Letter from Ed Bradley, Highways Agency, to Salisbury Transport 2000, 22nd August 2000
From: Ed Bradley, Highways Agency, Tollgate House, Houlton Street,
Bristol BS2 9DJ
To: Salisbury Transport 2000
Our ref: HA 065/015/000002
22nd August 2000
Dear Sir
A303 AMESBURY-BERWICK DOWN AND THE STONEHENGE MANAGEMENT PLAN
I refer to your letter of 26 June 2000 and our acknowledgement on
19 July; I am now responding to the five areas of concern that you raised,
and must apologise for the delay due to the holiday period.
Potential for induced traffic
The 1995 Stonehenge Planning Conference presented a set of resolutions,
of which "the proposal that there should be no dualling of the A303 if
it proved inconsistent with the findings of the SACTRA report" was one
and the resolutions need to be considered overall. Subsequent to this,
the Government's White Paper for Transport 1998 was produced. The White
Paper announced that the Government would give 'priority to improving the
maintenance and management of the existing roads' and had 'Identified a
core network of nationally important routes', of which the A303 was one.
The A303 Stonehenge Improvement was included in the Targeted Programme
of Improvements as an Exceptional Environmental Scheme particularly because
of its ability to enhance the setting of Stonehenge as a part of the Stonehenge
Master Plan. In addition, the public consultation in January 1999 demonstrated
substantial support for the scheme and the Secretary of State for the Environment,
Transport and the Regions announced the preferred route in June 1999.
I can also confirm that the issue of induced traffic is being considered
as part of the scheme traffic and environmental assessment, currently in
progress.
Pre-empting of multi-modal study
The decision to press ahead with upgrading the A303 at Stonehenge
using 2km of tunnel was based on the exceptional environmental case for
doing so. It is unlikely to be significantly affected by considerations
of the study. However, this decision will not influence the South West
and Wales Multi-Modal Study which will be im artial in reviewing all options
as it seeks to resolve the problems of that traffic corridor. The study
will also no doubt be considering rail and other transport Options on which
you are concerned.
No proper consideration of alternatives
Many alternatives have been examined over time including the long-bored
tunnel. The tunnel was rejected on the basis of being too high a cost;
it gave a poor economic case outside Treasury guidelines, and would provide
little extra benefit for the substantial outlay as well as other disadvantages.
The sum of approximately E300m for a 4km long bored tunnel was unaffordable.
Any external assistance, even if provided, is unlikely to change the position.
Lack of economic justification
Whilst economic issues have to be considered, this scheme is not
primarily economically motivated, the scheme is being taken forward because
of the exceptional environmental benefits to Stonehenge and its setting.
As you rightly say, the long bored tunnel would give a substantially worse
benefit to cost ratio (BCR). The heritage value'ls already substantially
built into the Hichways Agency and heritage contribution and, in anv event,
subject to people's interpretation.
Potential archaeological and ecological damage
The views of English Heritage, The National Trust and English Nature
have been sought; all these have expertise in such matters and fully support
the Master Plan proposals. Your use of the comment 'and their entire
landscape setting' is taken out of context. The World Heritage Site
Management Plan and the Master Plan are complimentary and need to be considered
as a whole.
With regard to the impact the scheme may have on important archaeological sites, archaeologists employed by the Highways Agency and English Heritage have already considered numerous options with great care. The simple fact is that there is no affordable solution that will avoid impact on all sites. The consensus is that the current scheme is the best option and English Heritage and the National Trust share this view. It is, of course regrettable that the tunnel will affect three scheduled monuments and a small number of other sites (although these have already been severely damaged by ploughing in recent years.) However, I do not think there can be any doubt that the benefit of reducing the current intrusion on the landscape and restoring the setting of the Stones very amply justifies these adverse impacts.
Yours faithfully
E T Bradley
Project Sponsor
Targeted Programme of Improvements
cc Dept of Culture, Media and Sport (attn Mr Trevor Wayne).