leisure network encompassing both on- and off-road routes.

A fourth category of route has been included in the Network Map called ‘Additional Routes for Consideration’. These are primarily Countryside Rights of Way or the Avon Valley long-distance walking path. These routes have been included in the Network Map for the consultation stage to understand whether there is support from stakeholders for the inclusion of these routes in the LCWIP network given the ecologically sensitive nature of some of the locations.

Definition of routes and zones:

• Primary utility – the main corridors linking key origins/destinations within settlements (and to nearby villages which closely relate to the main settlement); providing links between larger settlements which are relatively close together within the study area; or forming strategic links between key destinations, for example as part of the National Cycle Network. These utility routes are focused on the most direct alignments linking settlements which are often main roads. Further feasibility work is required to fully determine whether primary and secondary utility routes will be deliverable. If they are assessed to be undeliverable then alternative alignments along quieter roads or parallel routes will be considered.
• Secondary utility – important routes feeding into the primary routes, connecting more dispersed trip attractors or smaller population centres, and increasing the density of routes to allow more choice.
• Leisure – key routes linking settlements or significant seasonal destinations such as campsites via the public highway, countryside rights of way (CRoW) or Forestry England managed estate used primarily for leisure purposes and tending to be more popular on a seasonal basis. This document is not intended to capture all the leisure routes within the area and there are additional routes in existence on the gravel network that are not shown in this document.
• Core Walking Zones (CWZs) – These are areas with several walking trip generators located in close proximity, such as town or local centres. Walking zones set out areas for investment in pedestrian infrastructure over a larger area rather than a specific route.

Local Access Plans

A Local Access Plan is a localised strategy for improving access by sustainable transport modes in small to medium-sized settlements. It provides an opportunity to focus on a specific area and have detailed discussions with the parish or town council on transport matters in the local community.

The rural nature of the New Forest requires that the New Forest LCWIP recognises the essential role of the market towns and villages in serving the local community within each town and in the surrounding countryside as well as serving as gateways for visitors to access the National Park. Local Access Plans will be developed in partnership with the local community and focus upon the local services and facilities in each village or town centre, with walking and cycling routes linking the residential areas of each town to the surroundings rural settlements and to the National Park. Each Local Access Plan will be based upon the principles of supporting the local economy, creating Healthy Streets (see Hampshire LTP4) and will contain proposals for walking zones as described in LCWIP Guidance.

Each will include an action plan that typically sets out a 3–5-year programme of feasibility work, detailed design and delivery of schemes (including LCWIP schemes) that have regard to the known Local Plan context and the associated Infrastructure Delivery Plans.

New Forest LCWIP network components

The New Forest LCWIP has been developed with the following network components:

• A primary and secondary utility (all-purpose) cycle route network, identifying preferred routes for further investment and development based on the potential for modal shift.
• An on-road leisure cycle route network, identifying preferred routes for leisure trips, including linking leisure trips such as from campsites and car parks to leisure attractions such as ornamental drives and themed venues.
• An off-road local or leisure walking, cycle and horse-riding route network, utilising Forestry England permitted gravel trails and designated public and permissive rights of way for cyclists.
• Additional routes for consideration – routes where we are seeking feedback from stakeholders during the consultation stage as to whether these routes should be included in the LCWIP network.
• Core Walking Zones have been developed for the towns and villages listed below that were deemed to meet the criteria. These will provide a starting point for the development of Local Access Plans in consultation with the representative bodies for each of the settlements:

• Brockenhurst
• Fordingbridge
• Lymington
• Lyndhurst
• New Milton
• Ringwood

• Local Access Plans will be developed for the market towns and villages where CWZs have been developed (listed above).
• Those settlements where CWZs or Local Access Plans are not proposed can still expect to see pedestrian and cycle infrastructure improvements associated with route development proposals.

The proposed primary and secondary utility cycle network has been assessed against the requirements of government guidance: Cycle infrastructure design (LTN 1/20). The results of that assessment are set out in Section Two of this LCWIP.

The approach taken is aligned with the framework of established policies and principles for the National Park set out by Hampshire County Council, NFDC, NFNPA and FE. Whilst more detail is provided in the policy section below, essentially the approach will be to reduce impacts from motor vehicle traffic, such as safety hazards (including forest animals), tranquillity, noise, air pollution, visual intrusion, loss of habitat and grazing land.

In practice, within the National Park, this could mean for example:

• Where appropriate and supported locally, measures to reduce traffic levels to that required for local access only (including car parks where appropriate) and removal of through-traffic.
• Reducing traffic speed where this would assist in improving safety for people walking, cycling, horse riders and forest animals, for example by reducing the speed limit where this has the support of the local community or by reducing traffic provision to single file with passing places that could release land for grazing or be utilised for better walking, cycling or horse-rider provision.
• Redressing the balance of highway provision to reflect the latest revisions of the highway code and Hampshire’s Local Transport Plan to give the highest priority to the most vulnerable road users.

It is recognised that this new approach represents a significant departure from current practices (albeit, some of these approaches were originally set out in the Highway Strategy for the New Forest, published in 1989) and therefore it will be pursued only after consultation with local communities and through pilot schemes to see what works, what doesn’t and to learn lessons before such measures are considered for wider application.

The proposed leisure network has not been audited at this stage due to available resources and a recognition that the unique environmental sensitivities of the National Park mean the application of LTN 1/20 standards for off-road routes will not always be appropriate. Going forward, the four partner organisations collaborating on the development of this LCWIP will work with key stakeholders, such as Natural England, to agree appropriate proposals for improving the leisure network identified in this LCWIP.

New Forest LCWIP Boundary

The black boundary line on the map opposite shows the extent of the New Forest LCWIP covered by this document with the boundary of the adopted Waterside LCWIP area shown by the grey dashed boundary line. The two LCWIP areas combined cover the New Forest District Council administrative area.

The extent of the National Forest Estate, managed by Forestry England on behalf of the Forestry Commission/Crown Estate, is shown in the grey overlay.

The extent of the New Forest National Park is shown by the green boundary line with a green overlay. It predominately falls within the boundary of this LCWIP with the exception of an area to the north that extends into the county of Wiltshire. The Wiltshire LCWIP routes are shown in our network overview map; however, they have not been audited or considered further in this document other than to ensure cross-boundary alignment of routes.

Ecological and Environmental Designations Map

The New Forest National Park is a nationally protected landscape, which has the highest status of planning protection. It has a higher proportion of its land covered by international nature conservation designations than any other planning area in England, including all other English National Parks.

The New Forest is home to a wide variety of important and often rare wildlife, habitats and species. The importance of these means that large areas of land in the National Park and its coastline have been designated as Special Areas of Conservation (SAC), Special Protection Areas (SPA), and Ramsar sites, benefitting from a high level of protection under international nature conservation directives. The New Forest’s natural environment is further protected by extensive areas designated as Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI), reflecting their national nature conservation importance.

Aligned with the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017 (as amended), these internationally designated sites enjoy the highest level of statutory and government policy protection. Specific and stringent tests within the Habitats Regulations are set to ensure that no development will harm the integrity of these areas, other than in exceptional circumstances.

Many of the routes identified in this LCWIP pass through land that is both ecologically and environmentally very sensitive. The deliverability of some of these routes may not be feasible due to these constraints. Further feasibility work on these routes will require involvement of key stakeholders such as Natural England and the Verderers. Even routes on the public highway may be constrained as many roadside verges are covered by SSSI designation and opportunities for widening the highway to create segregated cycle tracks or footpaths may not be possible.

Designations:

• National Nature Reserves (NNR) – Nationally important sites for nature conservation, where conservation is the primary land use, designated under the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949.
• Ramsar Sites – A wetland of international importance, especially for wildfowl, designated under the Ramsar Convention on Wetland of International Importance.
• Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) – Nationally important sites for nature conservation, designated under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981.
• Special Areas of Conservation (SACs) – Areas designated under the EC Directive on the Conservation of Natural Habitats and of Wild Fauna and Flora (The Habitats Directive) 1992 as being of European importance for habitats and species.
• Special Protection Areas (SPA) – Areas of European importance for birds, designated under the EC Directive on the Conservation of Wild Birds 1979 (the Wild Birds Directive).

Proposed New Forest cycling network and core walking zone (CWZ) Overview

The map below shows the New Forest and the proposed cycle network and CWZs.

Each route has been assigned a three-digit reference number and divided into four categories of routes – ‘primary utility’, which represent busy, direct and main routes; ‘secondary utility’, which represent medium-usage routes through local areas; ‘leisure on highway’, which represent routes on HCC highways which are for leisure cycling; and ‘leisure not on highway’ which are routes for leisure cycling but not on HCC highways. There are also unnumbered leisure routes shown as additional routes on the plan, some of which are longer-distance routes, with others being shorter connecting links.

The Waterside LCWIP covers the eastern part of the New Forest District Council area. A key aim of this LCWIP is to improve active travel access from the Waterside area to the National Park. This will be done by reducing the severance created by the A326 through the provision of improved active travel facilities. The Waterside LCWIP routes are shown on the adjacent plan in light green. We have sought to ensure that the routes developed as part of this New Forest LCWIP connect with the Waterside LCWIP routes to create a cohesive east-west active travel network.

The following maps show the primary and secondary utility cycle networks, and the leisure route and National Cycle Network, in more detail.

Proposed New Forest network overview

Proposed New Forest network overview

Proposed New Forest network overview

Description of the New Forest

The population of the New Forest District Council area is 175,800 (2021 Census) of which 69,800 live in the area covered by the Waterside LCWIP. The total area is 753.2 square kilometres and the district borders the counties of Wiltshire, Dorset and Bournemouth Christchurch and Poole to the north and west, and Southampton to the east. Almost 70% of the New Forest District Council area lies within the National Park, which has its own planning system under the jurisdiction of the National Park Authority. The National Park was designated in 2005 and covers an area of 567 square kilometres and, with 62 people per square kilometre, it is the second most densely populated National Park after the South Downs. It operates within a detailed planning policy and legislative framework.

The main settlements are Fordingbridge, Ringwood, New Milton, Lymington, Lyndhurst and Brockenhurst. The last two are within the National Park and not subject to the jurisdiction of the New Forest District Council, which is the Local Planning Authority elsewhere. The settlement pattern is characterised by a series of relatively small towns and isolated villages widely dispersed throughout the area.

Features of the existing transport network are shown on the plan in the Introduction to Section 2. The National Park is crossed by several major routes which carry high volumes of traffic. The A31, which links southwest England with Southampton and elsewhere in the Southeast, is the most heavily used road in the National Park, carrying up to 77,000 vehicles daily and effectively cutting the National Park in two. The A31 is part of England’s Strategic Road Network and managed by National Highways. A section of the A326 connecting Fawley with junction 2 of the M27 at Marchwood has recently been the subject of public consultation over plans to increase capacity in connection with the redevelopment of the former power station site at Fawley. The route continues as the A36 to Salisbury. The A338 between Salisbury and Bournemouth links the main settlements of Fordingbridge and Ringwood and mirrors the western boundary of the plan area. Other major routes are the A337 linking Lymington and Christchurch with junction 1 of the M27 via Lyndhurst. The A35 links Southampton with Bournemouth, again via Lyndhurst. The railway line between Bournemouth and London bisects the southern section of the National Park causing significant severance due to the limited number of crossing points over the line.

Despite major settlements in the area, e.g. Fordingbridge and Ringwood, having no railway station, long-distance travel is reasonably well catered for with Brockenhurst, Lymington and New Milton having direct connections to Southampton and London Waterloo. Lymington has two railway stations, one of which connects with the Isle of Wight ferry. There are also stations at Ashurst, Beaulieu Road, Hinton Admiral and Sway. There are several scheduled bus services through the area including a regular service between Southampton and Lymington via Lyndhurst and Brockenhurst. Many more isolated settlements and rural villages are not well served, however, and given the wide dispersal of smaller settlements there is little opportunity to establish viable services.

Much of the New Forest area, both within and outside the National Park, is rural in nature and therefore walking and cycling between settlements can be difficult due to the large distances involved and lack of infrastructure to support these modes of travel. Many of the roads that connect the settlements are A and B roads which have high volumes and speeds of motor vehicle traffic. Due to the historic nature of some of the settlements the roads and pavements can be narrow. On-street parking is also a barrier to walking and cycling in some town locations. The topography in some locations includes steep hills and these can be a barrier to people walking and cycling.

The existing cycle routes on permitted (gravel) cycle tracks (over 100 miles in all) within the New Forest were created by the Forestry Commission (now Forestry England). They provide circular off-road routes around most of the campsites in the Forest. It was acknowledged at any early stage that the scope for providing new cycle routes adjacent to existing main roads within the New Forest (which generally offer the most direct routes) would be challenging as the verges on unfenced roads come within the jurisdiction of the New Forest, and therefore covered by special protection status, and are not considered to form part of the public highway. Whilst some of the procedures to follow when considering LCWIPs are covered in the Department for Transport’s Local Transport Note 1/20 ‘Cycle Infrastructure Design’, some of the suggestions are more relevant/applicable to urban/suburban areas rather than widely dispersed small settlements set within a rural area. Active Travel England is currently preparing a guidance note on best practice governing the provision of cycling facilities in rural areas; however, at the time this LCWIP was in preparation, the guidance was still awaited. Any recommendations emerging from this document will be incorporated into the LCWIP where applicable.

The special environmental and historic characteristics of the New Forest National Park mean there are a diverse set of key stakeholders whose engagement will be needed to deliver the route network outlined in this document. Key stakeholders and their role in the New Forest are outlined below:

1. Parish and town councils within the district – local representatives of parishes and settlements within the district with responsibility for green spaces, toilets and in certain cases landowners in their own right.
2. The Court of Verderers – manage commoning of livestock in the New Forest.
3. Commoners Defence Association – an organisation that represents and supports commoners in the New Forest.
4. National Trust – significant landowner.
5. Natural England – government advisory body for the natural environment in England, helping to protect England’s nature and landscapes.
6. Private landowners.

Policy framework

The policy framework for this LCWIP is provided by a variety of documents, plans and strategies belonging to the partners, which are summarised below.

Hampshire County Council

Local Transport Plan (LTP4)

The LCWIP supports Hampshire’s Local Transport Plan 4 Vision of ‘A carbon neutral, resilient and inclusive transport system designed around people, which supports health, wellbeing and quality of life for all; supports a connected economy and creates successful and prosperous places; and respects and seeks to enhance Hampshire’s unique environment’.

The LCWIP supports the following guiding principles:

• Guiding Principle 1: Give people a choice of high-quality travel options.
• Guiding Principle 2: Provide a transport system that promotes high-quality, prosperous places and puts people first.

The LCWIP also aligns with Healthy Place policies, including:

• Policy HP1: Delivering the infrastructure required to support a large-scale shift towards walking and cycling for everyday trips.
• Policy HP2: Enabling healthy neighbourhoods and high streets in partnership with communities.
• Policy HP3: Widen participation and broaden the appeal of walking and cycling as a natural travel choice.

The LCWIP supports Rural Transport policies including:

6 Countryside access plan 2015-2025 | Hampshire County Council (hants.gov.uk)

• Policy RT1: Maintaining accessibility in rural areas, and providing realistic alternatives to reduce dependency on the private car.
• Policy RT2: Providing sustainable access to the countryside.

Policy (HP1) specifically references the need to ‘deliver the infrastructure required to support a large-scale shift towards walking and cycling for everyday trips’ and that Hampshire County Council will:

• ensure that any changes to the highway infrastructure prioritise walking and cycling, in line with our Road User Utility Framework and Movement and Place Framework, Walking and Cycling Principles, and national policies;
• use Local Cycling and Walking Infrastructure Plans to identify, prioritise and deliver infrastructure which connects people with where they want to go;
• use a ‘Healthy Streets’ approach and our ‘Hampshire Walking and Cycling Principles’ to plan, design and implement coherent, direct, safe, comfortable, attractive and inclusive networks for everyone regardless of ability, confidence, age and disability;
• create or reallocate road space to create better spaces for walking and cycling, and spending time (e.g. in town centres); and
• evaluate, when undertaking larger maintenance schemes, opportunities to bring existing infrastructure for walking and cycling up to current standards, rather than simply replacing like for like.

Hampshire Countryside Services Strategy and PRoW Improvement Plan

A Hampshire Countryside Services Strategy and Public Rights of Way (PRoW) Improvement Plan is currently under development. This document will be an update of the existing Countryside Access Plan 2015-2025⁶.

Technical guidance notes

There are a number of technical guidance notes produced by Hampshire County Council of interest to developers and others proposing changes to existing walking and cycling provision. These include TG10, which deals with pedestrian and cycle facility provision and TG19 which covers walking, cycling and horse-riding assessment and review.

New Forest District Council

Local Plan 2016-36 – Part One: Planning Strategy

New Forest District outside New Forest National Park (Together with relevant policies from earlier Local Plans. A full review of the council’s Local Plan commenced in February 2024.)

This contains policies to protect and enhance the special character and environment of the New Forest District outside the National Park, to provide more homes for local people, to support local businesses to prosper for the benefit of the community and to protect and promote the safety and wellbeing of people who live and work within the district. This latter policy includes commitments regarding climate change, environmental sustainability, infrastructure provision and sustainable access to opportunities and facilities.

Committed strategic transport projects included improvements to the A31 at Ringwood (which have now been implemented) and on the A35.

The Local Plan strategy for transport and access aims to promote a more integrated and sustainable local transport network, and to facilitate ease of access to local services and facilities supporting planned development and mitigating its cumulative impact on the highway network and other transport services.

A key ambition of the Local Plan is the maintenance, promotion and, where possible, improvement of access to services, employment, social and leisure opportunities by public transport, cycling and walking, whilst also maintaining safe and convenient access by car for which there is often no practicable alternative (especially in rural areas).

Neighbourhood Plans

Neighbourhood Plans are a way for communities to have a say in the future of the places where they live and work with the production of plans that hold weight in the planning process. Neighbourhood Plans for Lymington and Pennington, Fordingbridge, Ringwood and Sandleheath parishes are in preparation and the plan for New Milton was adopted in June 2021. There are also a number of relevant documents prepared by the town councils, such as the Utility Travel in Ringwood Town Centre study and the Fordingbridge Access Plan. Approved options from these documents will be incorporated into the LCWIP at the consultation stage.

Local Plan Strategic Development Sites

Strategic site allocations as identified in the New Forest District Council Local Plan of relevance to this area are:

• Strategic site (SS) 5 – land at Milford Road, Lymington
• Strategic site 6 – land to the east of Lower Pennington Lane, Lymington
• Strategic site 7 – land north of Manor Road, Milford on Sea
• Strategic site 10 – land to the east of Brockhills Lane, New Milton
• Strategic site 11 – land to the south of Gore Road, New Milton
• Strategic site 13 – land at Moortown Lane, Ringwood
• Strategic site 14 – land to the north of Hightown Road, Ringwood
• Strategic site 15 – land at Snails Lane, Ringwood
• Strategic site 17 – land at Whitsbury Road, Fordingbridge
• Strategic site 18 – land at Burgate, Fordingbridge.

A plan of strategic sites is in the Introduction to Section 2.

7 Re:New Forest - Partnership Plan 2022-2027 - New Forest National Park Authority (newforestnpa.gov.uk)

Corporate Plan 2024 to 2028 – New Forest District Council

The New Forest District Corporate Plan is the overarching document that sets the organisation’s vision, values, priorities and commitments. It describes how our services will work together towards our collective ambitions over the next four years.

The relevant Place Priorities outlined in the Corporate Plan include:

• shaping our place now and for future generations; and
• protecting our climate, coast and the natural world.

Climate Change and Nature Emergency Report and Action Plan 2023 (Updated Action Plan due summer 2024)

The travel and transport project areas include plans to encourage active travel by working with developers to achieve schemes that maximise the ability of residents to access facilities, employment and recreation by foot/cycle as well as reducing the need to travel.

National Park Authority

New Forest Local Plan 2016-2036 (Review of Local Plan commencing in 2024)

The Local Plan aims to deliver the long-term planning vision for the New Forest National Park and forms a key part of the statutory Development Plan for the area. This aims to deliver sustainable development within the context of a nationally protected landscape in conformity with the statutory Park purposes, the objectives of national planning policy and the ambitions in the New Forest National Park Partnership Plan described below.

The main strategic policies are to:

• protect and enhance the natural environment of the National Park, including the natural beauty of the landscape and the range of habitats and species;
• conserve and enhance the cultural heritage and historic environment of the National Park, especially the wealth of individual characteristics that contribute to its local distinctiveness;
• plan for the likely impacts of climate change on the special qualities of the New Forest;
• strengthen the wellbeing, identity and sustainability of rural communities and the pride of local people in their area;
• promote appropriate housing to meet local needs and maintain the vibrant communities of the National Park;
• develop a diverse and sustainable economy that contributes to the wellbeing of local communities throughout the National Park;
• encourage land management that sustains the special qualities of the National Park;
• support development that encourages sustainable tourism and recreation, and provides opportunities for enjoying the National Park’s special qualities; and
• reduce the impact of traffic on the special qualities of the National Park and supports a range of sustainable transport alternatives within the Park.

Neighbourhood Plans

Neighbourhood Plans for Lymington and Pennington, Fordingbridge, Ringwood and Wellow are in preparation and include the part of the parishes within the National Park. Plans for New Milton and Hythe and Dibden were adopted respectively in July 2021, and December 2019, and form part of the statutory Development Plan for the part of the National Park within each parish.

Village Design Statements

Village Design Statements are produced by local groups within each parish and are adopted as Supplementary Planning Documents to the New Forest National Park Local Plan. Several have been adopted to date covering parts of the National Park, and many highlight design considerations relating to highways, street furniture and signage.

Wayfinding signage and street furniture in the National Park must be appropriate and reflect the local character, with regard to the National Park Design Guide and relevant Village Design Statements for parishes within the National Park.

New Forest Partnership Plan 2021

The adoption and implementation of sustainable Transport Plans such as LCWIPs is a key action of the New Forest Partnership Plan⁷, which contains an objective to achieve net zero with nature by 2050, including increasing sustainable travel. This echoes policies in the National Park Local Plan and the New Forest District Plan that seek to encourage and enable more sustainable means of travel including walking and cycling, and to reduce reliance on private vehicles for the approximately 800 new dwellings planned within the National Park and the 10,420 new dwellings for the rest of the district outside the National Park for the period up to 2036. The Partnership Plan builds on actions in the 2019 Recreation Management Strategy update for the National Park.

Objective 4 of the Partnership Plan – net zero with nature – proposes the following outcome: a net zero carbon emissions target is achieved by 2050 through significant cuts in land-based emissions and the conservation and restoration of natural ecosystems, to both reduce emissions production and remove emissions from the atmosphere. Sustainable transport would be supported by:

• producing and delivering an agreed New Forest Local Cycling and Walking Infrastructure Plan (LCWIP);
• campaigning for lower speed limits across the Forest where appropriate and evidenced, to secure quieter, slower and reduced traffic impacts;
• developing a more coordinated and integrated approach to sustainable transport through the relevant Local Transport Plans and by developing a New Forest Transport Strategy; and
• supporting bids for schemes that enable the decarbonisation of the transport system.

8 New Forest Inclosures Forest Plan Oct 2019.pdf (forestryengland.uk)

New Forest National Park Design Guide 2022

This sets out a design code which mainly covers both new buildings and alterations to existing buildings within the development context of the New Forest. However, there is also reference to the requirements for rural lanes within the New Forest, such as the maintenance of soft verges, which are of relevance to this LCWIP.

Forestry England

New Forest Inclosures – Forest Design Plan 2019-2029⁸

Forest Design Plans define the long-term vision for a woodland or a collection of woodlands and other habitats. It sets objectives and illustrates how management will move towards achieving this vision over the initial 10 to 50 years. This plan represents a review of the Forest Design Plans for the New Forest Inclosures which were first prepared in 1999 and subsequently in 2006/7. The revised Plans have been prepared following a review of the previous plans undertaken by Forestry Commission staff, stakeholder groups and the wider community. It has incorporated developments in policy and local initiatives that have occurred in the intervening years.

.

Methodology

The Local Cycling and Walking Infrastructure Plan for the New Forest has been prepared by Hampshire County Council, working in partnership with New Forest District Council (NFDC), New Forest National Park Authority (NFNPA) and Forestry England (FE).

It covers the whole of the National Park west of the A326, including that part within Wiltshire, the southern coastal area around the towns of Lymington and New Milton, the Avon Valley including Ringwood, Fordingbridge and the area leading onto Cranborne Chase around the villages of Damerham and Martin. It sits alongside the New Forest (Waterside) LCWIP, adopted by Hampshire County Council in 2022, which covers the Waterside area of New Forest east of the A326, including Totton to Calshot.

Unlike other LCWIPs, the scope of the work was not limited to utility trips to work, education and shopping of up to 5km. The focus on utility trips in more urban areas acknowledges that they have the greatest potential to convert car trips to walking and cycling trips, within local areas. The inclusion of leisure trips in the network covering the New Forest District was felt to be vital given the special nature of the area and is outlined in Section 2. Any further DfT guidance specifically relating to walking and cycling on rural roads will be incorporated into future revisions of this Plan.

Methodology survey work was undertaken by Hampshire County Council staff during 2022/3. The approach was to look at opportunities to create walking and cycling networks. Existing facilities and routes were considered, along with known improvement proposals. Local stakeholders helped to identify where new routes and improvements were needed. The potential walking zones and cycle routes were then surveyed through a mixture of audit methods depending on the environment, with all walking audits conducted on foot, and cycle route audits undertaken by a mix of cycling, desktop analysis or driving along each route with a mounted camera. Given the rural context of this New Forest-focused LCWIP, the routes often stretch beyond the standard 5km proposed in the LCWIP Guidance, in order to link up settlements within the districts including work, education and shopping destinations in neighbouring districts/ boroughs.

LCWIP technical guidance

Under the guidance, the key outputs of LCWIPs are:

• a network plan for walking and cycling which identifies preferred routes and core zones for further development;
• a prioritised programme of infrastructure improvements for future investment; and
• a report which sets out the underlying analysis carried out and provides a narrative which supports the identified improvements and network.

The LCWIP process has six stages:

1. Determining scope
   Establish the geographical extent of the LCWIP, and arrangements for governing and preparing the plan.
2. Gathering information
   Identify existing patterns of walking and cycling and potential new journeys (via stakeholder workshops and important origins/destinations within the area). Review existing conditions and identify barriers to cycling and walking. Review related transport and land use policies and programmes.
3. Network planning for cycling
   Identify origin and destination points and cycle flows. Convert flows into a network of routes and determine the type of improvements required.
4. Network planning for walking
   Identify key trip generators, Core Walking Zones (CWZs) and routes, audit existing provision and determine the type of improvements required.
5. Prioritising improvements
   Prioritise improvements to develop a phased programme for future investment.
6. Integration and application
   Integrate outputs into local planning and transport policies, strategies and delivery plans.

Further information on how we developed the LCWIP is provided in Section Two.

Implementation

We are committed to delivering improved walking and cycling networks and zones across Hampshire; however, the inclusion of a specific route in the network plan is no guarantee that it will be implemented. While we have made every effort to ensure that our proposals are practical, it should be recognised that there are competing demands for highway space, including cars, buses, taxis and parking. Some sections of proposed routes may be on private land and discussions with landowners will be required.

Proposed road space reallocations for walking and cycling will need to carefully consider implications across all modes, although the ultimate aim must be to reduce the dominance of motor vehicles and make walking and cycling more attractive choices.

This report is not a feasibility study, but a high-level assessment. All proposals will be subject to further feasibility work and detailed design work will be necessary. In some cases, this may mean that a route is moved to an alternative parallel alignment.

If schemes are to be progressed, they will need to be prioritised for inclusion in delivery programmes alongside other proposals, with schemes subject to the appropriate level of business case development.

It is also intended that this LCWIP would be used to inform developers of the level of ambition for the walking and cycling network so that they may integrate their developments into the network and provide the necessary links to the network. The LCWIP focus is on the routes and zones that have the greatest potential to convert car trips to walking and cycling trips.

A rural guidance note is currently being developed to provide guidance as to how this walking and cycling infrastructure can be implemented in the more rural areas.

Hampshire County Council walking and cycling principles

Together with movements in national policy and guidance, Hampshire County Council has developed draft principles for walking and cycling. These principles have been designed to:

• enable more people to walk, cycle or use public transport in scale with our Climate Emergency;
• deliver better environments to match our 2050 Vision, both in towns and in the countryside;
• deliver better transport for all;
• play our part in addressing the factors that contribute to public health including social disparities; and
• reduce social inequalities and exclusion by improving the ability for everyone to access destinations including work, education, visiting friends and family, shopping and leisure, without reliance on private cars.

Hampshire County Council has developed ten walking and cycling principles, reviewing best practice and giving consideration to: aspirations, movement, place, maintenance and engagement.

These principles have all been established via County Council Member and Officer steering groups and consulted widely through these groups.

They were presented at Hampshire County Council’s first ever Active Places Summit (October 2020) to engage with a wide range of people who use our streets, high streets and walking and cycle routes on a day-to-day basis. They will be adopted with LTP4 in spring 2024.

The principles sit under three headings:

1. Overarching principles;
2. Planning; and
3. Design and implementation.

1. Overarching principles

• Prioritise walking and cycling for healthier people, healthier transport and a healthier planet.
• Have an integrated approach to all aspects of planning, development, design and operation.
• Ensure our planning is network based, shaped by evidence and monitored.

2. Planning

• Engage a wide range of users, and potential users, in the design process.
• Reframe the potential for walking, cycling and public transport to work together for longer-distance journeys.
• Trial new things, and if they do not work, we’ll change them.

3. Design and implementation

• Focus street design on people.
• Incorporate national design principles into every transport scheme. Our designs will be:
  • safe;
  • coherent;
  • direct;
  • comfortable;
  • attractive;
  • adaptable; and
  • accessible to all.
• Deliver walking and cycling environments that feel comfortable and provide inclusive access for everyone regardless of confidence, age and disability.
• Design the right scheme for each location.

These principles, when applied, will help reinforce Hampshire County Council’s goals in delivering a healthy, sustainable and active county, well into the future.

Government vision for cycling and walking

In 2020, the Department for Transport (DfT) published ‘Gear Change: A bold vision for cycling and walking’. It states that:

‘England will be a great walking and cycling nation. Places will be truly walkable. A travel revolution in our streets, towns and communities will have made cycling a mass form of transit. Cycling and walking will be the natural first choice for many journeys with half of all journeys in towns and cities being cycled or walked by 2030.’

To help deliver this vision, the government:

• has developed new guidance on cycle design (Local Transport Note 1/20 – see below);
• recently established Active Travel England to act as an inspectorate and funding body, and to support local authorities to deliver the vision; and
• will be publishing new guidance on walking (and an update to Manual for Streets).

The key principles that underpin LTN 1/20 are:

• cyclists must be separated from volume traffic, both at junctions and on the stretches of road between them;
• cyclists must be separated from pedestrians;
• cyclists must be treated as vehicles, not pedestrians;
• routes must join together; isolated stretches of good provision are of little value;
• routes must be direct, logical and be intuitively understandable by all road users
• routes and schemes must take account of how users actually behave;
• purely cosmetic alterations should be avoided;
• barriers, such as chicane barriers and dismount signs, should be avoided; and
• routes should be designed only by those who have experienced the road on a cycle.

Summary taken from the DfT’s ‘Gear Change. A bold vision for cycling and walking’.

For the full information on these documents, please see:

• DfT’s Gear Change: A bold vision for cycling and walking: Cycling and walking plan for England – GOV.UK
• DfT’s Cycle infrastructure design (LTN 1/20) guidance: gov.uk/government/publications/cycleinfrastructure-design-ltn-120
• Department for Transport (DfT) Local Transport Note 1/20 – cycle infrastructure design.

The publication of the LTN 1/20 in July 2020 followed the government’s announcement for new investment provided towards cycle improvements across the country. Local authorities and developers are now expected to use LTN 1/20 in the design of their schemes.

When reading this LCWIP, keep in mind that a number of recommendations for new zebra and parallel crossings may not meet Hampshire County Council’s current policy as it relates to pedestrian/vehicle ratios (PV²). Whilst we are confident that our approach to network planning aligns with this new guidance, all of the high-level suggested options will need further development.

Government vision for cycling and walking

Wayfinding

Wayfinding refers to information systems that guide people through a physical environment and enhance their understanding and experience of the space. Wayfinding is particularly important in complex built environments such as urban centres, long-distance trails and transportation facilities.

As environments become more complicated, people need visual cues such as maps, directions and symbols to help guide them to their destinations. In these often high-stress environments, effective wayfinding systems contribute to a sense of wellbeing, safety and security.

LTN 1/20 states that:

• There is a balance to be struck between providing enough signs for people to be able to understand and follow cycle infrastructure and ensuring that the signs themselves do not create confusion or street clutter. Routes on other rights of way not on the highway can use customised waymarking.

Hampshire County Council would include wayfinding as part of its network planning in all schemes, in line with LTN1/20.

Cycle parking

Cycle parking is integral to any cycle network, and to wider transport systems incorporating public transport. The availability of secure cycle parking at home, at the end of a trip or at an interchange point has a significant influence on cycle use.

LTN 1/20 states that:

• Cycle parking is an essential component of cycle infrastructure. Sufficient and convenient residential cycle parking enables people to choose cycling. At the trip end, proximity to destinations is important for short stay parking, while for longer-stay parking security concerns can be a factor. As with other infrastructure, designers should consider access for all cycles and their passengers.

Cycle parking would be considered as part of relevant schemes and is something that is also being considered as part of Hampshire’s Local Transport Plan 4 (LTP4).

Some examples of best practice cycle parking:

• An example of on street lockable cycle ‘hangar’ style parking facilities – Waltham Forest, London
• An example of cycle hub parking facilities – Winchester Train Station

Liveable neighbourhoods

9 Thomas and Aldred, 2023 Changes in motor traffic in London’s Low Traffic Neighbourhoods and boundary roads - ScienceDirect

Liveable neighbourhoods are designed to make communities healthier, safer, more sustainable and more attractive places to live. At the heart of a liveable neighbourhood lies the idea that streets should be more than just thoroughfares for vehicles; they should be vibrant spaces that people are proud of, where people can come together, socialise and enjoy their surroundings.

Through-traffic or rat-running can have a serious impact on the health and quality of life of the people living on a street, and impact disproportionately on more deprived communities. Noise and air pollution, and speed and volume of traffic are often cited as issues that affect peoples’ enjoyment of spending time on their own streets.

Liveable neighbourhoods can create an improved environment, get neighbours talking and even see a return to children playing in the street. Quieter and safer-feeling streets can support a switch to healthier, more active ways of travelling around, particularly for shorter journeys to local amenities.

They aren’t about preventing people driving. Residents, visitors or delivery drivers needing to reach anywhere within the liveable neighbourhood would still be able to do so by motor vehicle – though they might have to approach from a different direction. The aim is to rebalance residential streets so they are less car dominated and more people orientated.

In a recent case study*, liveable neighbourhoods resulted in an increase in children playing outside, lower air pollution, together with making walking and cycling more of a natural choice for everyday local journeys.

Liveable neighbourhoods can be delivered by using modal filters. These can take the form of many things from planters to bollards or even cycle stands, that can also act as handy cycle parking. They can also include one-way streets, allowing pavements to be widened, creating seating areas outside local businesses or allowing new planting.

Research into 46 liveable neighbourhood schemes found they ‘typically resulted in a substantial relative reduction in motor traffic inside the scheme area… On boundary roads, by contrast, we found little change’.⁹

In 2018, Hampshire County Council officers attended a guided visit to the flagship Walthamstow Village project, which created a liveable neighbourhood in the London Borough of Waltham Forest.

‘Recent research showed that more people in Waltham Forest are cycling. In our 2016 resident insight survey, 17% (approx. 46,100 people) said they cycle, compared to 12% (approx. 32,500 people) the year before – and two-thirds (73%) said they cycle at least once a week, up from 62% in 2015.’ (London Borough of Waltham Forest)

Hampshire’s approach to liveable neighbourhoods

There are many existing liveable neighbourhoods in Hampshire. These mainly take the form of housing estates with lots of pedestrian and cycle connections to neighbouring areas, but no cut-through for motorised vehicles.

Creating new liveable neighbourhoods in existing areas requires careful planning and involvement of the local community but have proved popular and effective in many areas. We are open to hearing from local communities who might like to develop or trial a liveable neighbourhood in their area.

Further detail on the approach of these sorts of measures will be incorporated into Hampshire County Council’s Local Transport Plan 4.

*Source: enjoywalthamforest.co.uk

Northcote Road, Walthamstow – Modal filter with wooden bollards, planting, and cycle parking

Francis Road, Leyton – Time restrictions on through motorised traffic, footway widening and bollards to allow for seating areas

Orford Road, Walthamstow Village – Footway widening, cycle parking stands and one-way traffic flow with time restrictions on motorised traffic (except buses)

Section two

Contents section two

• Introduction......................................................................................................................................26
• Methodology...................................................................................................................................26
• Propensity to cycle tool data..................................................................................37
• Walking audit (core walking zones).........................................................................48
• Z1 Fordingbridge Core Walking Zone.......................................................52
• Z2 Ringwood Core Walking Zone..................................................................56
• Z3 New Milton Core Walking Zone...............................................................60
• Z4 Lyndhurst Core Walking Zone...................................................................64
• Z5 Lymington Core Walking Zone..................................................................68
• Z6 Brockenhurst Core Walking Zone........................................................72
• Proposed cycle networks..................................................76
• Route 100 Downtown to Bransgore (via Ringwood)..............................................77
• Route 110 Brockenhurst to New Milton via Sway......................................................89
• Route 120 Totton to Lymington via Lyndhurst and Brockenhurst....................................................98
• Route 130 Calmore to Bartley..............................................................................................................113
• Route 140 Durns Town to Lymington.........................................................................................116
• Route 150 Beaulieu to Walhampton...........................................................................................120
• Route 160 Applemore to Beaulieu.............................................................................................. ..121
• Route 170 Poulner to North Kingston.......................................................................................122
• Route 180 Pennington to Lower Pennington..................................................................125
• Route 200 Somerford to Portmore (via New Milton, Hordle, Everton, Pennington and Lymington)..........................126
• Route 210 Ringwood to Ivy Lane...................................................................................................140
• Route 220 Bashley to Lymington via New Milton and Milford on Sea.............................................................................................................144
• Route 230 Cadnam to Netley Marsh.........................................................................................154
• Route 240 Sandleheath to Godshill via Fordingbridge....................................157
• Route 250 Beaulieu to Holbury..........................................................................................................161
• Route 260 Hurn to Braggers Lane, Bransgore..........................................................167
• Route 270 Barton on Sea..........................................................................................................................168

Introduction

Section Two of this LCWIP for the New Forest has been prepared by Hampshire County Council in partnership with New Forest District Council (NFDC), New Forest National Park Authority (NFNPA) and Forestry England (FE).

Section Two provides information on how the cycling and walking networks were developed and the technical evidence that was gathered in the preparation of this LCWIP.

LCWIP methodology

Unlike other LCWIPs, the scope of the work was not limited to utility trips to work, education and shopping of up to 5km. The focus on utility trips in more urban areas acknowledges that they have the greatest potential to convert car trips to walking and cycling trips, within local areas. The inclusion of leisure trips in the network covering the New Forest District was felt to be vital given the special nature of the area and is outlined in Section 2. Any further DfT guidance specifically relating to walking and cycling on rural roads will be incorporated into future revisions of this Plan.

1. Methodology survey work was undertaken by Hampshire County Council staff during 2022/3. The approach was to look at opportunities to create walking and cycling networks. Existing facilities and routes were considered, along with known improvement proposals. Local stakeholders helped to identify where new routes and improvements were needed. The potential routes were then surveyed on foot and by bicycle where possible, although there were very limited opportunities for the latter and many audits took place with the aid of desktop studies and site visits, sometimes by car, with a mounted camera, to obtain photos and check data.

Gathering information

Comprehensive information and data sources were provided by Hampshire County Council and New Forest District Council which were augmented by publicly available datasets from the 2011 Census (e.g. employment), DfT traffic counts, road traffic collisions, schools, public amenities and previous consultation plans exploring existing and new networks. Review and analysis of the data was undertaken using Geographic Information Software (GIS). The main trip generators were identified and an initial network mapped out to link residential areas with these locations.

A stakeholder workshop was held at an early stage of the process (March 2021) to test assumptions and to gather useful information from local stakeholder groups. They were asked to identify barriers to walking and cycling, including crossing points of the main barriers (roads, railways, rivers), which form the nodes in the network. Large blank maps were provided for people to draw on, as well as background maps of the local transport network with information on trip generators from the Sustrans GIS database.

Mesh density

Mesh density is a term that describes how a grid of cycle networks is composed. High mesh density means that the grid of cycle routes is tighter, with more route choice, whereas low mesh density means there is less extensive route choice. A buffer analysis involves creating a 200-metre zone around each proposed route and assessing if there are any gaps in the coverage of the network. According to the LCWIP Technical Guidance (2017), in a joined-up urban cycle network, cyclists should typically not have to travel more than 400m to get between cycle routes of similar quality. However, this mesh density does not apply to small towns or rural areas, where origins and destinations are more dispersed. For the New Forest cycle network, mesh density is less relevant, and it was not considered for the network as most of the cycle routes are in rural areas.

Network planning methodology

Network planning for walking

Walking zones identification

Unlike with cycling, there are no datasets available to show where people already walk for utility trips, so there is no detailed mapping exercise as part of the background study. The stakeholder workshop session provided the initial input, with attendees outlining areas which they considered important candidates for walking zones.

The workshop feedback was then reviewed based on the number and concentration of walking trip attractors, to reflect the shorter distances that people are likely to walk; as well as population density. Following this process, the partner organisations reviewed the candidate Core Walking Zones (CWZs) together, to agree a shortlist to be audited for this LCWIP, and a further list of towns and villages to investigate in future iterations.

The DfT’s LCWIP Guidance suggests that CWZs normally consist of a number of walking trip generators that are located close together – such as a town centre or business parks. An approximate five-minute walking distance of 400m can be used as a guide to the minimum extents of CWZs. Within CWZs, all the pedestrian infrastructure should be deemed as important.

We have assumed that the trip generators for walking are the same as those for cycling, albeit that shorter distances will be involved (less than 2km as recommended by LCWIP Guidance). The proposed cycle network provides a suitable framework for walking trips, as a lot of improvements for cycling also improve walking conditions, such as new crossings or segregated facilities. However, it is recognised that a much finer-grained network is required for walking since most streets have pavements.

When the cycle network is designed, it will be vital to ensure that people on foot do not have a reduced level of service, for example, no existing pavements to be converted to shared use without widening. All crossings on the cycle network must accommodate people on foot and on bike.

The walking zones selected were then audited using both the DfT’s Walking Route Assessment Tool (WRAT) and the Healthy Streets framework.

The six towns and villages selected for auditing in this LCWIP were:

• Fordingbridge;
• Ringwood;
• New Milton;
• Lymington;
• Lyndhurst; and
• Brockenhurst.

Walking zone audit methodology

The CWZ has been considered using the categories from the WRAT and the Healthy Streets tool. The WRAT has not been used to calculate the existing condition of the CWZ as the calculations relate to auditing a route rather than a zone; as such, the categories from that and the Healthy Streets check have been used instead, to provide an assessment.

Network planning for cycling

There is a wealth of data to consider when planning a cycle network for the New Forest. Our approach was to work through all the datasets, layering them on top of each other within our mapping system to build up the emerging network. The proposed network coincides with much of the existing cycle network within the area.

When considering the number of routes to include in this plan, we have taken the advice from paragraph 5.21 of the LCWIP Technical Guidance that ‘it will take time to develop a network with a tight density, and wider mesh widths (distance between routes) of up to 1,000m would be expected within the initial phases of the network’s development.’

Further routes can be added at a later stage to create a denser network, but our advice is to start with fewer routes and implement them to a high standard. From the available data and workshop sessions, a cycling network and walking zones were produced which targeted the greatest increase in walking and cycling. Auditing was mainly carried out as a desktop exercise for the primary and secondary utility cycle routes, but was checked on site and was undertaken to determine the most appropriate infrastructure improvements.

Existing transport network

The existing transport network is shown in Figure 1 below.

Origins and destinations

The identification of demand for a planned network started by mapping the key origins and destinations across the study area. This analysis will help to identify how people move within the city; in this instance, the district. These origins and destinations include the following:

• resident population (2021 Census);
• workplace population (2011 Census). Census 2021 was not considered for this analysis as the information was gathered during the COVID-19 pandemic and therefore a lockdown which affected where people worked. The 2011 Census remains the most comprehensive data which can be drawn upon for understanding people’s commutes to work; and
• transport hubs.

Further to the initial mapping exercise, the origin and destination points within close proximity to each other have been clustered to simplify the analysis.

Firstly, key trip attractors within and just outside the LCWIP boundary were identified. These were selected using the ‘points of interest’ and ‘transport nodes’ layers on the Hampshire catalogue (Arcmap); education facilities, transport interchanges, key development sites, leisure facilities and healthcare practitioners and establishments.

Trip-producing areas/zones were then identified using Census 2011 data on the population density of LSOAs within the New Forest District boundary.

A population density threshold of 10 persons per ha or over was used to limit the number of origin zones, and whilst it is accepted that this is an arbitrary figure, amendments to the network to include less densely populated areas can be made in future reviews of the LCWIP.

An Origin Destination (OD) cost matrix was then constructed which created desire lines between origins and destinations, as well as the corresponding travel times between nodes on the road network.

Two maps were made using the desire lines under 15km and 10km respectively in order to evaluate which OD pairs were within an acceptable cycling distance of one another.

Once the key clusters were identified, direct desire lines were drawn connecting the clusters to identify the principal links to be provided by the cycle network. Desire lines are indicative links between clusters and do not link to existing roads or cycle routes at this stage. As shown in Figure 22 and Figure 23, these desire lines are clustered around New Milton, Lymington, Ringwood and Brockenhurst. There are very few east-west desire lines under 10km between Waterside and the rest of the New Forest, or between Fordingbridge and Ringwood. There is clearly a pattern of desire lines around the more built-up coastal areas, with some links to settlements to the northwest of the study area. The outputs of this exercise and details are shown below.

Local plan site allocations

The main development sites are shown on the plan (Figure 7 below) and listed in the introduction. These sites have been integrated into the walking and cycling etwork and contributed to the key trip attractors and generators used in the development of the proposed cycle network. There are large site allocations at Fordingbridge, Ringwood and New Milton. Future developments, including smaller sites not referenced in Local Plans, would be expected to demonstrate how they link to the LCWIP routes through the planning process.

Further to the initial mapping exercise, the origin and destination points within close proximity to each other have been clustered to simplify the analysis.

Firstly, key trip attractors within and just outside the LCWIP boundary were identified. These were selected using the ‘points of interest’ and ‘transport nodes’ layers on the Hampshire catalogue (Arcmap); education facilities, transport interchanges, key development sites, leisure facilities and healthcare practitioners and establishments.

Trip-producing areas/zones were then identified using Census 2011 data on the population density of LSOAs within the New Forest District boundary. A population density threshold of 10 persons per ha or over was used to limit the number of origin zones, and whilst it is accepted that this is an arbitrary figure, amendments to the network to include less densely populated areas can be made in future reviews of the LCWIP.

An Origin Destination (OD) cost matrix was then constructed which created desire lines between origins and destinations, as well as the corresponding travel times between nodes on the road network. Two maps were made using the desire lines under 15km and 10km respectively in order to evaluate which OD pairs were within an acceptable cycling distance of one another.

Once the key clusters were identified, direct desire lines were drawn connecting the clusters to identify the principal links to be provided by the cycle network. Desire lines are indicative links between clusters and do not link to existing roads or cycle routes at this stage. As shown in Figure 22 and Figure 23, these desire lines are clustered around New Milton, Lymington, Ringwood and Brockenhurst. There are very few east-west desire lines under 10km between Waterside and the rest of the New Forest, or between Fordingbridge and Ringwood. There is clearly a pattern of desire lines around the more built-up coastal areas, with some links to settlements to the northwest of the study area. The outputs of this exercise and details are shown below.

Propensity to Cycle Tool (PCT)

In addition to the clustering exercise, the PCT has been used to identify which routes within the study area have the greatest potential for an increase in the number of commuters cycling to work and the number of children cycling to school, as shown below. It also has been used to inform the Short Car Commuting Trips illustrated on Map 19.

Route identification

The desire lines identified by the above analysis were mapped to the existing highway network, and in some places the existing PRoW network. In this way, the network seeks to connect the key origins and destinations within the study area, including centres of population, employment locations, schools, leisure destinations and various amenities such as shops and health services.

Converting these desire lines into routes was an iterative process. In some cases, particularly in rural locations, there is a clearly preferred cycle route which is usually the most direct. However, in other cases there may be more than one potential route between origin and destination points or a reason why the most direct route would be less suitable for cycling. A multi-criteria route assessment was carried out to identify best route options considering workshop feedback, links to other LCWIPS, links to proposed routes in adjacent districts/local authorities, links to areas with high population density and links to local allocations/housing allocations.

At this stage, the network was mapped out based on the data analysis undertaken above and with reference to the Propensity to Cycle Tool (PCT) which shows which routes have the highest potential for an increase in cycling under various scenarios for change, and with reference to the outputs from the stakeholder workshops and collision data involving cyclists.

As most of the district is rural in character, the road network density is low in comparison to the built-up area of urban areas, meaning there is less choice of cycle routes. On this basis, some of the prospective cycle routes identified do follow some of the larger, busier roads. However, where a quieter route is available which is not too indirect, this option has been selected. It should be noted that the routes within the district are not dense so, in a number of areas, the route options are limited. Measures to improve the cycling environment in line with LTN1/20 are unlikely to be deliverable on some routes, due to a lack of physical space, the unique nature of the National Park and other requirements for the route.

For previous LCWIPs, the focus was entirely on trips for ‘utility’ purposes (primarily commuting and school trips) and identifying routes where there was the greatest potential to shift from the private motor vehicle to cycling. The New Forest LCWIP presented a unique challenge in the network planning phase. In the summer months, large numbers of visitors travel to the study area for leisure purposes which greatly affects the number and routes of cycling trips.

The New Forest LCWIP would also have to incorporate these ‘leisure’ trips. Therefore, two networks were proposed; one utility and one leisure. These networks would support each other;

• a utility network providing the strategic links within and between key settlements; and
• a leisure network connecting car parks and campsites with key leisure attractions and incorporating already-popular leisure routes.

Introduction and Methodology

The utility network was constructed using the same methodology that was used for other LCWIPs; identifying key trip attractors and generators (schools, railway stations, densely populated residential areas), and overlaying cycling propensity data (i.e. routes where cycling has greatest propensity to grow). Routes were then manually constructed in cooperation with our key partners; the District Council, National Park Authority and Forestry England. Routes were divided into primary and secondary routes. Primary routes were chosen based on the potential for high prioritisation scores, as well as their length and the number of key trip attractors they served. This process resulted in three primary routes being chosen, with the remainder being classed as secondary.

The leisure network was constructed in two phases:

• Taking car parks and campsites as origins, and popular tourist attractions as destinations, routes between all origins and destinations were plotted.
• Multiple rounds of additions and revisions followed, in collaboration with our key partners, to include existing links and key routes well known to officers within those organisations.

The proposed network was visually tested against the Propensity to Cycle Tool data. Proposed routes that connect with the LCWIP measures in the Waterside area of the New Forest were prioritised as well as links to areas with high population density, links to local site allocations and the output from the stakeholder workshop. There is a high degree of correlation between the routes suggested by the PCT and the proposed cycle network.

Major employment sites and secondary schools are served by the proposed network. It also serves settlements throughout the district and links to development sites.

Auditing the cycle routes

The primary and secondary utility routes were audited based on the DfT guidance relating to coherent, direct, safe, comfortable and attractive routes, with options developed using the LTN1/20 guidance. The measures proposed in the CWZs and Cycle Route audit sections have been put forward with the ambition of achieving compliance with government guidance contained in LTN1/20; however, it should be noted that the measures put forward are aspirational in nature. Due to the unique ecological and environmental constraints within the National Park it is acknowledged that it will be difficult to provide facilities in complete compliance with LTN1/20 in many of the rural areas of the district and within the New Forest National Park.

A number of routes on the proposed leisure network have been put forward for consideration for measures (such as Quiet Lanes) to protect and prioritise people both walking and cycling. These include:

• lanes between Christchurch and the New Forest – especially Waterditch lane (in Hampshire County Council on boundary with Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole);
• lanes in the vicinity of West Wellow to address severance issues at the A36; and
• quiet lanes around A326 (north) – especially on Staplewood Lane.

Prior to the public consultation, all utility routes (both primary and secondary) were audited. After the public consultation, new proposed route alignments were added. Auditing of these new alignments will be conducted at the feasibility study stage for individual schemes.

The leisure network was not audited ahead of the consultation and, as above, will be audited at the scheme feasibility study stage.

All four delivery partners will work together to ensure the development and improvement of the identified leisure route network.

The following maps and supporting commentary outline the data-gathering process. The maps presented build the evidence base for the identification of desire lines, which inputs directly into Stage 3, Network Planning for Cycling.

• Existing transport network;
• Major traffic routes;
• Trip attractors and generators;
• Stakeholder routes and barrier identification;
• Census 2011 Workplace and Census 2021 Population Data;
• Neighbourhood and Local Plan Allocated Sites;
• Propensity to Cycle Tool;
• Proposed New Forest Cycling Network and Core Walking Zone (CWZ) overview; and
• Core Walking Zones.

Introduction and Methodology

Existing transport network

This map shows the existing key strategic transport routes and hubs (road, rail, waterborne, and walking and cycling) within the New Forest area, detailing traffic-free and on-road routes forming part of the National Cycle Network (NCN).

There are eight railway stations within the New Forest area: Ashurst New Forest, Beaulieu Road, Brockenhurst, Sway, New Milton, Hilton Admiral, Lymington and Lymington Pier. The principal rail connection to the region is the London to Weymouth line, which connects the first six stations in the list above to Southampton, Bournemouth, London and Weymouth. Lymington and Lymington Pier are served by a shuttle rail service to Brockenhurst Railway Station.

The M27 is the only motorway within the New Forest LCWIP area, which transitions to the A31 shortly after the junction at Cadnam, and continues southwest to Ringwood and past the Hampshire County Council boundary. Other key roads within the LCWIP area include the A337, which links Cadnam with Lymington via Brockenhurst and Lyndhurst, the A35, which connects Ashurst with Christchurch via Lyndhurst and Hinton Admiral, and the A338 to the west of the New Forest linking Salisbury with Ringwood and Fordingbridge.

Due to the predominantly rural nature of the district, the existing transport network leaves large parts of the district with poorer connectivity.

Figure 1 – Existing Transport Network

Introduction and Methodology

Major traffic routes

As part of the LCWIP process, it is important to identify where the main barriers to movement by walking and cycling are located, and how they may be overcome or negotiated. This plan illustrates the location of the roads in the New Forest which carry the highest volumes of traffic and therefore represent barriers to journeys by foot or by bicycle. The traffic flows are taken from the publicly available Department for Transport (DfT) count points. This data has been extrapolated to the sections of roads either side of the count points to the next major junction or where the next count point may be more relevant. The map derived from the stakeholder views of barriers to walking and cycling in the New Forest area (see Figure 5) shows a marked similarity with the major traffic routes map above.

Figure 2 – Major traffic routes

Introduction and Methodology

Trip attractors and generators

This map shows the key destinations within the New Forest area. An important starting point in designing a walking and cycling network is to determine the likely origin and destination points for everyday trips to work, school, shopping and leisure. DfT LCWIP Guidance provides a list of key trip generators to consider, as part of the network planning stages. The trip generators map opposite gives a visual indication of the destinations, including employment areas, secondary schools, shopping areas, hospitals, leisure or sports centres.

The key trip attractors included for the New Forest were agreed via the stakeholder workshop and also verified by desire lines from Propensity to Cycle Tool (PCT) data.

This map shows areas of high population and workplace density as key origins and destinations for everyday trips. It is critical to link these areas with high-quality active travel infrastructure.

Figure 3 – Trip attractors and generators: key destinations

Introduction and Methodology

Origin-Destination Clusters and Desire Lines

This map shows clusters of trip attractors and generators (also known as origins and destinations) overlaid with desire lines under ten kilometres long. Trip attractors and generators include places of employment, areas of high population density, site allocations, railway stations and schools. Locations with a higher density of clusters indicate more of these trip attractors and generators within that area.

Given that much of the built-up area within the New Forest is located around the coast and along the A338 and A326 corridors, it is unsurprising that most of the desire lines fall within these areas. The highest density of desire lines are between Christchurch, New Milton and Lymington, suggesting that there is considerable potential for mode shift within and between these settlements.

Areas of the New Forest southwest of the A326 have relatively few clusters, but links between these clusters and those in the Waterside LCWIP area indicate that LCWIP routes which connect to Waterside LCWIP routes could be very useful in connecting the wider New Forest area with Hythe, Totton and Marchwood.

The desire lines reflect greater potential demand for cycling, which is supported by the following Propensity to Cycle Tool (PCT) analysis and discussion from the stakeholder workshops.

Figure 4 – Trip attractors and generators: origins clusters and desire lines

Introduction and Methodology

Stakeholder routes and barrier identification

This map shows the cycle routes and barriers suggested by stakeholders in the district following the initial workshop in 2021. The principal barriers to active travel identified through the workshop were A and B roads with high traffic flows, railway lines, country roads which felt unsafe to ride or walk along due to traffic speeds and/or restricted visibility, and lack of crossing points. The lack of connectivity between the New Forest and the Waterside area was also a key issue for stakeholders, with the A338 being cited as a major barrier to east-west travel.

Suggested cycle routes were primarily focused on less busy roads, particularly around built-up areas and connections between the Waterside area and the rest of the New Forest. The A337 was suggested as a key cycle route by many stakeholders largely because of the lack of suitable alternative options. Stakeholders were also keen to emphasise the importance of rural routes which would be able to connect local villages and towns, as well as support cycling for leisure purposes.

This dataset was used to support the development of the utility cycle network.

Figure 5 – Stakeholder engagement: cycle routes and barriers

Introduction and Methodology

Population and workplace density

The New Forest is sparsely populated, with larger settlements concentrated along the coast and the Avon Valley. New Milton, Lymington and Ringwood are the largest settlements within the LCWIP area. The nearest large town to many of these settlements is Bournemouth, which is outside the Hampshire County.

A corridor of higher population density is present from New Milton to Lymington, which could suggest a propensity for mode shift to active travel modes. However, much of the LCWIP network will pass through areas of low resident and workplace population density, and therefore will serve more trips passing through these areas rather than journeys which start or end in these zones.

Figure 6 – Resident and Workplace Population density

Introduction and Methodology

Local Plan site allocations

This map shows relevant site allocations from the New Forest District Council Local Plan, as listed in the Section 1 introduction, and strategic sites from the Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole Local Plan. As outlined earlier, they have been integrated into the existing walking and cycling network and are key trip attractors and generators used in the development of the proposed walking and cycling networks.

There are large site allocations around Ringwood and Fordingbridge, with smaller areas at New Milton and Lymington. Planning active travel routes from these allocations to key destinations is important for ensuring users of new developments have genuine travel choice.

Figure 7 – Local Plan site allocations

Propensity to Cycle Tool data

The Propensity to Cycle Tool (PCT) is an open source transport planning system, part funded by the Department for Transport. It was designed to assist transport planners and policymakers to prioritise investments and interventions to promote cycling.

The PCT answers the question:

‘Where is cycling currently common and where does cycling have the greatest potential to grow?’

More information is available from the PCT website: pct.bike

The maps on the following pages outline the different scenarios from the PCT outputs, for the New Forest area.

The aim of the PCT is to inform planning and investment decisions for cycling infrastructure by showing the existing and potential distribution of commuter and school cycle trips and therefore inform which investment locations could represent best value for money.

PCT uses two key inputs:

• Census 2011 Origin and Destination commuting data and school data (O-D data) – 2021 Census commute data was gathered during a period of lockdown so is unlikely to reflect current commuting patterns.
• Cycle Streets routing – cyclestreets.net.

The model estimates cycling potential adjusted for journey distance and hilliness as well as predicting the likely distribution of those trips using the Cycle Streets routing application. The model can be applied to consider different scenarios which represent the maximum potential for cycling within the area, for example:

• Government Target (Equality): Corresponding to the proposed target in the DfT’s Walking and Cycling Investment Strategy, to double cycling in England by 2025;
• Go Dutch, if cycling levels were the same as in the Netherlands; and
• Government Target, where cycling levels meet the target for the current Government’s aim for cycling.

The following scenarios are presented on the pages below:

• commuter and school travel data by zones based on the Census 2011, Government Target and Go Dutch Scenarios;
• commuter and school route data based on the Census 2011, Government Target and Go Dutch Scenarios; and
• commuter short car trips (under 5km) based on Census 2011 data, as this reveals the potential for modal shift towards walking and cycling.

Whilst the PCT model is a useful tool, there are a number of limitations which should be considered especially when making decisions based on the patterns shown. Firstly, the data only shows travel to work and school trips (only 27% of all journeys); travel for shopping and for leisure is not included.

Secondly, the data also misses out minor stages of multi-stage commuter trips so cycle journeys to railway stations and bus stops/stations are not represented.

Lastly, the distribution of journeys is a prediction of the likely route taken based on the Cycle Streets routing algorithm and not the actual route being used.

It is worth noting that whilst the model builds an assessment of cycling propensity, it does not segment potential users, or provide any insight into people on foot. Although this model does provide planners with an overview to identify areas for appropriate investment for cycling trips to work, it does not provide further information on those potential cyclists and their personal attributes and behaviours to help design the most effective interventions.

The percentage of adults travelling by cycle for three or more days a week in Hampshire is comparable at 3% with the UK average of 3.1%. People in the Netherlands make 28.4% of trips by bicycle, 15 times higher than the figure for England and Wales, where cycling is skewed towards younger men. By contrast, in the Netherlands, cycling remains common into older age, and women are in fact slightly more likely to cycle than men. Whereas the cycle mode share is ‘only’ six times higher in the Netherlands than in England for men in their thirties, it is over 20 times higher for women in their thirties or men in their seventies.

The Go Dutch scenario represents what would happen if English and Welsh people were as likely as Dutch people to cycle a trip of a given distance and level of hilliness. This scenario thereby captures the proportion of commuters that would be expected to cycle if all areas of England and Wales had the same infrastructure and cycling culture as the Netherlands.

National Travel Survey of English residents published in 2022 is shown in the table below.

Propensity to Cycle Tool data

PCT commute data

Census 2011

Baseline data

These maps use the 2011 Census as a basis. The 2021 Census was undertaken during a period of national lockdown and therefore does not represent normal travel to work patterns. Most of the New Forest achieves 2–3% cycling to work, roughly in line with the national average. Ringwood, New Milton and Lymington see much higher levels, at between 7–9%.

Government Target

This corresponds to the proposed target in the DfT’s Cycling and Walking Investment Strategy, to double cycling in England by 2025. To meet the Government Target, most zones shown in the plan below experience an increase in cycle mode share, apart from a limited section within the National Park. Core areas focused on existing areas with higher cycling levels around Ringwood, New Milton and Lymington achieve an uplift to a potential 14%, with a lower figure achievable in a wider surrounding area.

Figure 8 – PCT commute zone data – Census 2011

Go Dutch

In the Go Dutch scenario, a greater proportion of the New Forest area away from the urban settlements is set to achieve a noticeably higher cycling level for work trips. Only the more remote parts of the National Park retain a lower cycling level, as might be expected. Even centres such as Fordingbridge, which under the baseline status and Government Target show little cycle use, emerge with a considerably higher cycling level. This projected uplift indicates a strong demand for cycling in key areas across the district if Dutch-style cycling interventions were implemented..

Propensity to Cycle Tool data

Figure 9 – PCT commute zone data – Government Target Figure 10 – PCT commute zone data – Go Dutch

Propensity to Cycle Tool data

PCT commute data

These maps of cycling routes to work are derived from Census 2011 data, so do not reflect any recent changes in employment sites. If the local priority is enabling more people to cycle to work, then these travel patterns are a useful guide to routes where investment is needed. However, it must be remembered that commuting is only 14% of all trips. In 2011, cycling made up 3.7% of mode share for work trips throughout the New Forest, which is slightly higher than the national average cycling mode share for commuter trips. The Government Target scenario reflects the cycling mode share that would be required to achieve a doubling of cycling nationally, as set out in the Department for Transport’s Cycling Delivery Plan.

Propensity to Cycle Tool commute data shows that in 2011 very few roads had a high volume of cycle trips. Only routes to the east of Ringwood, and around Lymington and New Milton showed any appreciable use by people cycling to work.

Meeting the Government Target would extend use of the existing routes around Lymington in particular, as well as New Milton. Only the Go Dutch scenario radically improves cycling levels by significantly increasing flows around Lymington and to a lesser extent New Milton.

There is a noticeable improvement along the A338 between Fordingbridge and Ringwood, as well as cross-boundary links west to Verwood and other destinations. Links to the north and east of Lyndhurst also show an uplift. Although there remain large areas of the New Forest that would see little change from interventions relating to commuter traffic, this is largely a reflection of the nature of the area and should not detract from the observation that there is a strong demand for cycling in key areas (i.e. around the larger settlements) of the district if Dutch-style cycling interventions were implemented.

.

Figure 11 – PCT commute route network – Census 2011

Propensity to Cycle Tool data

Figure 12 – PCT commute route network – Government Target Figure 13 – PCT commute route network – Go Dutch

Propensity to Cycle Tool data

PCT school data

Census 2011

Baseline data

Baseline data from 2011 shows very little school cycling over most of the New Forest LCWIP area – in some areas the level is negligible. Totton shows a much higher mode share (10-14%), together with pockets closer to Hythe/Holbury, with a section adjacent to Totton having a high 25-29% mode share. Of the towns in the LCWIP area, only Lymington has a significant bike mode share, at up to 20%.

Government Target

Corresponding to the proposed target in the DfT’s Cycling and Walking Investment Strategy, to double cycling in England by 2025.

The Government Target shows an intensification of cycle use in existing higher mode share areas, with new higher levels opening up around Ringwood and Fordingbridge.

Go Dutch

The Go Dutch scenario shows a radically enhanced bike mode share, with the majority of the LCWIP area indicating potential to achieve levels of over 25%. There are two areas with very low cycling in this scenario; north central and south-east New Forest. The north central area does not contain a school, which accounts for the low cycling mode share. The south-eastern area only contains one school.

Figure 14 – PCT school zone data – Census 2011

Propensity to Cycle Tool data

Figure 15 – PCT school zone data – Government Target Figure 16 – PCT school zone data – Go Dutch

Propensity to Cycle Tool data

PCT school data

These maps of cycling routes to school are derived from School Census 2010-2011 data, so do not reflect any recent changes in school sites or catchment areas. If the local priority is enabling more students to cycle to school, then these travel patterns are a useful guide to routes where investment is needed. However, it must be remembered that education and escort to education is only add figure 13% of all trips.

Propensity to Cycle Tool school data shows that in 2011 very few roads had any people cyclist to school. The PCT model considers 10km routes for secondary and 5km for primary schools. Only a few routes around the settlements of Lymington, Ringwood and to a lesser extent, New Milton saw any cycling to school.

In the Government Target scenario, route networks at Ringwood and Fordingbirdge would see expanded cyclist numbers and a pattern linking Ashurst and Totton emerges. There is little change at Brockenhurst.

In the Go Dutch scenario, many key routes emerge that could see a significant potential uplift in cycling. These are focused on several of the larger settlements such as Ringwood and New Milton, as well as routes to the south and west of Ringwood and a network around Fordingbridge. A complete link to the south of Brockenhurst appears as well as a route following the existing road network around Lyndhurst.

Figure 17 – PCT schools route network data – Census 2011

Propensity to Cycle Tool data

Figure 18 – PCT schools route network data – Government Target Figure 19 – PCT schools route network data – Go Dutch

Propensity to Cycle Tool data

PCT short car trips

One weakness of the PCT cycle commute model is that it is based on existing trips by bike and will tend to emphasise those routes that are already being used. The target market for new cycle trips is people currently driving short distances to work. This map shows the car trips under 5km from the Census 2011 travel to work data, mapped to the best available roads. Short car trips under 5km for journeys to work have been analysed on the basis that these might reveal the potential for a modal shift towards walking and cycling.

Across Hampshire, 31% of commuter trips are less than 5km (around a 30-minute cycle time) but only 7% of these trips are cycled. The 5km commuter trip figure for most of the New Forest LCWIP area is lower at less than 26%, with pockets of higher (up to 35%) of commuter trips less than 5km around Ringwood and around New Milton. The 2011 Census shows an average of 3.7% of journey to work trips are made by cycle in the New Forest as a whole (including Waterside) but this figure disguises wide discrepancies. The figure for the New Forest LCWIP area is comparable at up to 4% over most of the area but up to 7% in pockets around Ringwood and the more urban area around New Milton.

Figure 20 shows the draft LCWIP cycling network for the New Forest, based on the datasets outlined above, including Origin and Destination matrix desire lines and PCT data.

Figure 20 – PCT short car commuting trips (less than 5km)

Propensity to Cycle Tool data

Proposed New Forest cycling network and core walking zone (CWZ) Overview

Figure 21– Proposed New Forest cycling network and Core Walking Zones

Walking audit (Core Walking Zones)

Network planning for walking

We have assumed that the trip generators for walking are the same as those for cycling, albeit that shorter distances will be involved (less than 2km as recommended by LCWIP Guidance). The proposed cycle network provides a suitable framework for walking trips, as a lot of improvements for cycling also improve walking conditions, such as new crossings or segregated facilities – although more can be added to aid walking, e.g. consideration of continuous footways across all side roads. It is also recognised that a much finer-grained network is required for walking since most streets already have pavements.

When the cycle network is designed, it will be vital to ensure that people on foot do not have a reduced level of service, for example no existing pavements to be converted to shared use without widening. All crossings on the cycle network must accommodate people on foot and on bikes.

We have identified the six main urban settlements within the New Forest LCWIP area as the CWZs. These are:

1. Fordingbridge;
2. Ringwood;
3. Lymington;
4. New Milton;
5. Lyndhurst; and
6. Brockenhurst.

The LCWIP Technical Guidance suggests that CWZs should have a minimum diameter of 400m, so we have extended the zone out from the boundaries given by the local authority to account for this. Key walking routes should extend up to a 2km radius from CWZs, as shown by the buffer on the map. As a first approximation, we have assumed that the cycle network within this 2km radius will comprise the key walking routes.

The main routes into the Core Walking Zones have been audited, as part of the cycle routes, in some detail.

Methodology

The CWZs have been considered using the categories from the Walking Route Audit Tool (WRAT) and the Healthy Streets tool. The full WRAT and Healthy Streets tools have not been used to calculate the existing condition of the CWZs as the calculations within them relate to auditing a route or segment of a route, rather than a zone. As such, the key principles from both tools have been used instead to provide an assessment.

Locations identified for improvement are shown on the maps and are detailed in the following paragraphs. The core principles for consideration in the WRAT are:

• attractiveness;
• comfort;
• directness;
• safety;
• coherence.

The core principles for consideration in the Healthy Streets check are:

• everyone feels welcome;
• easy to cross;
• shade and shelter;
• places to stop and rest;
• not too noisy;
• people choose to walk and cycle;
• people feel safe;
• things to see and do;
• people feel relaxed;
• clean air.

We will undertake a Healthy Streets audit when doing any future design work for the cycling routes, to ensure that improvements for walking are also considered. This is also required of developers, through Hampshire’s Technical Guidance Notes.

Walking audit (Core Walking Zones)

Walking audit (Core Walking Zones)

Walking interventions toolkit

• Dropped kerbs w/tactile paving
  Necessary to create inclusive, accessible crossing points for pedestrians.
• Public realm improvements
  Adding green infrastructure such as planters, rest areas, cycle parking and other placemaking interventions creates a more welcoming environment for pedestrians.
• Signalised crossing
  Signal-controlled crossings comprising either a Pelican/Puffin for pedestrians or a Toucan which can be shared between pedestrians and cyclists.
• Zebra crossing
  Pedestrian priority crossing requiring motorists to give way to pedestrians.
• Raised table
  Raised tables at junctions reduce speeds of turning vehicles at side roads or across the entire junction.
• Wayfinding
  Providing signage with key destinations helps improve the legibility of the pedestrian network.

All images provided by Sustrans unless otherwise noted.

Walking audit (Core Walking Zones)

Walking interventions toolkit

• Traffic calming
  Measures to create slower speed environments can include build-outs, road humps, chicanes and planters.
• One-way systems
  Reallocating space from the carriageway to support wider footways, cycle facilities and vehicle parking. Can help increase cycle network permeability.
• Continuous footway
  Continuous footways extend across side roads at the same level and use coloured paving materials, pedestrians have priority over motor vehicles.
• Modal filter
  A bollard or planter in the carriageway which people can travel past be walking or cycling. Helps create a low traffic environment by restricting access to motorised through-traffic.
• Parallel crossing
  Similar to a zebra crossing, but with a separate parallel cycle crossing alongside the zebra crossing.
• 20mph speed zones
  Lower speed limits and lower speed zones create safer environments for all, may need to be combined with infrastructure and enforcement changes to ensure compliance.

All images provided by Sustrans unless otherwise noted.
Source: LTN 1/20

Z1 Fordingbridge Core Walking Zone

Z1 Fordingbridge Core Walking Zone

Zone description

Fordingbridge is a settlement with a population of approximately 6,000 (2021 Census) situated on the River Avon at the north-western edge of the New Forest National Park. The railway station at Fordingbridge was closed in 1963 and today the main transport links are by road along the A338 running north to Salisbury and south via Ringwood to Bournemouth. From around 1960 onwards, the town expanded, with several housing estates added to the historic core of the town. A mid-1970s bypass diverted some of the traffic away from the old core of the town and medieval bridge.

There are limited employment centres in Fordingbridge and all educational facilities are located to the north of the town. The centre offers a wide range of facilities, including retail and health-related services, although the town’s main recreation area (Fordingbridge Recreation Sports Field and Fordingbridge Recreation Ground Playpark) is less easy to access, being located in a confined space between Ringwood Road and the River Avon.

A masterplan, which includes the Local Access Plan described in the following paragraph, has been prepared outlining proposals for new walking and cycling links between the town centre and strategic development sites to the north of the town and to Alderholt in Dorset. These sites include SS16 at Ashford, SS17 (land at Whitsbury Road; designated mainly for housing) and SS18 (land at Burgate; for housing, shopping facilities, services and employment).

Fordingbridge Local Access Plan

The Access Plan was developed following adoption of the NFDC Local Plan 2016-2036, which allocated strategic development sites together with indicative masterplans and accompanying transport proposals designed to address the challenges faced. The final version, published in November 2023, included a contribution from Fordingbridge Town Council.

The focus of the Access Plan lies in improving access to the strategic sites and between the sites and the town centre, including:

• pedestrian priority on all arterial approaches to the town centre, e.g. Salisbury Road, Shaftesbury Street and on Whitsbury Road, especially at Parsonage Park Drive and between Salisbury Road and the northern entrance to the Augustus Park development
• localised pavement and crossing improvements between developments at Burgate, together with better links to Burgate School and Fordingbridge Infant/Junior Schools.

The proposals for the walking zone outlined below have taken into account the concerns expressed in the Access Plan relating to the town centre.

Existing conditions

The town lacks a railway station and is served by a small number of bus services, only two of which are frequent (defined as at least one bus per hour, up to seven days per week). There are extensive rights of way around the town, but walking facilities within the town centre are generally quite poor, with many narrow pavements and limited crossing opportunities in the High Street and around the Bridge Street and Market Place areas.

Barriers to walking

Poor pavement surfaces and narrow pavements make it harder and less comfortable to walk, especially for older people and people with certain physical disabilities.

There are too few opportunities for pedestrians to cross main roads in the town centre.

The presence of wide junction bellmouths (e.g. Ringwood Road/Bridge Street) make crossing of side roads difficult.

Street furniture causes some level of obstruction with guardrail an intrusive and potentially unnecessary presence in some areas.

There are high traffic levels on High Street (B3087) reflecting the lack of alternative routes for longer-distance or commuting traffic. This situation is exacerbated by the lack of crossing points over the River Avon.

There is regular congestion at key local junctions, e.g. High Street/Provost Street which may compromise the safe use of existing crossing opportunities. .

Z1.1 Potential options

Cycle route 100 (secondary utility) passes to the east of Fordingbridge along the A338. Cycle route 240 (secondary utility) passes through the town as shown on the plan above.

• Z1.1.1 Station Road, Shaftesbury Street, High Street and Bridge Street could be considered for 20mph zone with widened pavements on the south side. Proposals should be considered in line with cycling proposals for route 240.
• Z1.1.2 The Ashford Road/Station Road junction is currently a mini-roundabout but could be signalised and refuges/tactiles provided.
• Z1.1.3 Traffic calming could be provided through Station Road and the town to Southampton Road (though not the old bridge itself) in connection with the 20mph zone.
• Z1.1.4 The Ringwood Road/Bridge Street junction is currently a wide bellmouth and could be narrowed.
• Z1.1.5 A new refuge should be provided on Ringwood Road at the junction to assist crossing here.
• Z1.1.6 The Bridge Street/Salisbury Street/B3078 junction is currently a mini-roundabout. Refuges and tactile paving are missing and should be considered, or a tighter, T-junction layout could be considered instead.
• Z1.1.7 On the B3078 (outside Belinda’s Bakery) an informal crossing could be provided.
• Z1.1.8 Road width at the B3078/Shaftesbury Street junction should be reduced.
• Z1.1.9 New pedestrian crossings should be provided on Bridge Street on the western approach to the bridge (there is no protected pavement on the south side), the Shaftesbury Street/High Street/Provost Street junction (together with road narrowing here) and on Station Road at locations compatible with potential future access points to SS16 at Ashford.
• Z1.1.10 The informal crossing on Ringwood Road opposite the playpark could be converted to a controlled crossing.
• Z1.1.11 The informal crossing from the car park to the sports ground should be made more prominent.
• Z1.1.12 There should be more greenery/planting where possible, though narrow pavements in sections of the town may preclude this. Seating could also be provided at appropriate locations in the town centre, along with remarking of existing pedestrian crossing facilities.
• Z1.1.13 Resurfacing of pavements, especially at the eastern end of Salisbury Street, should be considered.
• Z1.1.14 Wayfinding should be provided within the town centre, to include bus services and cycle route information.
• Z1.1.15 A circular walk in/around the town and a town trail from the bridge could be provided for tourists and for local leisure opportunities.
• Z1.1.16 Bus shelter provision should be upgraded, e.g., at the northbound bus stop on Ringwood Road alongside the playpark/sports ground.

Z1.1.1 –Station Road between Jubilee Road and Ashford Road

Z1.1.2 – Ashford Road/Station Road

Z1.1.3 – Bridge Street

Z1.1.4 – Ringwood Road/Bridge Street junction

Z1.1.8 – B3078/Shaftesbury St junction

Z1.1.9 – Bridge Street

Z1.1.11 – Informal crossing on Ringwood Road, car park to sports ground

Z1.1.12 – High Street

Z1.1.13 – Salisbury Street Z1.1.16 – Ringwood Road

Z1.1.5 – Ringwood Road

Z1.1.6 – Bridge Street/Salisbury Street/B3078 roundabout

Z1.1.7 – B3078 High Street

Z1.1.10 – Informal crossing on Ringwood Road, opposite the playpark

Z1.1.14 – High Street

Z1.1.15 – Bridge Street

Z1 Fordingbridge Core Walking Zone

Z2 Ringwood Core Walking Zone

Z2 Ringwood Core Walking Zone

Zone description

Ringwood is a market town situated on the River Avon to the south of Fordingbridge on the western edge of the New Forest National Park. It is bisected by the A31 dual carriageway which is part of the National Strategic Road Network maintained by National Highways. The A31 is the main road linking Bournemouth with Southampton, the Midlands and London. It carries high volumes of vehicular traffic and is subject to regular delays and congestion. This issue is particularly bad during the summer holidays with visitors accessing Bournemouth and the rest of the Dorset coastline.

Completion of strategic sites (SS) at SS13 Moortown Lane (residential and employment) and SS14 Hightown Road (mostly residential) will incorporate the creation of a new road layout in the town that is anticipated to take much of the through-traffic away from the town centre after completion, which is not due before 2027. There is another development site at (SS15) at Snails Lane, Ringwood, a little further distance from the town.

Existing conditions

The town centre offers a wide range of shops, restaurants and cafes and has a relatively pleasant and high-quality environment for cycling and walking. The closure of West Street access to the A31 has offered an opportunity to revitalise the historic core of the town centre, particularly around the historic Market Place and High Street. Much of the town centre is protected as a conservation area. The closure of West Street at the A31 also means there is now a low traffic route connecting the town centre with the shared path that runs alongside the A31 linking Ringwood with the settlements on the Dorset side of the River Avon (St Ives and Ashley Heath).

The emerging Neighbourhood Plan supports initiatives to promote active travel and shared space options for the town centre, as well improving walking and cycling connections to and within the town centre.

There is no railway station in Ringwood but a central bus station area in Meeting House Lane caters for local and longer-distance bus and coach services to London, Heathrow and Gatwick airports, and destinations elsewhere in the New Forest, Bournemouth and Salisbury.

The Castleman Trailway is a former railway line that has been converted to a shared path greenway and forms part of NCN256 which provides a traffic-free active travel route across the River Avon to the west of the town linking the New Forest National Park with Dorset. The Avon Valley Trail, a long-distance walking route that runs north-south alongside the River Avon also passes through the town.

Barriers to walking

The relatively high traffic volume presents an obstacle to achieving high-standard walking provision outside of the town centre. The main section of the town centre currently enjoys a relatively high-quality pedestrian environment, although there are few dedicated crossing facilities. In some cases, this is due to the presence of on-street parking, such as in Market Place. Pavement widths are, on the whole, reasonable, but there is little planting and limited opportunities to provide seating within the main retail area.

The A31 pedestrian underpass between Gravel Lane and the town centre is frequently flooded during heavy rain and remains flooded for extended periods of time. This is a significant barrier to walking as it is one of a small number of pedestrian routes that links the town centre to the northern suburbs of Ringwood.

Z2.1 Potential options

Cycle routes 100 (primary utility) and 210 (secondary utility) run through the town as noted on the plan above.

• Z2.1.1 The Gorley Road approach to the town centre could be covered by a 20mph zone.
• Z2.1.2 Signalised crossings and cycle-friendly design could be provided at the Southampton Road/Gorley Road junction.
• Z2.1.3 A 20mph zone on Southampton Road between Mount Pleasant Lane and Mansfield Road/The Furlong roundabout should be considered, together with, at least, crossing facilities in the form of refuges with tactiles at the roundabout, or a Dutch-style roundabout (which gives cyclists priority over other vehicles) or cyclops junction. Both these latter two suggestions separate pedestrians and cyclists from general traffic.
• Z2.1.4 At the roundabout at the Mansfield Road/Christchurch Road junction refuges and tactiles should be provided on arms where they are currently missing, together with an entrance gateway at the junction, as a minimum, if retention of the roundabout is preferred. Consideration could also be given to a redesign of the junction, incorporating narrowed lanes, signalisation or a T-junction, and greater prominence given to the church and memorial gardens. Both this and the traffic calming proposed on Christchurch Road would be beneficial and could be partially funded by proposed development at the Moortown Lane development (SS13 identified above).
• Z2.1.5 The Wellworthy Way/Christchurch Road roundabout could be redesigned to a signalised junction with dedicated pedestrian and cycling facilities.
• Z2.1.6 Improved refuges and tactile paving should be provided at Christchurch Road/Bickerly Road/Castleman Way junction.
• Z2.1.7 An entry treatment (raised table) could be installed all the way across the junction, where Strides Lane meets the West Street/Market Place junction and seating and planting could be provided.
• Z2.1.8 The Furlong/Market Place junction would benefit from an informal crossing point (raised table) with tactile paving.
• Z2.1.9 There are few crossing points along the High Steet. Further work should be done to establish where more crossings could be helpfully added.
• Z2.1.10 Widened pavements are required on Christchurch Road.
• Z2.1.11 Access to Ringwood Infant School on School Lane should be protected by 20mph zones with traffic calming.
• Z2.1.12 A similar scheme should be considered for the approaches to the Junior School, particularly at the Kingsfield/Hightown Road junction, to complement the existing traffic management and safety measures.

Z2.1.1 – Gorley Road

Z2.1.2 – Southampton Road/Gorley Road mini-roundabout

Z2.1.3b – Southampton Road

Z2.1.5 – Uncontrolled crossings near the Wellworthy Way roundabout Z2.1.8 – The Furlong/Market Place junction

Z2.1.6 – Christchurch Road/Bickerly Road/Castleman Way roundabout

Z2.1.7 – West Street/Market Place junction

Z2.1.3a – Southampton Road

Z2.1.4 – Mansfield Road/Christchurch Road Roundabout

Z2.1.11 – 11 School Lane (access to Ringwood Infant School)

Z2.1.10 – Christchurch Road Z2.1.12 – Kingsfield/Hightown Road junction

Z2.1.9 – High Street

Z2 Ringwood Core Walking Zone

Z3 New Milton Core Walking Zone

Z3 New Milton Core Walking Zone

Zone description

The zone includes the main retail area and routes to local schools; Ashley Infant and Junior Schools, and New Milton Infant and Junior Schools. The built-up area of New Milton extends to the coast, merging with Barton on Sea, due in part to its extensive expansion following the First World War and subsequently. According to the New Milton Neighbourhood Plan, much post-War development has taken the form of flats and apartments, replacing many of the single family dwellings and producing high densities in some areas. The town acts as a major centre for shops and services, including sports facilities, for the surrounding rural areas. Further expansion is proposed at strategic sites to the east of Brockhills Lane, New Milton (SS10) and to the south of Grove Road (SS11), both proposed developments are entirely residential.

Existing Conditions

There is a railway station located to the north of the town centre with links to London Waterloo via Basingstoke and to the south-west at Weymouth. There are local bus services serving destinations such as Lymington and Christchurch/Bournemouth. The main retail area has reasonably wide pavements and currently appears to be a relatively pleasant walking environment.

Barriers to walking

Despite the presence of wide pavements through much of the town centre, there remain a number of barriers to walking, chiefly around the junctions (at e.g. Station Road/Osbourne Road/Whitefield Road) and across both the main and side roads. Many of these barriers were highlighted in the adopted Neighbourhood Plan for New Milton.

Z3.1 Potential options

Cycle routes 200 (primary utility) and 210 (secondary utility) run through the town as noted on the plan above. Secondary utility route 110 touches the very northern edge of the walking zone.

• Z3.1.1 The Avenue Road/Manor Road/Station Road junction to the north of the railway station is not easy to cross despite being one of the major points of access to the station. Alterations to the layout to provide better facilities for people crossing the junction should be investigated, together with measures to assist cyclists as indicated in the cycling proposals.
• Z3.1.2 The existing crossing to the north of the railway station is not on the desire line and might benefit from relocation. If this is not possible, a new facility could be provided closer to the Station Approach junction. A continuous pavement across Station Approach should be considered.
• Z3.1.3 There is potential for a town centre ‘gateway’ installation (e.g. Welcome to New Milton signs) to the south of the railway station, in the vicinity of the Station Approach junction.
• Z3.1.4 Signalisation or zebra crossings (depending on traffic flows) installed right at the junction at the Station Road/Osbourne Road/Whitefield Road junction could be considered, although at a minimum, refuges and dropped kerbs/tactiles should be provided.
• Z3.1.5 Better access and signing to the Memorial Centre from Station Road could be considered.
• Z3.1.6 An informal crossing along Station Road between the Osbourne Road and Ashley Road junctions should be considered.
• Z3.1.7 A crossing facility on Old Milton Road should be investigated between Station Road and Elm Avenue to enable access between shops/services and New Milton Recreation Ground.
• Z3.1.8 Old Milton Road south