CPRE Wiltshire: Objection to Draft Orders, 1 September 2003

1st September, 2003

The Project Director
A303/Stonehenge Improvement Scheme
The Highways Agency
Zone 2/05-K
Temple Quay House
2 The Square, Temple Quay
Bristol BS1 6HA
 

Dear Sir,

Department for Transport

Highways Act 1980

The A303 Trunk Road (Stonehenge Improvement) Order 200
The A303 Trunk Road (Stonehenge Improvement) Slip Roads Order 200
The A303 Trunk Road (Stonehenge Improvement) (Detrunking) Order 200
The A303 Trunk Road (Stonehenge Improvement) Side Roads Order 200

CPRE objects to the draft Orders on the following grounds

1. Having taken part in discussions on the agreed Stonehenge World Heritage Site Management

Plan, we consider that the present road proposals do not meet its aims to conserve the whole landscape and make it more accessible and understandable to visitors. The road scheme is incompatible with the Highways Agency's 1995 A303 planning Conference resolutions relating to protection of the landscape and archaeology; it is similarly incompatible with planning policies as well as Government guidance on heritage issues. The scheme is not acceptable in terms of sustainability and the demands of the World Heritage Convention.
2. CPRE recognises that local traffic problems need to be addressed but finds no evidence in the

Environmental Statement to justify the road proposals on transport grounds alone. Nor are we convinced that the scheme may be justified on heritage or environmental grounds.
3. We are concerned about adverse impacts on landscape character throughout the proposed route of the road scheme; and about environmental issues such as noise and air pollution.
4. We suggest that all interrelated elements of the 'Stonehenge Project' i.e. roads, the visitor-centre and visitor-access proposals should be considered together, since each scheme, alone and in combination, would have significant overall impacts upon the environment, road transport and sustainability. We do not consider the proposals to be 'an exceptional environmental scheme'.
5. We see no reason to accept severely damaging road proposals for 'an exceptional environmental scheme' on the grounds that the financial cost of something better is too high. The yet-to-be-measured value of the heritage of the Stonehenge landscape, which must be of the highest order, should be a vital component of any consideration of costs. We think that funding for a better solution should be sought and obtained. We do not think that 'heritage' funding should be used for the present scheme.

In conclusion, we are convinced that the road scheme is incompatible with the planning and legal framework that exists to protect and enhance this exceptional and internationally significant landscape. We hope that the Government will look again at the proposals and seek funding, however long that might take, for a road scheme that would fully protect and enhance the World Heritage Site and its environs. We also ask you to call in this scheme for a wide-ranging Public Inquiry, at which all the components of the 'Stonehenge Project' may be considered and evaluated alongside realistic alternative proposals.

I would be grateful if you should, please, acknowledge receipt of my letter and continue to keep me informed of progress.

Yours faithfully,
 
 
 

G F McDonic
Wiltshire Branch Chairman