So Cllr. Woodward is taking all of the credit for the Stubbington By-Pass or is that all of the blame for the when the Newlands access road is built?
Quote from an article in The Daily Echo
"Councillor Sean Woodward, leader of Fareham Borough Council said: "I am delighted that Stubbington Bypass, a long-dead scheme which I resurrected five years ago, is making such excellent progress.
It is well-supported locally and is an essential part of our £100m Access to Fareham and Gosport project to provide better road links for residents to Welborne, the Solent Enterprise Zone and M27 motorway.""
I can't see how it will improve links to Welborne because traffic will still have to cross the A27 at Titchfield Gyratory and then battle their way down Highlands Road, Kiln Road and North Hill, but that is obviously just a minor problem. Just like trying to move developments from one ward to another, this will just move the waiting time from one traffic jam to another.
Link to article in The News
Rob Humby should be approving the plans for HCC to appoint a contractor to start investigative work on the route. Interestingly the route can't be finalised until this investigative work is finished - presumably if they find subterranean problems it could all change again but that surely is highly unlikely.
In the meantime there have been many worries about the diversion routes that will be enforced so here are the pdf files that relate. Click on the relevant picture to enlarge. The pdf file should be enable you to zoom in on to see the keys:
The recent announcement of Government funding for a Stubbington bypass is a culmination of nearly 30 years of campaigning by local residents, and by councilliors of ALL parties. It offers hope of relief for householders along the main through routes, who have had to put up with years of heavy traffic on roads that were never designed for it.
But the project will need careful watching.
The interests of Stubbington and Hill Head residents must not be sacrificed just to speed up traffic to and from Gosport.
Hallam Land, who want to build 1,100 homes at Newlands Farm, argued at hearings on Fareham's Local Plan that a bypass would become the effective new southern boundary of the built-up area.
It must not - all planning decisions about the detail of the bypass must safeguard the Countryside Gap.
Suella Fernandes - After a 40-year wait, I am delighted that the Chancellor has announced a £25.7 million investment in the Stubbington bypass—vital infrastructure that will ease the terrible congestion between Fareham and Gosport. I commend my neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for Gosport (Caroline Dinenage), for her work. Does my right hon. Friend agree that that is a great example of partnership between Hampshire County Council and Solent local enterprise partnership and that it will be the catalyst for a boost in jobs and the creation of growth?
Mr Hammond - I think the Stubbington bypass was well worth waiting for. It will indeed support growth and development by improving access to both the M27 and the A27, allowing much needed business investment, creating new jobs, but also enabling the development of 900 new homes. Where we can get transport infrastructure investment to perform its transport function but also to help to open up land for development for new homes, that is a double hit.
End of quote.
Some people are saying that it is opening the door for Newlands, others that it has nothing to do with Newlands and the 900 houses mentioned will be elsewhere, others are saying that they will be on Daedalus and in the Solent Enterprise Zone, could it be the land east of Newgate Lane? I guess you pays yer money and takes yer choice, only time will tell who is right but the words are extremely disquieting wherever they are going to go. All that will happen is that wherever they happen to be the Stubbington By-Pass will very soon be inadequate and we will be back to grid lock in the near future. Certainly the A32 is full to bursting, as are Titchfield Road and Newgate Lane.
After last week's really welcome announcement of the Government funding to complete the Stubbington Bypass, Hampshire County Council have produced an update for local residents.
Link to HCC article.
and a Frequently asked questions guide.
"How will the scheme help to relieve congestion?
The scheme will help alleviate the significant congestion in Stubbington village centre, where limited network capacity and the proximity of junctions in the village centre result in long queues and delays at peak times.
The bypass will help to deliver a reliable route for traffic wishing to travel from the Gosport peninsula westwards towards the M27 at Junction 9, in conjunction with improvements that have been recently completed at St Margaret’s roundabout on the A27 and works that are underway to upgrade the A27 between Titchfield Gyratory and Segensworth to two lanes in each direction.
The bypass will provide a reliable alternative route to using the A32 Gosport Road and the B3385 Newgate Lane to access the M27, and in this regard will help to free up some capacity on these heavily congested routes for traffic that is travelling to/from the west on the motorway."
MILLIONS of pounds has been approved by the county council for the Stubbington Bypass.
Well to date that's just over 25% of the funding needed for this road, just waiting for the other 75% not to mention the additonal costs due to poor planning and overrun.
Hopefully the Government is going to cough up, if not and this road is indeed so absolutley vital to the future of Daedalus, then we will probably be forced to welcome Newlands and hope that the developers will dig deep.
The big question will be which is more important to the residents affected, the new road or Newlands? Tricky question that.
County Council plans to plug funding gap to ensure future of Stubbington Bypass
Press release from Hampshire County Council looks as if the additional funding to enable a Government grant application for the balance may be available but possibly at the cost of Fareham rejecting the South Hampshire devolution plans in favour of HCC's idea.
Marine group calls proposed route for Stubbington bypass ‘a serious mistake’
Gosport Marine Scene, a non-profit group which works with marine businesses in Gosport,
says Hampshire County Council’s proposed route for the £35m Stubbington bypass could have ‘long-term adverse consequences’ on marine businesses on the eastern side of the borough."
But Gosports' deputy leader knows better and reckons that
"GMS don't have a clue what they are talking about" - Very diplomatic language.
But GMS says the route favours businesses and developments along the western side of the peninsula and that it will ‘exacerbate’ traffic problems along the A32.
A32 traffic queue Not sure what the bump was but if it caused this sort of problem on the A32 it proves that SOMETHING is needed but will the Stubbington By-pass help the situation? (video sped up to 10x, it was boring enough sitting in it). However Cllr. Woodward said that we can forget about doing anything to the A32 as it is beyond redemption.
Fate of Stubbington Bypass in the balance due to council funding
So after 40 years and all of the assurances it could yet fall apart because the promises of funding are now in doubt. Maybe it will change to a loan from HCC instead but that is very different to what we have always been assured would happen. Of course Hallam Land could always step in and help out in exchange for an easy passage for Newlands.
Link to FBC planning application
People who do not take The News on a daily basis may not be aware that recently the regulatory committee at Hampshire County Council approved the plans for a 2.3 mile long stretch of the Stubbington bypass. However, this does NOT necessarily mean that the bypass will be built at any time in the near future. There is the small matter of £35m to be found – and that is at today’s prices - so there is good reason to suspect that this sum will rise in the future.
Despite the support of many Stubbington residents – and that is understandable – the plans have not met with universal approval, especially from residents who live near to, or along the route and may be affected by it. That is entirely understandable too. HCC received 87 comments about the bypass. Not a significant number one must agree, but a greater majority were against the bypass: 14 for and 73 against. In the eyes of some, of course, had these figures been reversed that would have been interpreted as a show of overwhelming support for the bypass.
It is not surprising that many residents are very concerned and suspicious about how the land adjacent to the bypass will evolve in the future, especially with regards to opening up land for development (Newlands). It is even being expressed now that the bypass is being built, to assist the development of Daedelus where, allegedly 3500 new jobs will be created. Although there is no evidence, so far, that companies and businesses are lining up to move there.
I suppose that one of the biggest dilemmas is that the road will slice through the so-called strategic gap. There can be no doubt that this must be a conflict of interest. When is a strategic gap not a strategic gap? There can be no denying that the bypass will breach the currently defined strategic gap. It also begs the question: Why would the land owners be happy to relinquish their land to build a bypass whilst being denied the right to sell the rest of it to a developer for housing development if Newlands is refused?
It has also been suggested that Hallam Land Management will fund the bypass from Peak Lane east along where they want to build. Even if that were true - and I have seen no evidence to support that - what are we talking about here? A few million quid to make a very substantial profit? Some might be inclined to take the view this is a matter of cynicism, if nothing else. In any event, developers are not known for keeping promises.
Two statements published in the News also caught my eye: Firstly. 2,008 properties will experience an increase in traffic noise if the bypass is built, whereas 2,771 would experience a decrease in noise. One assumes that the former will be residents living along the bypass route and the latter Stubbington residents in the main. Does this take into account those residents who will be living along its route if Hallam should get their way? The second point, a reference to traffic hurtling through Stubbington. From my experience, during peak periods traffic does anything but hurtle through Stubbington. However, should the traffic burden be eased through Stubbington, during peak periods, then it might very well be that the remaining traffic could ‘hurtle’ through Stubbington ALL day: Just a thought.
And the Southern Daily Echo's take on the subject.