A303 Stonehenge

Representations received regarding A303 Stonehenge

The list below includes all those who registered to put their case on A303 Stonehenge and their relevant representations.

Filter by content:
Previouspage 2 of 237Next
Items per page:
Representation - click on an item to see more details
Henry Spender
"Points that I might include on My Representation are as follows: 1. The cost of the project 2. The requirement for the project. 3. The potential damage to the environment. "
John Camp
"The application is flawed as it proposes a short tunnel (only c3 km) which will mean that both the east and west portals will still be inside the the World Heritage site (WHS) area.This will cause untold damage to the site -it will damage the paleo soils and will destroy the environs of the Mesolithic site of Blick Mead at the eastern end. The tunnel must be lengthened so its portals are outside the WHS. The huge roundabout with the A345 at the eastern end must either be deleted are moved further away from the WHS. The project with its dual carriageways , not all underground but in cuttings risks damaging the very WHS it seeks to "save""
Jonathan Baker
"I strongly support the Amesbury to Berwick Down dualling and tunnel. The designers have gone a long way to fit the scheme into the sensitive landscape. I like the green bridges and the landscaping proposals using natural chalk grassland to mimic the surrounding grassland. It will be a grade separated dual carrigeway fit for purpose to enable direct journies to the South West Ideally should be a motorway along the lines of the A14(M) from Cambridge to Huntingdon. The construction period would be disruptive for five years but nature is a good healer. The stonehenge monuments will be enhanced and reunited without the current severance by the current inadequate A303.Winterbourne Stoke will be relieved of heavy traffic and better air quality for the villagers. At least the scheme has allowed much of the priceless archaeology to be preseved. The tunnel soil deposit site will look like a white moonscape at first, but top soiled over and grass seed sown it will recover. Look forwrd to the start of work in 2021."
Louise Sneyd
"I would like to say that the plan I have seen online for the proposed new road and tunnel look as if they are very close to the Stonehenge Monument. This may impact the ancient site in terms of look and traffic noise. I would like to give support to a road that is further from the monument if possible. "
Martin McCann
"My concerns, and my Written Representation, regarding the A303 Stonehenge development, center around the historical, cultural and scientific value of the site. I trust this is an adequate summary to enable my registration as an Interested Party."
Mrs Georgina Hawkes
"No further damage should be done to the archaeological landscape of Stonehenge. Future generations would be appalled at those who decided that road widening should be at the expense of England’s most iconic World Heritage Site. If A303 widening at Stonehenge is felt to be essential it should be done by means of a deep bored tunnel at least 4.5km long. Anything shorter would cause irreparable damage to this landscape, in breach of the World Heritage Convention."
Nik Marvin
"I strongly object to the proposed tunnel project at Stonehenge, on the basis that it will negatively impact - and possibly affect - the sites' World Heritage status, and also due to the fact that the proposed site and it's environs are one of the most archaeologically sensitive sites in the United Kingdom, namely due to the fact that it has been consistently identified as a [largely unexplored] funerary complex and burial ground, among other things. Also the ongoing archaeological work at Blick Mead - a highly archaeologically sensitive and as yet not fully explored site - would be adversely affected and heavily impacted, and possibly even damaged beyond repair, as already appears to have been the case according to [Redacted], the leading archaeologist at the site, following the drilling of a borehole by Highways England at the site, who apparently did not consult [Redacted] or his team before commencing drilling. [Redacted] said "...this is a travesty...If the tunnel goes ahead the water table will drop and all the organic remains will be destroyed. If the remains aren't preserved we may never be able to understand why Stonehenge was built." My objection is also based on observations and submissions made by [Redacted]relating to the project, and also what appears to be a general lack of proper and adequate public consultation or the relaying of accurate and up to date information relating to the project. I wish to see greater transparency, and proper and adequate consultation with the relevant parties (i.e [Redacted] et al) and indeed the general public, prior to any further potential work relating to the project being carried out. I am deeply concerned that the wishes of the public are not being listened to or respected, nor are the professional opinions and factual comments relating to the proposed project made by eminent and distinguished experts in their field, namely [Redacted] et al. This is my written representation as an interested party."
Pippa Richardson
"As a citizen of this nation, an historian, an environmentalist and a Druid, I fundamentally object to the plans to bulldoze a new road and tunnel right through the heart of the Stonehenge World Heritage Site. If carried out, these plans would have an irreparable effect on the irreplaceable archaeology of the site and rob the British people of a vital part of their heritage. How dare anybody put the interests of the motor car above the need to protect this precious landscape in its entirety ? The road should be substantially re-routed to skirt the entire WHS. Stonehenge and its inspiring landscape is not just a unique source of information on our nation's history and that of human kind, but its beauty must be preserved in tranquillity for all time. The plans for a new road and tunnel are short-term fixes to benefit car owners - Stonehenge WHS is too important for that, we must take a very long term view. It has been there for thousands of years, let it live for thousands more."
Robin Horton
"i dont agree that all options have been considered for the protection of the world heritage site. the tunnel is not long enough and thus the deep cuttings at the openings at either end of the tunnel will cause unnecessary harm to the world heritage site. cost has taken too much of a priority in this design. not enough provision has been made for the recovery and retention of artifacts and history that is disturbed and uncovered during the construction phase, it is likely that huge amounts of archaeology will be uncovered in construction but how will this be preserved and retained ?? if the purpose of having a tunnel is to remove harm from the heritage site then surely the tunnel needs to be long enough to achieve this ?? "
Rocky Mountain Research Institute
"The Stonehenge site and surrounding area is sacred, on the ground, above the ground and below the ground. The tunnel and traffic would destroy the profound link with the spiritual realm. It is apparent to all sensitive people that a route for the road far away from the sacred site is a much better option. No tunnel should be built. This is a sacred area and the sacred energy goes above and below the ground surface. Put your efforts to find a suitable route for the A303 away from Stonehenge and this area. Thank you, Ron Russell No further disturbance should take place on this very valuable site. Tunneling is the wrong approach as it will alter and disturb the subtle energy of the site. The A303 should be relocated away from the area entirely. Thank you for reviewing this."