East Amesbury Residents: Objection to Draft Orders, 1 September 2003
1st September 2003
Stonehenge Project Team
Highways Agency
Zone 2-05/K
Temple Quay House
Temple Quay
Bristol
BS1 6HA
Re: Stonehenge Proposals - Public Consultation
Dear Sir,
Please find attached a short report on our views on the current Stonehenge Proposals.
We raise 12 individual objections to the plans shown as disadvantages, and make 50 cost, benefit and value comments on these and two other proposals. There are 6 further general points for consideration.
Contrary to how you may have been informed in the past, many of the residents in Amesbury have a great interest in the future of Stonehenge, they are not whole-heartedly supporting the current proposals and believe that there are different ways of achieving the dual goals of a restored Stonehenge and an improved south-west route, which must be fairly assessed.
Please would you give great consideration to our comments and
viewpoint,
and will you ensure that they are forwarded to all appropriate
reviewers.
It does appear that the current preferred "short bore" option is not
sufficient
and there is potentially a very significant value improvement in
considering
other options.
Yours sincerely,
Mr Richard Maguire
On behalf of
East Amesbury Residents
Forward
This report has been prepared through consultation with a broad cross section of the residents of Amesbury including Independent Town Councillors; Employees in the Town; Non-employed residents; Professionals living in Amesbury but working elsewhere; New Residents; Old Residents and even residents from the wider surrounding area who are visitors to the Town and Stonehenge.
The contributors are fully independent from any organisation
associated
with Stonehenge, the Developers, the Highways Agency, any political
party,
or the local tourist industry. They are simply a group of residents,
who
live close to Stonehenge; have a valid opinion of the future
development
of the area; and who may be classed as a typical cross-section of the
local
population.
Principal Authors:
Mr Richard Maguire
Mrs Margaret Strange
Mr Leslie Moody
Consultees and Contributors:
Mr John Coddington
Mrs Maggie Brown
Mrs Caroline Pollard
Mr Timothy Balcaskie
Mrs Courtney Clack
THE CURRENT PROPOSALS
The objectives of the new proposal are stated as follows:
Improving the setting and interpretation of the Stonehenge World Heritage Site;
Removing the sights and sounds of the roads and traffic from the area;
Improving the landscape by changing it back to chalk downland;
Transforming the visitor experience with better access and a new visitor centre.
The current proposals set out to accomplish these objectives by:
- Upgrading the A303 to dual carriageway;
- Sinking it in a tunnel where it passes the stones and "greening" over the old road;
- The closure of the A344 and "greening" over the old road surface;
- Introducing a new split-level junction at Longbarrow Crossroads;
- Introducing a new flyover at Countess Roundabout in Amesbury;
- Building a bypass of Winterbourne Stoke;
- Building a new visitor centre at Countess East in Amesbury.
ADVANTAGES & DISADVANTAGES FOR THE WORLD HERITAGE SITE
Of the solution steps proposed, only three of them actually affect the Stonehenge and the associated World Heritage Sites. These are;
- Sinking the A303 in a tunnel and "greening" over the old road;
- The closure of the A344 and "greening" over the old road surface;
- Building a new visitor centre at Countess East in Amesbury.
ADVANTAGES
It is considered that these three proposals will be of great advantage in preserving the future of Stonehenge. By inspection of the statements, if they are completed, it is clear that the objectives are able to be satisfied. Although the residents of Amesbury have concerns that the new visitor centre and "road-train" will not give "better" access to the site, as "better" is not defined or measurable -- it certainly does not include "quicker".
DISADVANTAGES
Only those three solution steps that affect the Stonehenge site can be considered for disadvantages and objection.
- The boring of a 2.1km tunnel under the ground to the south of the monument does necessitate the construction of access cuttings at both ends of the tunnel and the use of a partial cut-and-cover technique where the surface topography dictates this method of building. This will have obvious destructive disadvantages to the surrounding site and archaeology -- particularly the King Barrow Ridge Group and the Normanton Down Group.
- The action of boring the tunnel may have an effect on the stability of the standing stones on the site. It would be a disaster if any of the stones toppled during the work.
- It is also considered that the tunnel portal to the east of the stones is likely to provide un-welcome light pollution, which would spoil the view of the sunrise at important Solstice events- particularly during the winter.
- The removal of the A303 and A344 from site of the stones does mean that the opposite is also true -- the site of the stones from these roads is lost. The dis-advantage here is that this view is then not replaced.
- The upgrading works to the A303 are substantial and are planned to take place over a considerable time. The Town Council has acknowledged that the Town will resemble a "building site" for the next 5 to 10 years if all the road and building works are approved.
- The elevation of the traffic over the Countess Roundabout will deliver sound, light and environmental pollution to a wider area including Amesbury Abbey, the Lords Walk and the residents of Countess Road.
- Construction of the flyover will also generate its own pollution problems to the River Avon, which runs under and along side the current Countess Roundabout.
- The building of the flyover will also remove the pedestrian access between Countess Road North and Countess Road South.
- The use of tunnels dictates certain working practices for their operation; each of the twin bores will have to be closed regularly for cleaning and maintenance. At this time, the traffic that would use the A303 will have to be diverted through areas of Amesbury and Larkhill.
- The extra traffic generated to the visitors centre will also have a detrimental effect on the residents in this area. There could well be significant traffic congestion in this area and a significant rise in traffic delay in rejoining the A303. Further, there would be increased traffic along an identified "back-route" via Durrington and Bulford to the new all-ways junction on the A303 at Solstice Park.
- The construction of the visitor centre and associated car-parks and land-train routes to the site of the stones will require substantial building, construction and a further small tunnel under the A345 (Countess Road North). All of this will be in the immediate vicinity of residents homes and properties.
- The noise pollution in the area would increase due to tourist activity and use of the land train. Similarly, atmospheric pollution is also likely to impact on the residents of the area.
The new visitor centre is not considered to give any negative impact
on the stones due to its separation from the site.
ADVANTAGES & DISADVANTAGES FOR AMESBURY TOWN AND RESIDENTS
Of the solution steps proposed, many can be considered to give an effect on the Town of Amesbury and its residents. The positive and negative impacts on Amesbury seem to have not been covered in any great deapth during the developments of the proposals. The solution steps affecting Amesbury are;
Upgrading the A303 to dual carriageway;
Sinking it in a tunnel where it passes the stones and "greening" over the old road;
Introducing a new flyover at Countess Roundabout in Amesbury;
Building a new visitor centre at Countess East in Amesbury.
The other solution steps are considered to have little influence on Amesbury and its residents, but they are likely to be of interest to similar resident groups in those areas.
ADVANTAGES
The Stonehenge Project gives no details of deliberate or associated benefits for the community in Amesbury. There are also very few references to Amesbury residents in the press comments and project leaflets.
Upgrading the A303 to dual carriageway and the new flyover at Countess Roundabout will improve the traffic throughput along the A303, and help prevent traffic queues along it. It is considered that this is more for the benefit of through drivers rather than those who live in the area, although short trips along or across the A303 at the Countess roundabout may be speeded up as a side effect, and this should be acknowledged.
The new visitor centre at Countess East will give the residents of Amesbury the same exhibition and explanation benefits as that for the tourist community. It may also provide a limited amount of local employment.
DISADVANTAGES
Value is seen as the relationship between the provision of benefits and the associated cost of providing those benefits. However, it is acknowledged that costs may be expressed in other units apart form a monetary value, e.g. effort, environmental and time etc. For the purposes of assessing the Stonehenge proposal, value should be expressed in monetary and archaeological terms.
The monetary cost of a project is usually declared as part of the project proposal and description. The monetary cost of the current proposal of short tunnels and new visitor centre has been declared as £193Million.
Archaeological costs in this case have also be declared -- there are 11 tumuli which are indicated as being destroyed by the construction of the tunnel; and the associated environment of the Kings Ridge Barrow Group and Longbarrow Group will be dramatically affected by their proximity to the tunnel portals.
As well as the explicit disadvantages cited above, other measures of "cost" might be considered. These may be in terms of: Road Safety -- tunnels are not considered as safe as open surface roads; Environment -- tunnels create a poor air environment for the drivers using them; Pollution -- the flyover in Amesbury will create higher altitude noise and atmospheric pollution; Energy -- the tunnel has high energy requirements for its long term use and maintenance.
The decision of whether this proposal offers "value" to the Country (tax-payers, road users, tourist industry, residents, interest groups), is difficult to express in absolute terms. It is by no means certain that £193Million represents monetary value for achieving the project objectives of preserving and restoring Stonehenge.
When considering the proposal with costs expressed in non-monetary
units,
the costs do appear high for the benefits obtained.
COMPARISON OF VALUE
A useful benefit of having a value concept is the ability to carry
out
direct comparisons between project alternatives. Two alternatives have
been selected to demonstrate this principle; i) Long Bore Tunnel (LBT);
and ii) Southern Salisbury Loop Option (SSLO) -- e.g. similar to the
ATC
Parker proposal. The comparison is best demonstrated in the following
table.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(2003) |
|
|
|
|
(2003) |
|
|
|
|
plus @ £50M visitor centre (2003) |
|
Interpretation of this table is best left to the viewer, but it does appear that there is potentially a very significant value improvement in considering other options.
OTHER CONSIDERATIONS
During our consultations and discussions, a number of other points were raised. It is felt that these are of significance importance, and so should be recorded.
- Tunnel Accident Plan: there is very little information on accident and emergency assessment in the proposal. Some hazard and risk identification and mitigation is certainly required.
- Bad weather: this area of Salisbury Plain can be subjected to very poor winter weather, with snow and even blizzards possible. Consideration to road use and safety measures under these conditions should be undertaken.
- Solstice Celebrations: during the solstice celebrations, significant pre-planning has been carried out to ensure the safety of all interested parties. There does not seem to have been the consideration of managing future solstice events.
- Evacuation Plan: with many tourists predicted to visit the new visitors centre and the Stonehenge site, has an evacuation or crisis plan been considered ? This may well be difficult when many people are dispersed over a large area -- how will those at the stones be alerted ?
- Consideration to other road users does not seem to have been noted -- how will the new road layout affect cyclists, walkers and even equestrian users ?
- Access to the A303 from the Woodford Valley will be withdrawn under the current proposals, unless that section of traffic goes through Amesbury Town centre. This is a significant country community with many farm vehicle movements, which may not be appropriate for the town centre environment.