Dr & Mrs J. Moon: Objection to MP, 17 July 2003

17th July 2003

Rt Hon Sir George Young MP
House of Commons
London
SW1A 1AA
 
 

Dear Sir George,

A303 Stonehenge "Improvement"

As you will probably know, in June the Highways Agency issued its draft A303 Trunk Road (Stonehenge Improvement) orders. The orders cover 12.4 km of proposed dualling of the A303, 5.5 km of which is through the World Heritage Site. There will be a 2.1 km bored tunnel in the vicinity of the stones leaving 3.4 km of new dual carriageway to be constructed actually within the World Heritage Site boundaries. Some of this 3.4 km will be at surface level and some will be in cuttings approaching the tunnel entrances or on embankments approaching the proposed grade-separated interchanges and the average width of the new road plus associated embankments and slip roads would appear (from diagrams of the scheme) to be close to 100m; during construction a somewhat wider swathe can be expected to be affected (the Highways Agency do not give a figure for the width of the construction zone, but on past experience it could be closer to 200m than 100m).

From the Highways Agency's publicity, describing this as an "exceptional environmental scheme", it is apparent that the 2.1 km tunnel is being used as a trojan horse for desecrating a large swathe through the World Heritage Area - an area rich in tumuli, burial chambers, ancient settlements and ancient trackways. More specific objections are:

• The proposed highway scheme would cause considerable environmental damage to the Stonehenge World Heritage Site and the archaeologically and environmentally important surrounding area. According to the Stonehenge Management Plan, prepared for UNESCO, the Stonehenge World Heritage Site is internationally recognised as an outstanding archaeological landscape and it is quite unacceptable that a Government agency should be proposing to build over two miles of dual carriageway highway through this site.
• The proposed 2.1 km tunnel close to the actual Stonehenge monument is too short to remove traffic noise from this area (an aim of English Heritage). We can speak with some certainty here since our house is 1.9 km in a straight line from the nearest point on the A303 - considerably in excess of the 1 km between the ends of the proposed tunnel and the Stonehenge monument - and yet the traffic noise from the A303 is usually noticeable, and in certain meteorological conditions (unfavourable direction of wind, or when there is atmospheric layering in a strong anticyclone) it is highly intrusive.
• The proposals include a large grade-separated junction with the A360, which forms the western boundary of the WHS, threatening the large assemblage of archaeological features in the vicinity of the existing junction (Longbarrow Crossroads - named after the long barrow right beside them).
• The proposed highway contravenes a number of important policies and plans, most notably the Stonehenge World Heritage Site Management Plan, but also PPG7, PPG13 and PPG16 with their policies to protect sensitive areas from development.
• A variety of alternative plans for Stonehenge have not been explored, publicised, or costed. We believe it is contrary to European environmental law to pursue the current highway scheme before other alternatives have been properly considered. Options that surely ought to be fully costed include a bored tunnel under the complete World Heritage area (i.e. a tunnel greater than 5.5 km long), routes outside of the World Heritage Site, and public transport options.
• In other European countries, notably Switzerland, longer bored tunnels are being built through less sensitive landscape (e.g. the E27 autoroute from Delémont to Porrentruy contains two 3.2 km tunnels within an 8 km stretch through the Jura foothills) - why do we have to be so penny-pinching when it comes to protecting a fundamental part of this nation's, and the world's, heritage?

These plans drawn up by the Highways Agency apparently have the approval of the Ministry of Culture, Media and Sport and this raises a number of important questions for the Secretary of State, Rt. Hon. Tessa Jowell MP:

1. Why is the Secretary of State supporting a scheme to construct over two miles of dual carriageway, plus obtrusive tunnel entrances, through a World Heritage Site?
2. Why have all viable alternatives not been fully costed, and
3. Why is planning permission for the visitor centre, and connecting roads, being sought before the questions concerning the route of the A303 under, through or around the World Heritage Site have been settled?

We would be grateful if you could pass this letter on to the Secretary of State in order that she can see the concerns and have an opportunity to address them.
 
 

Yours sincerely,
 
 
 
 

(Dr J R Moon and Mrs J Moon)