Botley Bypass/SRTM - A334 at Brooklyn House, Curdridge
Case reference EIR2026/06756
Received 1 October 2026
Published 9 October 2026
Request
1. The most recent SRTM or other strategic transport modelling held by HCC which contains the A334 through Curdridge, specifically the section containing Brooklyn House / the historic link between nodes 49334 and 49436.
2. For the closest equivalent link in that modelling, please provide the available AM peak, PM peak, 12-hour and 24-hour/AADT flows, in both directions separately and combined, for each relevant forecast year.
3. Please identify the model version, base year and forecast year(s) from which those figures are derived.
4. Please confirm whether the relevant model/reference case includes: o the Botley Bypass; o the completed/all-movements M27 Junction 10; o Welborne development and associated highway infrastructure; and o other committed development or highway schemes materially affecting traffic assignment through the A334/A32 corridor.
5. Please provide any available difference plots, link-flow plots, select-link analysis, assignment plots or equivalent outputs showing the effect of these schemes upon the A334 between Botley and Shedfield/Curdridge.
6. Please confirm whether HCC considers any more recent SRTM modelling to supersede or materially alter the 2016 SRTM Botley Bypass modelling previously supplied under FOI2026/05327 and FOI2026/05506.
7. If more recent modelling exists but HCC does not hold the requested link-flow outputs, please identify which organisation commissioned, maintains or holds the relevant SRTM model/output so that the information can be requested from the appropriate body.
8. Finally, having regard specifically to the A334 road section containing Brooklyn House, rather than the wider Botley/Curdridge area, does the most recent modelling held by HCC forecast traffic on this section to increase, decrease or remain broadly neutral following inclusion of the Botley Bypass and other committed schemes? Please identify the model link and numerical output supporting that answer.
Response
1. The most recent data has already been provided to you. This work underpinned the bypass planning applications Transport Assessment. There has been no need to revisit it.
2. This has already been provided to you.
3. This is included in the Transport Assessment already provided. The model was a 2014, adjusted to 2017 (base) and forecast years of 2021 and 2026 with and without bypass.
4. This is not in the reference case as it was not a committed scheme, but the bypass is in the Do Something scenario to compare to the proposed intervention to the baseline, which is the purpose of the model and Transport Assessment.
o the completed/all-movements M27 Junction 10;
Yes
o Welborne development and associated highway infrastructure; and
Yes
o other committed development or highway schemes materially affecting traffic assignment through the A334/A32 corridor.
This has already been provided in the modelling report.
5. This has already been provided to you.
6. There is an updated SRTM base model that would supersede but will not be commissioned again because the bypass has permission and is nearly built and running the SRTM has a significant cost.
7. This information is not held, and we are not aware of any other body having such data.
8. The modelling and Transport Assessment (already provided) highlighted that there would be a small increase on surrounding roads as a result of the bypass attracting traffic to the area to use the route. The bypass is primarily focussed on the local redistribution of existing traffic. This has been considered and approved through the associated planning application in 2017.
Documents
This is Hampshire County Council's response to a freedom of information (FOI) or environmental information regulations (EIR) request.
You can browse our other responses or make a new FOI request.