A critical stage has been reached with the Highways Agency�s (HA) publication of draft orders for the A303 Stonehenge scheme on 5 June, 2003. Three months of public consultation follows with a deadline for objections set at 4 September, 2003. Any objection based on alternative routes must meet that deadline but the alternative would only be valid if it was solely an alternative to the Stonehenge scheme. The Highways Agency have to evaluate such objections in readiness for the Public Inquiry.

As most recipients know, this Association has long planned, refined and promoted the ACT Parker Plan which began as a means, probably the only cost conscious means, of eliminating all roads, tunnels and cuttings across the World Heritage Site (WHS). The route chosen, in virtually the only direction possible, brings it close to Salisbury where significant advantages arise by solving several other serious traffic problems in a very efficient manner, not least a long needed bypass of the medieval City which might otherwise quadruple in length and cost.

Two of the problems are separate HA projects highly likely to be subjected Public Inquiry and there lies the dilemma. The ACT proposal covers three unconnected HA studies and each Inquiry Inspector would exceed the Inquiry remit by considering them. Thus official advice to test the ACT plan that way is clearly flawed. The only other option is to have it independently evaluated in advance, a process requiring promotion through District and County Councils to the Government Office for the South West (GOSW) for approval and the release of funds. If successful, acceptance into the roads programme as an official alternative might follow. That process has now begun, slowly, so slowly that it could be timed out; a very unfortunate result.

In the relatively short time remaining, concerted action is essential. Any organisation or individual wanting to achieve an outcome which the ACT Parker Plan can achieve, whether it be for Stonehenge WHS or the homes in the Salisbury area, should now publicly declare their support. Even if other plans would be preferable, the 4 km long tunnel or the relief of the Harnham suburb of Salisbury for example, the ACT plan cannot be their fall back position if has been ruled out on a technicality. It can only be tested by an Inspector if it has been evaluated and there is not time to loose for that to happen.

These words amount to an ultimatum to all those recipients who have held back from announcing support for ACT if their own preference fails. Such a declaration may be seen as diluting the chances of the preferred outcome. If that was the case but the time has come to recognise the real chances of success and the consequences of failure. Is it reasonable to expect, for example :

• the nation to paye some £450 million of taxpayers money to excavate the WHS and force thousands of people to drive for almost 3 miles in a tunnel, some of them regularly to shop - both ways ?
• to call for a road to be built for local relief, causing a loss of benefit to thousands of others, including a damaged, polluted landscape for Stonehenge and a long needed bypass for the medieval City?

Most sincerely,

John Ellis, ACT Project Officer
act.salisbury@telco4u.net