- Q1: What is wrong with a tunnel? Wouldn’t a tunnel be a great improvement for visitors?
- Q2. Why can’t Highways England widen the existing road?
- Q3. Passing motorists slow down to take photos of the Stonehenge monument. Would a hedge to screen the view on the A303 improve the flow of traffic?
- Q4. What are the alternatives to a c. 3km tunnel?
- Q5. How else would you spend £1.7bn on transport in the South West?
- Q6. How frequently is the tunnel at Hindhead closed?
- Q7. When will the archaeological, geological assessments be published? Will it be in time for the Examination of the draft Development Consent Order?
- Q8. What were the results of the consultations?
- Q9. Could the Stonehenge bypass go north of Larkhill?
- Q10. What will happen when the tunnel is closed?
- Q11. Why do you not have a petition on the UK Parliament site?
The Government proposes to widen the A303 trunk road to the south west. The 4-lane carriageway, twin-bored tunnels, tunnel, slip roads and deep cuttings would cross the iconic Stonehenge WHS: a landscape that is considered “the most archaeologically significant land surface without parallel”. The whole Stonehenge landscape has an outstanding universal value that is of immense significance for all people for all time, and this transcends any consideration of sorting out a 21st century part-time traffic jam.
The tunnel is too short: It is c.3km across a c.5km World Heritage Site. Whilst It improves the view from the stone monument the Expressway would cause a significant gash to the east and west of the WHS.
The road and tunnel are being sold on a false premise: that they would enhance “Stonehenge” and the “World Heritage Site”. The triangular field where the stone monument stands is one part a vast prehistoric landscape. Read more.
The whole site, extending well beyond the horizons around the famous stones themselves, is c. 5.4 km across. All of it makes up a “huge ancient complex” that holds many secrets yet to be discovered. Yet the proposal is for a c. 3km (1.9 mile) tunnel (see map above). It would result in at least 2.4km of above-ground 21st-century road engineering within the WHS. The tunnel entrances
All archaeology in the construction zones would be destroyed and the A303 would become the largest ever human intervention in an area fashioned and revered by over a hundred generations of our ancestors. It would cause irreparable damage to the WHS in breach of the UNESCO World Heritage Convention and ignores UNESCO’s firm advice in 2018 and 2019.
Our case against Highways England’s A303 Stonehenge scheme is here.
Neither surface dualling nor a short tunnel would meet the Government’s commitments under the World Heritage Convention, notably Article 4. Furthermore, the concept that congestion will be relieved by increasing road capacity is out of tune with the evidence and the mythical driver for this scheme. Evidence shows that such benefits are often not realised in practice.
You can read our two statements about issues concerning potential solutions for the A303 at Stonehenge and our position statement about the A303 expansion at Stonehenge.
ALSO: please see CPRE’s video about road building and report: End of the Road? Challenging the Road Building Consensus.
Q3. Passing motorists slow down to take photos of the Stonehenge monument. Would a hedge to screen the view on the A303 improve the flow of traffic?
Yes. But it would not hide the henge from the road at King Barrow Ridge where you get the first glimpse of the Stones from the east: people would still try to stop to look and photograph the view.
Our position is that no further damage should be done to the archaeological landscaper of Stonehenge. Future generations would be appalled at those who decided that road widening should be at the expense of England’s most iconic World Heritage Site. If Government insists on a tunnel under the WHS, it should be done by means of a deep bored tunnel long enough to avoid the WHS and its setting altogether. This would be in line with planning policy and World Heritage Convention safeguards.
The poor economic case for the road shows it would cost far more to build than it would ever recoup in economic benefit and that’s before you factor in the huge risk of tunnelling through unstable phosphatic chalk, which could send costs skywards.
Highways England admits that the £1.7bn investment represents low to poor value and the National Audit Office considers the scheme to be a risky proposition.
Perhaps Government would do better to invest this money in upgrading the track and rail frequency to the South West. Alternatively invest in public services including public transport, building hospitals and schools, and mending potholes.
We react here to the Chancellor’s announcement to fund the scheme on 11 March 2020.
Highways England sent us reports on tunnel closures following a FOI Act. These reports covered a six year period from the time of opening in 2011 to 2017. The data as supplied are summarised in the graph attached. The peak of closures between 2011 and 2015 were in August, followed by May and October/November.
We were unable to ascertain the proportion of planned and unplanned closures due to collisions or breakdowns from 2015 to 2017 because the data were not presented in a consistent format.
Q7. When will the archaeological, geological assessments be published? Will it be in time for the Examination of the draft Development Consent Order?
Archaeological reports were produced during the Examination and beforehand. They were considered seriously inadequate in certain respects by independent specialists who object to the scheme.
Highways England reported the results of the 2018 consultations here in upbeat terms. A large proportion of the respondents was the result of action taken by the Alliance and its supporter, FoE, as can be seen by the summary below of the ‘over 9,000’ responses:
|Response format||Number of responses received|
|Questionnaire responses via the consultation webpage||2,547|
|Questionnaire responses received by hand or by Freepost||956|
|Emails and letters||111|
|Emails using Stonehenge Alliance proforma||1,686|
|Emails using Friends of the Earth proforma||3,943|
Whilst Highways England reported that people generally agreed that something should be done to address the problems on the A303 this was in the main in terms of traffic, not in terms of the benefit to Stonehenge.
There were several opportunities to register objections:
- A non-statutory consultation in 2017
- A statutory consultation in Spring 2018
- A supplementary consultation in Summer 2018
- Relevant Representations to the Planning Inspectorate in 2019
Our analysis shows an overwhelming number of objections were received by Highways England. 79% strongly opposed or opposed the scheme. A breakdown of these various opportunities is analysed below.
|Non-statutory, 2017||Statutory, Feb-April 2018||Supplementary, July-Aug 2018||Inspectorate’s Relevant Representations, 2019|
|Form by post||956||16|
|Stonehenge A proforma||1686||3220||2170|
|Action Network proforma||0||708|
|Inspectorate’s Relevant Representations||2370|
Our petition against the scheme currently stands at 51,365 (16 March 2020).
No. The Ministry of Defence owns the land and has set their face against it.
One or other of the tunnels will be closed on a regular basis for overnight maintenance, with two-way traffic using the open tunnel. The route for high vehicles which cannot use the tunnels would be from the new Longbarrow Junction, north on the A360 and B3086, then east on The Packway and A3028, and south on Salisbury Road to Solstice Park and vice versa. In the event of emergency closure of both tunnels, traffic would be diverted along the high load route, but using the A345 (Countess Road) rather than the A3028 to re-join the A303 at Countess Roundabout. It is thought closure of both bores would be rare.
1. Our petition has already made waves. For example a Westminster MP debate was held in June 2018. We handed our first batch of petition signatures to the Prime Minister.
2. Our petition is for world wide citizen action and has had to run since 2014 when the scheme was first announced. Parliamentary petitions however are for UK citizens and residents only. After six months they expire.
4. Petitioners who have signed our petition can share their concerns with their MP and ask them to raise these with the Secretary of State concerned. If abroad, they can ask the British Ambassador to do so as well as the Culture Secretary of their country who could contact their UNESCO representative for instance.
More useful references in our library.Please share