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 4 of 5Next
Items per page:
Representation - click on an item to see more details
Phyllis Baker
"Firstly, any work near the site of Stonehenge would seriously interfere with the ambiance of this world heritage site that millions of people come from across the world to visit. Secondly work with interfer with local infrastructure, causing traffic jams and disruption to local people and businesses. Thirdly the work itself might undermine the structure and safety of this site. The site is one of National and International importance. It is part of our British Heritage and a National Treasure. Any interference with the area surrounding the sight could affects the stability of the surrounding area and possibly the site itself. Many people visit the site on a regular basis. It is part of British History and Heritage and should not be altered or the views of it interfered with!"
Project Allenby Connaught
"Project Allenby Connaught (PAC) is an MOD PFI with Aspire for the Garrisons on Salisbury Plain (Tidworth, Larkhill, Bulford). The Garrisons electricity supply is taken from the National Grid at Ratfyn. PAC require confirmation that any A303 Works do not affect this supply & it's supporting infrastructure, including communication fibres."
Rebecca Kersten
"Stonehenge is one of the wonders of the world and it is in our country. Do not spoil this amazing architectural wonder, leave it for furture generations to view and experience in all its glory."
Rescue, The British Archaeological Trust
"Rescue is a non-political organisation dedicated to supporting archaeology. We receive no state support and are entirely dependent on the contributions of our members to support our work. We have been campaigning since our foundation in 1971 to support the cause of British archaeology. Our Council follows developments at Stonehenge and we have published articles on Stonehenge planning matters in our newsletters to members. We object to the A303 Stonehenge Preferred Route and changes proposed to it, on our own account and as a supporter-organisation of the Stonehenge Alliance. Our objections may be summarised as follows. We are particularly concerned about the damage the proposed road engineering and associated works would do to the World Heritage Site (WHS): its archaeology, fabric, setting and integrity, both during construction and in operation. Key monument groups would be permanently separated from one another and the designed landscape substantially modified each end of the tunnel, making it impossible for future generations to experience the WHS in its form at designation and less easy for them to gain better understanding about it now and as knowledge improves over time. We question the validity of the Heritage Impact Assessment undertaken for the WHS which considers impacts on attributes of Outstanding Universal Value but fails fully to assess damage to the WHS itself. We are concerned about loss of views of Stonehenge to road users. The A303 scheme contravenes the 1972 World Heritage Convention under which our Government is committed to protection, conservation, presentation and transmission to future generations of the WHS in its entirety. Crucial elements of the advice of three joint World Heritage Centre/ICOMOS advisory missions to Stonehenge and of the World Heritage Committee in 2017 and 2018 have not been followed. The A303 scheme is contrary to national and local planning policy for the WHS. Little regard appears to be given to the NPSNN section on the historic environment, notably paras. 5.129 and 5.131. The scheme also appears to conflict with the Valetta and European Landscape Conventions. We deplore the absence of archaeological evaluation reports in Highways England’s application documentation. Known information about the archaeology along the scheme corridor includes important evidence of boundaries, burials, settlement remains and flint scatters. Much of this evidence is within or just below the ploughsoil where remains are fragmentary, demanding careful and time-consuming excavation before development, along with full reporting and assured long-term storage of finds. The application documentation indicates tunnel boring machine vibrations could impact on a long barrow. It is suggested that the situation would be monitored but no remedy is offered for damaging impacts. Is there potential for damage to other archaeological known or unknown remains, such as fragile inhumations, on or close to the tunnel? There are concerns about possible changes in groundwater flow at Blick Mead resulting from road and/or tunnel engineering. This important site lies close to and probably partly under the A303 and proposed Countess flyover. The scheme would also impact adversely on the Amesbury Conservation Area, Listed Countess Farm Barns and Amesbury Abbey with its registered parkland. "
Rhodri Evans
"Damage has already occurred to Blick Mead site during an exploratory examination. It's only likely that more damage will happen in furthering this tunneling. Surely a dual carriageway alongside the current A303 is cheaper, faster and less damaging"
Richard Hobbs
"Irreparable damage to the WHS, its archaeology and setting, described by UNESCO as a ‘landscape without parallel’ "
Richard Mosley
"I am concerned that this site of national importance is being threatened"
Richard Sebborn
"A massive flyover yards from my property will devalue it and my quality of life greatly. Also damage to Blick Mead is totally unacceptable. "
Richard Stainer
"I am extremely concerned about the irreparable harm that will be caused to a unique site, recognised by UNESCO as a World Heritage Site. This site, which includes the whole of the surrounding area, should be preserved for the future and not sacrificed for the short term advantage of the present generation."
Robert Smith
"I believe the proposed development will irreversibly spoil the sacred nature of Stone Henge. I also believe the UK is at a population and infrastructure saturation point and our relatively small island is becoming concreted over leaving the UK a very unintetesting place to live."
Rosemary Norton
"The proposals will cause irremediable damage to the archaeological landscape of the Stonehenge WHS and its setting. This landscape has been described by UNESCO as a 'landscape without parallel'. Recent research has demonstrated beyond doubt how much more there is to find and study at this wonderful WHS site. We owe it to future generations to preserve it and we owe it to our ancestors to respect it. UNESCO’s international advisers say the scheme should not go ahead in its present form. Failure to heed that advice will be grievous and shameful. As well as Stonehenge the proposals also threaten the unique and precious site and landscape of Blick Mead Mesolithic and its setting. This site is also of huge archaeological importance and value. The current proposals have the effect of cutting the monument and landscape off from the public. Generations have viewed and appreciated the landscape and monument when travelling past it. Under these proposals Stonehenge is not visible any longer from the road. It is turned into a theme park, controlled by English Heritage and available only to those who can pay to see it and then only at certain times of day. This not how the monument and landscape should be. It would be a fundamental change in its character - for the worse. The landscape around Stonehenge offers habitat for rare bird species (Stone Curlew and Great Bustard) who will be disturbed by these plans. At a time when so much of our wonderful nature is under threat this would be unforgivable. The proposals will increase the disturbance in the landscape with increased noise from faster traffic"
Samantha Hamer
"This plan is vexatious as it damages part of a national heritage site and puts our sacred landscape at risk."
Sara Brough
"Stonehenge is a UNESCO World Heritage Site and should be protected from the dual carriageway that has been proposed to be built around it. HIGHWAYS ENGLAND SHOULD SCRAP THIS IDEA NOW AND RESPECT OUR HERITAGE."
Saskia Kent
"I strongly object to the proposal for the tunnel. I believe it will cause irrepairable harm to this extremely important world heritage site, indeed it has already damaged important archeology with test drilling. It will deny millions the chance to see the stones as they travel past, as they have done for centuries. The Tunnel and associated engineering will in itself be an ugly imposition on this relatively pristine landscape. Increasing the road capacity will also increase traffic volume, thus noise and particulate and noxious gases pollution and damaging to wildlife. That leading archeologists with intimate knowledge of the area also strongly object to this absurd proposal should be sufficient evidence to quash this unneccesary and profoundly damaging development. Advances in technology have meant huge strides in our understanding of the area with new discoveries every year. Leave it alone. "
Simon Appleyard
"Stonehenge is the whole area and it's landscape and environs. Wanton destruction of this should be a criminal act "
Simon Brough
"Fao Highways England re project A303 STONEHENGE Cancel this scheme immediately and preserve a UNESCO World Heritage Site from traffic pollution and noise. OUR ANCIENT HERITAGE IS AT STAKE"
Simon Middlecote
"Unacceptable intervention in a world heritage site at odds with advice given by UNESCO "
Simon Pemberton
"2 public consultations have overwhelmingly rejected the plans for the Stone Henge Highway yet you are pushing it through. At best this is undemocratic with going into any environmental & historical concerns."
Steph Windsor
"Damage to the WHS, its archaeology and setting, described by UNESCO as a ‘landscape without parallel’ UNESCO’s international advisers say the scheme should not go ahead in its present form and if it does the site may loss it's status Lack of alternative options in consultation that would not damage the World Heritage Site"
Stephen Plant
"Not only is the site important for Britain, it is a UNESCO world heritage site and as such should remain as is, the setting is as important as the stones themselves. It is also an important site for two rare bird species, as well as lost habitat individuals could be lost to fast moving traffic closer to their breeding ground - if they are not actually driven away. This plan also risks damaging the Blick Mead Mesolithic site. new roads should be routed away, not nearer to this important site. New faster roads just speed traffic to the next bottleneck. Roads are like rivers, flooding is less likely if flow is slowed, not speeded up."
Steve Gore
"I object to the current plans for the tunnel by Stonehenge. There has been inadequate protection given for the site with major archeological loss with the proposal as it stands. Any tunnel must be of adequate length to protect the entire site and area. This is a once in a lifetime opportunity to get this right. I oppose the current plans in all respects. "
Steve Howe
"As the proposal is so potentially damaging and that damage will be irreversible my main concern is that there is no alternative. Until there is an Alternative to consider which does not endanger rare wildlife or the monuments, does not dwarf a site of international importance, and does not impact the visitor experience or the experience of those as they pass by, no damage should be committed. The site should be preserved for future generations. "
Stormie Mills
"I u derstand that this new proposed tunnel will mean that the stones cannot be seen from the road, that “Tunner’s View” sketch of them, part of the UK’s cultural history & mystery will be gone forever. "
Stuart Riches
"I've been to sunrise at the henge near summer solstice. It's in our bones. Please do not trash it."
Terry Jennings
"The cost is exhorbetent for the return at times of austerity we should not be financing cosmetic projects there will also be detrimental effects on the adjacent areas due to the digging etc and possible damage to other sites within the scope of the development"
Tim Beckmann
"This road should not be built around this world heritage site and I am in opposition to it."
Tim Finch
"I object to the destructive impact of this road on a site of such historic importance. It will ruin this unique place forever by altering its appearance, driving away rare species of animals and taking away the fragile peace that is so important to the character and beauty of this monument. I am disgusted by the lack of consideration of the significance of this site shown by this proposal."
Tom Watson
"The ‘Stonehenge Tunnel’ project would cause irreparable damage to a World Heritage Site, its archaeology and setting, described by UNESCO as a ‘landscape without parallel’. UNESCO’s international advisers say the scheme should not go ahead in its present form. There are serious concerns about damage to Blick Mead Mesolithic site and its setting. The project would block the view of Stonehenge from the road and require to pay to see the Stones in future. It would also cause disturbance to rare bird species (Stone Curlew and Great Bustard). Meanwhile there is a lack of alternative options which would not damage the World Heritage Site in this consultation. All in all this seems to me to be a ridiculous project whose benefits cannot possibly match the potential for irreparable harm to a site of unique historical and archaeological importance."
Valerie Taylor
"The proposed plan will cause irreparable damage to this WHS, and therefore UNESCO has stated that it should not be implemented in its present form. The RSPB is concerned about the elimination of the habitat of two endangered bird species on the site."
Vera Proudlove
"I believe this road will cause damage to this amazing world heritage site. We are very lucky to have it and it should be protected for future generations The site will no longer be able to be seen from the road"
Victoria Goodison-Barak
"It is fact that the damage caused to ancient monuments by airborn chemicals is at an all time high. We have a duty to conserve this monument. Other options must be found. There is only one Stonehenge but there are other bypass routes."
Walter Stephen Macnally
"I have been and continue to be a regular traveller on the A 303. I believe the short tunnel option as covered in the application is not the best solution to the A303 traffic bottle neck. I believe the longer tunnel option is the best all round solution, in line with UNESCO advice and therebye ensuring the continued WHS status and protection of the known and unknown archeological environment. UNESCO advice specifically rejects the current short tunnel solution and the untold damage that will be caused to the area by such a project. I also believe that the retention of the old A 303 (Possibly reconfigured as a "Scenic Route" or converted to a free public car parking) would preserve the existing infrastructure for the continued benefit of the general public who for millenea have enjoyed the free views and ambiance of this National/Global treasure. The view obtained from the existing road as the central monument crests above the horizon is truely magnificent and all efforts should be made to preserve this for the general travelling public who wish to see it. In addition, retaining the old A 303 as a "scenic route" would also provide extra emergency routing of traffic during tunnel closures. A good example of the chaos caused during tunnel closures can be seen from the Hindhead tunnel experiences where the old A 3 was unecessarily shut, despite local protest. The proposed alternate route through Larkhill alone will not be sufficient during tunnel closures. Retaining the old A 303 would also reduce the overall cost of the project as many of the peripheral engineering works would not then be necessary. Specically, the in filling of the existing A303 infrastructure, building of new private access ( where existing access from A303 already exists) and the reworking of numerous byeways. All of these activites are not core to the tunnel itself but are driven by an assumed need to remove all traces of MPV access around the monument itself (EH, WC and NT desires) whilst removing all possibility of general public free viewing, even from a distance, of the core monument. Back filling the old A 303 increases costs whilst adding nothing to the archaeology nor increasing the cultural value of the WHS. Public MPV access along the old A 303 would if maintained, save the project money and continue providing the highly valued public views. Obviously there would be greatly reduced traffic as the vast majority of HGV , emergency and commercial travellers would use the tunnel option. However, by retaining this route more or less as is, even if unidirectional, would retain the existing amenity for the general public whilst reducing the cost . As a bonus, during tunnel closures this route could be bought into use to relieve the inevitable costly traffic disruption and blockages caused when the tunnel is shut. This would provide a "Scenic route" for those travellers who would like to break their journey and view the stones The overall proposed treatment of the existing byways (AMES 12 and AMES 10) reduces existing public amenity and highly valued existing infrastructure. Evidently, the interests and commercial asperations of EH and their nearby Stonehenge tourist attraction are promoted in extreme in this application. Ultimately this application will remove any form of free public access by MPV to this remote site. Any MPV access will be under EH control and car parking arrangements. No longer will the public be able to view the stones without paying. This surely cannot be just or fair. Consider modification of planned private access at end of Stonehenge road to provide retention of existing MPV access rights and alteration of existing hard standings (A 303 carriageway) to provide free parking facilitating safe and easy access for walkers to bridleway AMES 10 Modification of existing Longbarrow roundabout to provide parking with retention of existing A360, amendments to A360 treatment to facilitate MPV access to proposed parking area connected to continued MPV access to existing A 303 as part of the "Scenic Route". Continued MPV access to byeway AMES12 form existing A 303 I am also am dismayed by the attempts to deter those whom see this site as a religious centre and undertake pilgrimages only to be denied access by authorites with obvious commercial, not spiritual, interests. This scheme as it stands further supports such a policy and should be reviewed to see where it can be altered to promote religious attendance as indeed this is where the origins of the site lay. The above are only some of my concerns over this application. The essence of my objection lays not with the construction of a tunnel per se (Long option not the current short one) providing the archeology is protected at all times, but with the associated peripheral works which as detailed remove all the existing free public MPV access to the area. This is wrong. People have travelled to and past this location for thousands of years. Removing all free MPV access is uneccesary and will deny the public a free view of one of the most iconic of national treasures. To retain MPV access as outlined above will I believe save money and go towards the promotion of the long tunnel option."
Wendy Foulger
"I am very concerned that the proposals will adversely affect the archaeology of the World Heritage Site and the surrounding landscape. Likewise I am concerned that the proposals will result in damage to the very important Mesolithic site of Blick Mead and it's setting. Finally I am concerned that the consultation does not include other options which would not result in damage to the WHS."
Wesley Jackson
"I think it’s an absolute travesty you plan to destroy such a view with a tunnel that will wreck havoc on what is below the surrounding area it has not been taken into cionsideration. We the people don’t want it and not is it good for the area put the road somewhere else you cannot dig in that area! "
Alice Chenery
"I object to the damage to the setting, the flora and fauna and the archaeology that will be incurred to the World Heritage Site around Stonehenge by the work on this proposed new road. I object to the result that Stonehenge will no longer be viewable by travellers on the A303 as it is today and that it will require payment to see the Stones in the future. This represents a huge loss of our traditional and historical rights in relation to the Stones. I object because UNESCO's World Heritage Committee is unhappy with the proposal. I object because the estimated costs have risen hugely and are not an acceptable use of public money when there is no benefit and, indeed, will result in more harm than good to Stonehenge, the countryside, homes and communities nearby and visitors."
Merrett and Co on behalf of Amesbury Abbey Group
"1.IMPACT ON HERITAGE ASSETS Amesbury Abbey is a Grade I listed building, a heritage asset of the highest significance which will be permanently adversely affected by this development. The development is incapable of screening and the flyover will be visible from the house. Amesbury Park registered Historic park and garden the pleasure grounds of circa 8ha are listed Grade II*. Baluster Bridge listed Grade II*built. The Chinese House or Chinese Temple listed Grade II* Vespians Camp an Iron Age Hill Fort which is a Scheduled Ancient Monument. Gays Cave Listed Grade II*. .Blick Mead is an undesignated heritage asset of national importance. The development will cause substantial harm to the above assets and to their setting both visually and by traffic noise. The scheme will have a negative impact upon dark skies which are part of the setting for the Outstanding Universal Value of the World Heritage Site. 2. LANDSCAPE AND VISUAL IMPACT There is no ability to mitigate the landscape and visual impact of an 8 metre high flyover plus 4m lorries from Amesbury Abbey or its park. No land is being acquired to enable any planting or mitigating landscaping. Significant permanent adverse effects will be caused. 3.AIR QUALITY The scheme will result in increased exposure to nitrogen dioxide close to the Countess Roundabout and the flyover. The Abbey is home to approximately 87 elderly people and houses a large number of staff. Most residents use the grounds for recreation and rest and there will be a permanent detrimental effect on air quality. 4.NOISE AND VIBRATION My clients business relies on the Abbey’s beauty, tranquillity and grounds all of which will be irreparably and detrimentally effected if the scheme goes ahead. The elevation of the traffic will increase the level of noise and the distance it will travel, this is accepted by Highways England. It is also accepted that there will be an increase in the volume of traffic. No noise mitigation works are proposed. Vibration effects will be detrimental for the Abbey and Blick Mead. 5.ROAD DRAINAGE AND THE WATER ENVIRONMENT Concerns regarding the river Avon SAC and Blick Mead, relating to the pollution impacts of surface water run-off and groundwater impacts in terms of changes in water table as a result of ground works, archaeology at Blick Mead may be lost forever. The Environmental Statement conclusion that there will be no adverse impact on Blick Mead is not agreed. Important remains have already been destroyed by the unauthorised drilling of a borehole. 6.CONSTRUCTION IMPACTS The effect on the flow of traffic, it is imperative that staff are able to get to work on time, there are 1,824 weekly vehicle movements. The late arrival of staff could put lives at risk. 7.CUMULATIVE EFFECTS The combination of the effects of noise, dust, vibration, air-quality, lighting, water table etc must be considered. We do not believe that the Secretary of State has adequate environmental information to enable him to make a decision on this application. "
PFA Consulting on behalf of Amesbury Property Company Limited & ClassMaxi Limted
"This representation is made on behalf of The Amesbury Property Company Limited (APC) and Classmaxi Limited (CML) being owners of land which is to be acquired, or rights over which are to be acquired, as identified in the “Book of Reference” and comprising plot references 10-16, 10-17, 10-18, 10-19, 10-20, 10-21, 10-22, 10-23, 11-04-11-011, 11-23, 11-32, and 11-33 (to be checked). APC/CML objects to the compulsory acquisition of these areas of land and/or the rights over these areas of land on the basis that, and for the reasons explained below, the areas are excessive, and the acquisitions cannot be justified. For the avoidance of doubt, APC/CML does not object to the principle of the acquisition of land, or rights, sufficient to enable a highway diversion linking Allington Track to Equinox Drive to be provided across its land, nor does it object to any necessary byway works to divert Byway AMES1 to be provided, subject to (i) the standard of the Allington Track diversion being no greater or different from the existing standard of the Allington Track which is approximately 5.0-5.2m wide with narrow verges and (where in cutting) has steep side slopes – accepting that passing places are to be provided as shown on the General Arrangement Drawings; and (ii) the standard of the AMES1 Byway being no greater than is necessary - HE representatives have indicated a width of no more than about 4m. - these standards having already been discussed with and accepted by HE. (NB: Notwithstanding proviso (ii), and after further reflection, we question whether it is necessary to divert Byway AMES 1, as currently proposed, as an equally satisfactory, but significantly cheaper solution could be to continue AMES 1 as far as the then diverted Allington track, which it could join by way of a “T” junction, and we would therefore wish to explore this alternative further. APC/CML recognise that the areas of land identified for acquisition in the draft Order have, of necessity, to be the maximum of areas required to deliver the final scheme and that these areas are based upon a preliminary design exercise. APC/CML believe it reasonable to assume that, as the detailed design of the scheme progresses the actual areas of land required for the scheme may in fact be less than that presently indicated in the draft Order plans and indeed representatives of HE have confirmed in meetings that this is likely to be the case. Furthermore APC/CML believes that, even following the detailed design, the identification of the exact boundaries of land necessary for the proposed scheme will need to err on the “generous” side so as to allow for any uncertainties and design modifications which may evolve during the construction of the scheme and/or allow for construction working space. ? Accordingly, APC/CML believe that the exact extent of land which will be required to be vested to HE can only be determined once construction of the works has been completed, and highway fences erected identifying the minimum area of land which is required to be permenately under the control of the Highway Authority. Furthermore, particularly in respect of Byway AMES1, APC/CML see no reason why HE has to acquire land for the diversion as APC/CML is willing to dedicate the required minimum area of land as public highway. Accordingly, whilst it is accepted that, under the terms of the draft Order HE may require to take temporary possession of the entirety of the areas of land identified in the Order (and APC/CML have no objection to that) the General Vesting Declaration should not be determined until construction has been completed, and in particular does not need to include the land for the diversion of Byway 1 as APC/CML is willing to dedicate the required land as public highway. APC/CML have however been advised that the General Vesting Declaration will be made during the detailed design of the scheme and that if, following construction, surplus land is identified which is not strictly required for the purposes of operating and maintaining the highway, some, but not all, surplus land may (but not will) be offered for sale back to APC/CML at “market” price under the Critchel Down rules. APC/CML are concerned that (i) there will be no obligation on HE to return all surplus land to APC/CML upon completion of the works; and (ii) the surplus land returned to APC/CML may be returned at a higher price than that for which it was acquired thus financially disadvantaging APC/CML. APC/CML wishes to work with HE to ensure that only the absolute minimum areas of land and/or rights sufficient to deliver the Allington Track Diversion and to secure an appropriate diversion of Byway AMES1 are permanently transferred to HE and will seek to agree a mechanism with HE whereby HE’s objectives for diverting the Allington Tack and Byway AMES1 can be delivered. APC/CML will provide such a mechanism to the examining Inspectors which will demonstrate that the use of compulsory acquisition powers is neither necessary or justified and will continue to work with HE to agree such a mechanism. However, in order to protect its positon as an affected person requests that its objection be heard at a Compulsory Acquisition Hearing. A further written representation will be made following further discussions with HE. "
Andrew Latten
"I believe this site is of such significant international importance that the planned "improvements" will cause tragic, irreparable damage. "
Andrew Varney
"As a regular visitor to Stonehenge, I’m very concerned by the road proposals. It will cause lasting damage to the world heritage site and the archaeology. I note that UNESCO’s international advisers have said that the scheme should not go ahead in its present form."
Anne Telebak
"I believe the plans to build this road will irreparably damage this unique ancient monument stop this madness now."
Arthur Jeffes
"I studied Archaeology and Anthropology for my undergraduate degree and specifically the Wiltshire Neolithic with particular focus on Avebury and Stonehenge WHSs. The plans as they stand appear to me to be both irresponsible and short-sighted. The preservation of the landscape is just as much part of our responsibility as the stones themselves and the tunnel proposal would do much to destroy that landscape. "
Countryside Solutions on behalf of Beacon Hill Land Limited
"This registration as an interested party is made by Archie Read MRICS, a qualified chartered surveyor, acting for and on behalf of Beacon Hill Land Limited, a Tier One landowner that has received a s.56 notice under The Planning Act 2008. Beacon Hill Land Limited (‘The Company’) is a local farming business that owns and occupies land and property within the Scheme red line. The Company cultivates arable crops, such as wheat, barley, oilseed rape and beans. 1. Compulsory Acquisition 1.1. The proposed Scheme intends to stop up a section of the existing Byway Amesbury 1 and convert its status to a footpath. The Company owns the freehold of this section of the byway. The proposed footpath status will be referred to below. The Company objects to the proposed compulsory acquisition of this freehold as it does not believe that it is necessary to achieve the Scheme’s objectives. There appears to be no justifiable cause to compulsorily acquire freehold where the sole intent is to remove, amend or create rights upon that freehold. 1.2. The proposed Scheme intends to create an adopted highway linking the Allington Track with Equinox Drive along the route of an existing private track. The freehold of this track is owned by the Company. There appears to be no justifiable cause to compulsorily acquire freehold where the sole intent is to create an adopted highway upon that freehold. A highway is a legal right over land. It does not require freehold ownership of the land. The majority of the freehold upon which there is highway, maintainable at public expense, is not owned by the highway authorities. 2. Rights of Way 2.1. The proposed Scheme intends to stop up a section of the existing Byway Amesbury 1 and convert its status to a footpath. The Company objects in the strongest possible terms to the proposed new footpath along the section of the byway being stopped up. There is no apparent, nor conceivable, reason to create such a right of way which would only serve to locate pedestrians in close proximity with a fast moving section of the A303 trunk road which may be upgraded to expressway status in the future. 2.2. The Company is dismayed that no specific reference was made in any consultation documentation to the creation of this footpath other than annotation on plan 4 of 4 within the Supplementary Booklet. As a consequence, the Company feels that insufficient opportunity was provided for appropriate consultation on the creation of this ill-conceived footpath and the proposal should be removed from the Scheme. 2.3. It should also be noted that Historic England actively discourages pedestrian access to the environs of tumuli as this can increase incidents of unlawful access leading to surface erosion, disturbance and damage. 2.4. The environs of the tumulus to which the proposed footpath is intended to convey the public has an active badger sett – a statutorily protected species. Thereby creating an unnecessary conflict between humans and these creatures, likely to result in undesirable disturbance. 2.5. If the new proposed footpath is intended to provide foot access to the adjacent tumulus then the proposed new link between Allington Track and the Amesbury Road achieves exactly this with a far greater concentration of tumuli available to interested parties. It is therefore respectfully suggested that the money saved from installing pedestrian access through the stopping up barriers could be more usefully deployed on interpretation boards/display material for the group of tumuli adjacent to the new link thereby achieving a better outcome from the Scheme, for the public at large and specifically those of limited mobility. 3. Treatment of the Stopped up Allington Track and Future Ownership 3.1. The Scheme proposes to stop up a section of the existing Allington Track immediately adjacent to the existing junction of the unclassified road with the A303. It is unclear at present whether the Scheme proposes to remove the existing metalled surface. The Company respectfully suggests in the strongest possible terms that this should be done and the area returned to a natural state. Not to do so would be failing in a duty of care, effectively discarding an area of brown field built environment once it has become surplus to requirement. Furthermore, leaving the current surface to degrade once routine maintenance ceases would risk leaching and contamination in the future. Other decommissioned metalled surfaces within the Scheme are to be broken out. The Allington Track should not be dealt with any less sensitively if the Scheme requires a section to be stopped up. 3.2. Both landowners adjoining the proposed section to be stopped up are Tier One landowners who will be subject to compulsory purchase under the current proposals. It is their wish and respectfully suggested as the most appropriate course of action that the freehold of the stopped up section, that will by that very action become surplus to highway requirement, be transferred to the adjoining landowners in equal proportions from the centre line of the existing carriageway. 4. Soils 4.1. In common with all farming business, the Company’s existing soils are an immensely valuable resource. The appropriate, diligent and timely management of this resource is key to its business endeavours. Significant concerns exist generally regarding the areas to be occupied during the construction phase of the Scheme. The Company seeks binding assurances in respect of the following: 4.1.1. Pre-commencement soil survey; to include topsoil type, site variance and subsoil structure 4.1.2. Adherence to an agreed and detailed Soil Management Plan devised in accordance with best industry practice; to include methods of working, extent of topsoil removal, site specific topsoil storage methods, weed control, reinstatement methods, aftercare and post-scheme monitoring 4.1.3. No soil to be exported from nor imported to the Company’s freehold 4.1.4. Protection measures for subsoil structure; to include the laying of a geotextile membrane with stone above 5. Flooding 5.1. The Scheme proposes to create an adopted highway linking the Allington Track with Equinox Drive along the route of an existing private track. The new adopted highway will be a metalled road whereas the current track has a permeable surface. The route has a significant fall. Insufficient detail has been provided regarding how surface water will be dealt with. Consequently, the Company has concerns regarding potential flooding during extreme weather events. 6. Re-instatement / Accommodation Works 6.1. Detailed designs and specifications relating to reinstatement and accommodation works such as boundary treatment/accesses, barriers/gate arrangements, future boundary maintenance, internal farm access etc is not currently available. If matters relating to re-instatement and accommodation works remain unresolved or outstanding then the Company may seek to address these further within the Examination process. 7. Binding Undertaking in Respect of Position Statement 7.1. The Company has been engaged in consultation with Highways England and its advisers in respect of the proposed Scheme with the mutual objective of producing a ‘Positions Statement’ detailing agreed matters. The completion of that document with the Company and similar documents with other Tier One landowners should reduce the necessary scope of the Public Examination and therefore be considered a priority. In order to achieve that objective there are two pressing requirements. Firstly, an increased commitment of resource by Highways England to address outstanding matters and supply necessary information in a timely fashion. Secondly, a written undertaking from the appropriate authority that all matters agreed in Position Statements are fully legally binding and irrevocable in nature. The early provision of such an undertaking would greatly assist this progress. 8. National Farmers’ Union (NFU) Representation 8.1. The NFU will be registering as an interested party on behalf of affected members and the Company wishes to further rely upon appropriate representations made by the NFU. 9. Additional Matters 9.1. This registration is intended to raise awareness of the scope of issues within the Scheme that are of concern to the Company. It is understood that further consultation will take place and provision for a more detailed written representation will arise. The Company wishes to reserve the right to include within that written representation and the subsequent Examination process any further areas of concern that may have been omitted in error, that may arise when additional detail is provided or become apparent through the consultation process. "
Belinda Cox
"I feel the tunnel would destroy valuable archaeology in the direct and surrounding area and would also cost far too much. "
C A Mould
"I use the 303 to travel to London from my home in devon fairly regularly. I have travelled widely here and abroad . I have worked in construction . The idea of building a tunnel is preposterous . It would be quite simple to add another carriageway to the road in either direction or both . This is also true of other sections. It is really a national disgrace that a major artery,east /west is not dual carriageway all it's length. It's another reason that I'm embarrassed to be english at the moment, stupid people inventing stupid ideas......Let us have some clarity and cool common sense. Thank you c a m "
Chavela Mora
"Damage to world heritage site Damage and loss to wildlife Money could be spent better making roads we already have better, safer, cleaner.."
Chitterne Parish Council
"1. Local traffic management must be in place during the construction phase of the A303 upgrade in order to minimise the impact of increased traffic through Chitterne on the B390. 2. Chitterne PC are keen to maximise the benefits of the large amount of public expenditure being directed to upgrade the A303 at Stonehenge to improve the safety of pedestrians, other non vehicular users and residents living on the B390 in Chitterne. There is a particular issue with large buses and coaches heading to and from the Stonehenge Visitor Centre using the B390 rather than the A303. Chitterne Parish Council want to see better signage and an upgrade of Airmans Cross roundabout to encourage coaches and buses to use the upgraded A303 rather than the B390 through Chitterne. "
Claudia Chapman
"Stonehenge is a World Heritage Site of such importance to the British Isles, it would be unforgivable to damage it in any way. People come from all over the world to see it. Please reconsider any damaging plans for the area. Thank you, Claudia Chapman "
Dan Lobb
"Stonehenge's iconic status must be safeguarded for future generations to enjoy. The proposed short tunnel route impinges within the world heritage site and will cause significant damage to the archaeology present and setting of Stonehenge. Lights from particularly the western portal will be a distraction from the stones during the winter solstice sunset, a very significant time to be at the monument. If a tunnel option is to be considered it must be longer to clear the world heritage site entirely. I work as a landscape architect and as a druid celebrate the solstices and equinox's at the monument "
Dr Diane McLaren
"I write to express my indignation and astonishment that plans are afoot to put at risk such an iconic and precious UK heritage site as Stonehenge. It is known and revered world wide and regularly draws visitors to the UK from far away places. I am a member and past President of the Wiltshire Federation Of Womens Institutes (4000 members). 2019 will mark our Federation's Centenary and as part of the celebrations we have already booked to bring our WI members on a guided tour of Stonehenge. Indeed our Wiltshire Federation WI badge has included the Stonehenge image since our inception 100 years ago. This shows just how important Stonehenge is to ordinary people who feel an inherent attachment to a site erected by our ancestors. I urge you to reconsider the plans before it is too late."
Elaine Adams
"Please heed the will of history and the people who entreat you to save this historic site. We've not even begun to understand the significance of it's existence, and to bend to whims of money and convenience over one's past is tragically shortsighted. Preserve your history, our history. Save Stonehenge."
Eve Price
"Once something has been destroyed it can never be recovered. The environment of Stone Henge is so unique it deserves to be protected. Means of travelling may change as years pass, and the roads and tunnels proposed to speed 21st century travellers may become obsolete. A marvellous historic landscape will have been pointlessly destroyed. Please find a better way."
Fran
"Stonehenge is a world heritage sight. A sacred sight for our ancient indigenous culture. I strongly object to building a road close to the sight. For generations and thousands of years Stonehenge has stood as a living connection to our ancestors. Where can we find architecture of this age and size in Britain? A place of worship build upon sacred lay-lines, aligned with the Sun our source of life on this planet. Has the 21st century lost its way so far as to deem it wise to destroy one of the world most important historical sight. This isn't a local issue, this is a global issue. To build here would cut deep into the core of our very existence as there is nothing that comes close to this magnificent feat of the most sacred ancient architecture. It stands as part of our birthright and legacy. Stonehenge must be persevered for future generations. "
Francesca Raphaely Ingold
"Stonehenge is a world heritage site without parallel which is unique in how it has survived the millenia. It would be an appalling legacy for future generations for us to compromise the unique landscape commemorated in works of national importance such as Tess of the D'Urbevilles. The disturbance of local wildlife, the interruption of the incredible view which we have inherited, and the contravention of UNESCO advice would be unconscionable. I cannot believe that such short sightedness might prevail to damage such an incredible national legacy in anyway."
Gabrielle Watts
"I believe Stonehenge is an incredibly important heritage site and should not be disturbed by a larger road bringing increased traffic, noise and pollution."
Grant McAuliffe
"Please do not undermine, or damage Stonehenge!"
Hannah Reeves
"I grew up Wiltshire and believe Stonehenge that has stood for thousands of years should not be sacrificed for short term solutions to traffic problems on the A303 and the Planning Application rejected and other solutions found that do not risk damage to this World Heritage site. Objections by UNESCO,archiologists, historians and the public all highlight the concerns and strength of feeling against any disturbance of this pre historic landmark. "
Hazel Constantine
"This would cause a huge disturbance of two rare bird species, the Stone Curlew and the Great Bustard. It also is a huge waste of money destroying ancient burial mounds for a little less traffic considering the government has not got the money for so many vital services."
Helen Torrance
"Because it will irreparably damage the archaeology of this World Heritage Site."
Honouring the Ancient Dead
"Honouring the Ancient Dead (HAD) is a British initiative that advocates respect for what are commonly called ‘human remains’ and their related funereal artefacts. HAD’s particular focus is the physical evidence of ancestors who don’t fall into the protective cloak of the Church, these being for the most part those ancestors who lived and died before the seventh century when Christianity began to spread through Britain. HAD aims to present a particular perspective with regard to the ancestors, one that perceives the ancestors as still being integral and influencing members of the community. HAD was originally created in response to negotiations following the Public Enquiry into proposed road developments at Stonehenge, Wiltshire, in 2004. Head of The Druid Network, Emma Restall Orr, had made a presentation to the Public Enquiry raising the issue of the spiritual and religious sensitivities that such an intrusive project would have touched upon. She was asked to put together a group that represented the British Pagan voice in order to continue negotiations with the various companies and organisations involved. In the event, the road development was once again postponed, but HAD had been formed. Instead of representing every Pagan group or individual, HAD’s aim was to represent the broad spectrum of theologies and philosophies within modern Paganism within which heritage and ancestors were considered sacred. Fairly quickly, however, HAD’s core volunteers found a huge amount of support from people who were not Pagan, but whose attitude towards ancestors and their physical traces were profoundly important. Furthermore, HAD was also challenged by some Pagans who disagreed with its premise. As a result, in 2012, HAD officially altered its parameters to become an initiative representing a particular set of ideas, those stated in the simple triad: • As human beings we have a duty of care towards every other human person. • As integral and influencing members of the community, the ancestral dead retain their personhood. • Personhood entails the need for respectful interaction. In seeking representation, we shall focus on and request consultation where there is evidence that the following principles may be compromised: • Avoid any damage to any known or possible sites where physical evidence of ancestors may be found • Avoid or minimise any damage to known or potential sites where evidence of ancestors is less likely • Avoid or minimise physical impact or visual intrusion on any known or potential alignments within the broader WHS landscape noting in particular the alignments from Stonehenge itself. "
Hugh Newman
"Permanent damage to the World Heritage Site, its archaeology and setting, described by UNESCO as a ‘landscape without parallel’ UNESCO’s international advisers say the scheme should not go ahead in its present form due to damage to the WHS Concerns about damage to Blick Mead Mesolithic site and its setting and the fact it has already been damaged Lack of alternative options in consultation that would not damage the World Heritage Site Loss of the view from the road and people being forced to pay to see the Stones in future Disturbance of rare bird species (Stone Curlew and Great Bustard) Increased noise from faster traffic Transport problems for local residents "
Ian Summers
"It is important for us, the current population of England, to make decisions that do not wipe out any important legacy about previous generations. Just because it is convenient or expedient to do such and such does not mean it is the best decision. Please take care - messing things up is not something that can be undone."
Jain Haste
"I am extremely concerned that this iconic, UNESCO world heritage site is going to be ruined by such an ill-thought out scheme. Blick Mead has already been irreparably damaged. There will be serious effects on local wildlife, such as buzzards. No alternatives have been put forward. Stonehenge belongs to all of us, not just British people but to all citizens of the world. If this scheme goes ahead the only way to view the stones will be to pay for the privilege, effectively taking what is ours into private ownership. I find this to be completely unacceptable."
James Falshaw-Skelly
"Once you've ruined it, you'll never have it back and your names will be tarnished and remembered as the people who destroyed a word heritage site for ever."
Jim Mitchell
"Loss of the view from the A303 enjoyed by millions. Damage to Blick Mead. Massive damage to elsewhere in the WHS. Loss of WHS status. Long tunnel is preferable."
joanne fone
"i am concerned that the proposed developments around the historic site of stonehenge(arguably, our most important cultural site), will have devastating impact upon the site itself and to the natural environment within the area."
John Derby
"I believe the planned infrastructure changes represent an unacceptable risk of irreparable damage to one of the most important World Heritage Sites. The Site has already seen enough damage in time, and more recent studies keep revealing other structures and history to the location. I do not think the proposed construction is worth the destruction it could cause to this important cultural landmark."
Kate Fielden
"As an archaeologist, I have been in involved in planning and the historic environment on a voluntary basis for CPRE Wiltshire Branch, and in relation to the Stonehenge, Avebury and Associated Sites World Heritage Site (WHS), for over 30 years. My objections to the A303 Stonehenge project include the following: Non-compliance with: i) planning policy and guidance; ii) the WHS Management Plan; and iii) European Directives and Conventions, notably the World Heritage Convention concerning protection of the WHS. Disregard for: i) advice of UNESCO World Heritage Centre/ICOMOS advisory missions to Stonehenge; and ii) advice of UNESCO’s World Heritage Committee 2017 and 2018. I also object on the following further grounds: i) Irreparable damage to the WHS, its archaeology, historic environment, landscape and setting ii) The unsound Heritage Impact Assessment iii) Lack of certainty concerning effects on the natural environment: protected species and sites iv) Lack of information on key issues at the present time such as archaeology and hydrogeology v) Deficient consultation and inaccurate information in promotional material vi) Loss of the motorists’ view of Stonehenge vii) Unconvincing heritage valuation surveys Viii) Potential impacts of the scheme on the Avebury part of the WHS ix) The lack of sound economic justification for the project "
Kate Williams
"My main points are: •Irreparable damage to the WHS, its archaeology and setting, described by UNESCO as a ‘landscape without parallel. •UNESCO’s international advisers say the scheme should not go ahead in its present form •Concerns about damage to Blick Mead Mesolithic site and its setting •Lack of alternative options in consultation that would not damage the World Heritage Site •Loss of the view from the road and need to pay to see the Stones in future •Disturbance of rare bird species (Stone Curlew and Great Bustard) •Increased noise from faster traffic "
Kevin Pettitt
"This road scheme will do irreparable damage to the sacred landscape surrounding one of the most ancient structures that remains on the surface of our planet. There is still an enormous amount of archeological investigation yet to be undertaken into the context of , and the culture that created, this remarkable edifice. To willfully destroy this unique place in pursuit of ever faster traffic flow will be a disservice to civilization as a whole. Stonehenge is the property of all of humankind and must be treated with the respect deserving of such a treasure."
Lee Berwick
"Stonehenge is a unique world heritage site that has survived for thousands of years - It is important to the whole world and scientists still debate about what the place is and what it was used for. The scheme under consideration is not thought out and destroys a large area of the surroundings that could well be part of the overall site and that have remained untouched for thousands of years. This scheme is ill conceived and has not been correctly thought out - it will damage the site irreparably and should not be either approved nor implemented."
Linda Duffy
"I oppose this , this is our heritage our ancestors sacred grounds !"
Marc Joseph Custer
"We must stop the destruction of our World Heritage sites. No modern construction is worth it. There is too much wanton disregard for our Ancestors legacy. I used to work as an archaeologist back in the 1990s in the Great Lakes region in America. I know that sometimes historical and prehistorical places were destroyed before we could even examine them. Why? Profit. Can't let you find something that needs protecting if it slows the road, pipeline, powelines or what ever's construction. Especially once the plan is in motion, heaven forbid. Which probably will be replaced once again in a life time. It is sad that is how it is sometimes. "
Margaret Hollinghurst
"The proposed new road will have a serious detrimental effect on the world heritage site which is Stonehenge."
Margaret Randall
"This is a world heritage site, with major significance on our history, much of which hasn't been recorded - this site must not be ruined, our heirs will want to view the area as our ancestors did in it's full context. Also the destruction of a wildlife area is unforgivable."
Marie Ahlin
"Irreparable damage to the WHS, its archaeology and setting, described by UNESCO as a ‘landscape without parallel’. UNESCO’s international advisers say the scheme should not go ahead in its present form. Concerns about damage to Blick Mead Mesolithic site and its setting. Lack of alternative options in consultation that would not damage the World Heritage Site. Loss of the view from the road and need to pay to see the Stones in future. Disturbance of rare bird species (Stone Curlew and Great Bustard). Increased noise from faster traffic."
Marion Woods
"It is beyond belief that anyone could think to drive a road through what is a unique and irreplaceable site. Furthermore, new discoveries are still being made about the extent of the archaeological remains of the area. Once destroyed by a new road and the tunnel, all that will be lost forever. "
Mark Blackburn
"The Government and interested Heritage organisations should be helping to protect this unique WHO Site not destruct it with tunnels for traffic. The Stonehenge site, an archeological treasure will be spoiled forever if the A303 scheme goes ahead. "
Mark King
"I am concerned about damage to the World Heritage Site and the impact to the views and access to the setting. I am also most concerned about the rare birds within the area. I am a RSPB member and see the threat and disturbance to Stone Curlew and Great Bustard as a serious issue for anyone who wishes to preserve and protect nature."
Mary McGilloway
"Please re-consider this plan, and if at all possible stop it altogether. Stonehenge is of enormous importance not only to the UK, but to the world - a global treasure as testified by UNESCO. Placing this new road so close to the monument will ruin forever the landscape it is set in. There are some things in life more important that the speed of travelling from A to B. If this goes ahead later generations will revile this act of desecration."
Michael
"Let it be, its a sacred area that we as a useless species are just forgetting about! Leave it alone I don't see egypt building roads hrough the pyramids! "
Ministry of Defence
"Abnormal load access from A303 to Boscombe Down MOD establishment. Access is currently via Allington Track which is due to close under current proposal. Assurance of new road scheme access for abnormal loads required."
Mke Digby
"For the benefit of all humankind, this is a heritage site and should not be infringed upon for a highway to benefit so few. "
Countryside Solutions on behalf of Morrison and King Limited
"This registration as an interested party is made by Archie Read MRICS, a qualified chartered surveyor, acting for and on behalf of Morrison & King Limited, a Tier One landowner that has received a s.56 notice under The Planning Act 2008. Morrison & King Limited (‘The Company’) is a local farming business that owns and occupies land and property within the Scheme red line. The Company operates a commercial livestock enterprise, breeding and rearing both sheep and cattle. In addition, the Company cultivates arable crops, such as wheat, barley, oilseed rape and beans. Furthermore, the Company is a riparian owner with fishing rights on the River Avon and operates commercial horse livery. In total the Company farms approximately 1,520 acres. 1. Temporary Compound 1.1. The Company has received insufficient details to allay its concerns regarding the proposed temporary compound and drawings 2.7d and 2.7e are labelled illustrative and their likely accuracy is called into question. It has been suggested that this level of detail will not be available until the preferred contractor has been appointed. The Company therefore may wish to address the following further within the Examination process: 1.1.1. The extent of the area to be occupied 1.1.2. Mitigation of adverse impact upon the horse livery enterprise 1.1.3. Adverse impact upon current and future environmental schemes 1.1.4. Treatment of topsoil – see section Soils 1.1.5. Surface treatment within compound areas including the laying of geotextile membrane and stone to mitigate long term soil structure damage 1.1.6. Method of working in respect of re-instatement 1.1.7. Mitigation to prevent damage to the natural and historic environment 1.1.8. Adverse impact upon fishing activities within the adjoining River Avon, the rights to which are let under a long term legal agreement with a third party 2. Soils 2.1. In common with all farming businesses, the Company’s existing soils are an immensely valuable resource. The appropriate, diligent and timely management of this resource is key to its business endeavours. Significant concerns exist generally regarding the areas to be occupied during the construction phase of the Scheme and specifically in respect of the temporary compound to be located within its freehold. The Company seeks binding assurances in respect of the following: 2.1.1. Pre-commencement soil survey; to include topsoil type, site variance and subsoil structure 2.1.2. Adherence to an agreed and detailed Soil Management Plan devised in accordance with best industry practice; to include methods of working, extent of topsoil removal, site specific topsoil storage methods, weed control, reinstatement methods, aftercare and post-scheme monitoring 2.1.3. No soil to be exported from nor imported to the temporary storage compound site. Whilst this has been suggested during consultation, the stockpiles shown on application drawings 2.7d & 2.7e give a strong indication that this may not be the case under the proposed Scheme as submitted 2.1.4. Protection measures for subsoil structure; to include the laying of a geotextile membrane with stone above 3. Water Levels / Flood Issues 3.1. The Scheme proposes extensive road drainage provisions upon the Company’s freehold and its tenanted agricultural demise. Concerns remain regarding these proposals as detailed in Appendix 11.3 Road Drainage Strategy. Despite stating within paragraph 5.2.3 ‘All ponds would outfall to the existing highway ditches’ Figure 5.2 illustrates a proposed new ditch in close proximity to the Company’s grain handling facility at Countess Farm. The Company has considerable concerns that this will increase the water table in the immediate environs of any new ditch(es). The current grain handling facility has a reception pit and elevator sump that are prone to water ingress and resultant flooding. This is managed by draining to an external sump from which a submersible pump is operated. That sump would be in very close proximity to the new proposed ditch(es) and any increase in water table could see the current pumping arrangement overrun and the grain handling facility rendered unserviceable. Finally, provision for the Company to continue to pump to the existing ditch or replacement ponds/ditches must be safeguarded. 4. Re-instatement / Accommodation Works 4.1. Detailed design and specifications relating to reinstatement and accommodation works such as noise, boundary treatment, future boundary maintenance, internal farm access etc is not currently available. If matters relating to re-instatement and accommodation works remain unresolved or outstanding then the Company may seek to address these further within the Examination process. 5. Trees 5.1. The Company’s freehold ownership contains a number of category A and category B trees, either wholly within or with root protection zones within the Scheme red line boundary. Generally, the Company has concerns as to whether adequate safeguarding of these veteran trees has been considered and provided for within the Scheme. Specifically, but not exclusively, the proximity of mechanical excavations, soil compaction and increased soil waterlogging arising from the proposed drainage arrangements. 6. Rights of Way 6.1. The Company has received insufficient detail to allay its concerns regarding a new proposed private access arrangement across Countess Farm for the benefit of Park Farm, Amesbury. 7. Overage Provisions 7.1. The Company’s title contains a development uplift clause, benefiting the previous owner. The Company seeks assurances in respect of this. 8. Binding Undertaking in Respect of Position Statement 8.1. The Company has been engaged in consultation with Highways England and its advisers in respect of the proposed Scheme with the mutual objective of producing a ‘Positions Statement’ detailing agreed matters. The completion of that document with the Company and similar documents with other Tier One landowners should reduce the necessary scope of the Public Examination and therefore be considered a priority. In order to achieve that objective there are two pressing requirements. Firstly, an increased commitment of resource by Highways England to address outstanding matters and supply necessary information in a timely fashion. Secondly, a written undertaking from the appropriate authority that all matters agreed in Position Statements are fully legally binding and irrevocable in nature. The early provision of such an undertaking would greatly assist this progress. 9. National Farmers’ Union (NFU) Representation 9.1. The NFU will be registering as an interested party on behalf of affected members and the Company wishes to further rely upon appropriate representations made by the NFU on its behalf. 10. Additional Matters 10.1. This registration is intended to raise awareness of the scope of issues within the Scheme that are of concern to the Company. It is understood that further consultation will take place and provision for a more detailed written representation will arise. The Company wishes to reserve the right to include within that written representation and the subsequent Examination process any further areas of concern that may have been omitted in error, that may arise when additional detail is provided or become apparent through the consultation process. "
Howard Smith MRICS on behalf of Mr C A Rowland
"I am a Partner in PJ Rowland & Sons tenants of Ratfyn Farm, Amesbury who have made their own representation, but I also personally own Watergate Farm, Amesbury which adjoins Ratfyn Farm to the west and north. I have invested a considerable sum of money in establishing a series of coarse fishing lakes on my own property and at Ratfyn Farm and I have serious concerns with the proposals put forward by Highways England as they, despite being asked on numerous occasions, have not answered my concerns about the potential increase or decrease in the water table which will result from the installation of the tunnel. Highways England are assuming that because the tunnel will be installed below the known water courses that there will be no affect. However, no details have been made available as to what they envisage will happen to the water courses during construction as there will be areas of the scheme that will not be installed below the known water tables. The evidence that there will be no effect on the water course requires further examination to conclusively prove the point that has been virtually dismissed by Highways England at present. The proposed contractor’s compound is also shown to be adjacent to the River Avon and its siting would appear to take little account of the highly significant flora and fauna situated adjacent to the River Avon and I am concerned about the detrimental effect this will have given the intended period of use for the contractor’s compound. The health of the River Avon is currently under stress resulting from various factors but the contractor’s compound with the potential for contamination gives me cause for concern as any pollution to enter the River Avon by the contractors will ruin the River Avon in perpetuity and end my diversification protects leading to business interruption and loss of income. As tenant of Ratfyn Farmhouse I also have concerns about increased light pollution from the proposals from the Countess Roundabout and also increased noise from the improvements for which no appropriate proposals to reduce the pollution appear to have been incorporated in the scheme design. Despite what the specialists have said planting trees to absorb noise does work and should be encouraged throughout the scheme as acknowledged by the Project Director in meetings. "
Mr Steven Taylor
"I’m against the proposed development on grounds of spoilt view, impact on archeological heritage, impact on rare bird species. Also the potential increase in traffic in future years, when our children will realise what was sacrificed on behalf of polluting, out dated transport infrastructure and fossil fuel vehicles. We have one of the worlds most important historical sites and must safeguard that at all costs more above the need for publicand commercial transport. We have yet to fully understand the importance and scientific value of this historical site and surrounding area. To jeopardise the future protection and conservation of this site will be considered criminal in years to come. We look around the world at archeological sites destroyed by warring factions and the loss to future generations. We must prevented allowing a lawful destruction on the grounds of progress. "
Countryside Solutions on behalf of Mrs Kathleen Edna Crook
"This registration as an interested party is made by Archie Read MRICS, a qualified chartered surveyor, acting for and on behalf of Mrs Kathleen Edna Crook, a Tier One landowner who has received a s.56 notice under The Planning Act 2008. The Crook family are local farmers who own and occupy land within the Scheme red line. They breed and rear cattle as well as cultivating arable crops, such as wheat, barley and oilseed rape. 1. Treatment of the Stopped up Allington Track and Future Ownership 1.1. The Scheme proposes to stop up a section of the existing Allington Track immediately adjacent to the existing junction of the unclassified road with the A303. It is unclear at present whether the Scheme proposes to remove the existing metalled surface. Mrs Crook respectfully suggests in the strongest possible terms that this should be done and the area returned to a natural state. Not to do so would be failing in a duty of care, effectively discarding an area of brown field built environment once it has become surplus to requirement. Furthermore, leaving the current surface to degrade once routine maintenance ceases would risk leaching and contamination in the future. Other decommissioned metalled surfaces within the Scheme are to be broken out. The Allington Track should not be dealt with any less sensitively if the Scheme requires a section to be stopped up. 1.2. Both landowners adjoining the proposed section to be stopped up are Tier One landowners who will be subject to compulsory purchase under the current proposals. It is their wish and respectfully suggested as the most appropriate course of action that the freehold of the stopped up section, that will by that very action become surplus to highway requirement, be transferred to the adjoining landowners in equal proportions from the centre line of the existing carriageway. 2. Re-instatement / Accommodation Works 2.1. Detailed designs and specifications relating to reinstatement and accommodation works such as boundary treatment/accesses, barriers/gate arrangements, future boundary maintenance etc is not currently available. If matters relating to re-instatement and accommodation works remain unresolved or outstanding then Mrs Crook may seek to address these further within the Examination process. 3. Binding Undertaking in Respect of Position Statement 3.1. Consultation has taken place on behalf of Mrs Crook with Highways England and its advisers in respect of the proposed Scheme with the mutual objective of producing a ‘Position Statement’ detailing agreed matters. The completion of that document and similar documents with other Tier One landowners should reduce the necessary scope of the Public Examination. In order to achieve that objective there are two pressing requirements. Firstly, an increased commitment of resource by Highways England to address outstanding matters and supply necessary information in a timely fashion. Secondly, a written binding undertaking from the appropriate authority that all matters agreed in Position Statements are fully legally binding and irrevocable in nature. The early provision of such an undertaking would greatly assist progress. 4. National Farmers’ Union (NFU) Representation 4.1. The NFU will be registering as an interested party on behalf of affected members and Mrs Crook may wish to further rely upon appropriate representations made by the NFU on her behalf. 5. Additional Matters 5.1. This registration is intended to raise awareness of the scope of issues within the Scheme that are of concern to Mrs Crook. It is understood that further consultation will take place and provision for a more detailed written representation will arise. Mrs Crook wishes to reserve the right to include within that written representation any further areas of concern that may have been omitted in error, that may arise as additional detail is provided or become apparent through the ongoing consultation process. "
Mrs Lynne Crabb
"The ancient landscape and archeology around stonehenge will be damaged if this plan goes ahead. Also it is important for me and many people to retain the view of the stones from the A303."
Howard Smith Mrics on behalf of Mrs P M Sandell
"I own Park Farm, West Amesbury which currently is situated to the north and south of the A303. I also own Stockport Farm, Amesbury which is run as a combined unit with Park Farm. I trade in partnership with my son as West Amesbury Farms and my son has an Agricultural Holdings Act Tenancy over West Amesbury Farm. The proposals for Park Farm are covered by plot numbers 08-14, 08-18, 08-21, 09-01 and 09-02. I currently have two points of access to enter and leave my field from the existing A303. The proposal put forward does not provide me with any direct access on to any metalled highway and Highways England have failed to make provision to allow me to obtain access despite Highways England being under a statutory obligation to do so. Potential routes of access have been highlighted to Highways England on numerous occasions and as it stands I cannot get any of my agricultural equipment including my tracked Combine Harvester, to either the part of Park Farm which will remain to the north of the Tunnel and improved road, or to Stockport Farm and my ability to farm those units will be severely compromised. Highways England have been reminded in 2004 provision was made for access through Countess Farm to Countess Road. I have made various proposals including proposed routes to Highways England none of which have been considered at this stage to ensure that I still have access to a metalled highway. The land over which the access needs to be provided is owned by the National Trust who may believe that the land at Countess Farm is inalienable. This is yet to be proved by the provision of any documentation however, even if it is inalienable there are provisions to overcome this so that Highways England can provide me with the required access to a metalled highway. I need to be able to get to the Countess Road without any restriction as I have no restrictions imposed upon me at the present time and which will allow my business to operate efficiently. The proposals for the closure of Stonehenge Road as shown is considered inappropriate as the point of closure should be at the point this joins the Wishford Road. If it is not in that position the intended point of closure will be used for undesirable practices and devalue my property at Park Farm and the potential for the use of this road of undesirable practices appears to be completely lost on both Highways England and Wiltshire County Council despite our offer to take over the maintenance of the road providing it is closed at the junction with the Wishford Road. To date Highways England have not provided any details as to whether or not any wayleaves will be required to be entered into with utility companies to ensure that there is both power and water supplied to the Tunnel either during or post construction. This therefore needs addressing at this stage. I am making an assumption that the Minutes of the meetings held with Highways England are freely available to you so that you can see for yourselves that the points made above have been made since 2016 when the current scheme was devised. "
Neil Bedford
"Irreparable damage to the WHS, its archaeology and setting, described by UNESCO as a ‘landscape without parallel’ UNESCO’s international advisers say the scheme should not go ahead in its present form Concerns about damage to Blick Mead Mesolithic site and its setting Future technology could allow us to ‘see’ into the past so removing large chunks of underground mass would mean this would be impossible. "
Nick Ballard
"To endanger the site of the Stonehenge in anyway is an act of desecration and a crime against history."
nigel drane
"Blick's Mead is a unique site in so much as it provides a constant source of water at about 10* C all year round from subterranium sources. This must have been vital to the support of the work-force that built Stonehenge whilst living at Durrington Walls. The unfrozen water would attract animals in the winter and provide much needed food to the local population. The tunnel is too close to this essential part of the landscape and will still leave it cut off from the rest of the integrated landscape. It may interrupt the water courses suppling the small lake. "
NPGEH. Kniese
"Dear Madam, Sir, I am shocked to hear about the plannning for a road through Stonehenge. It will be severely damaged by it. I would not be able to enter it, there will be a lot of noise aand the historical triangle shape will be lost for ever. This is such a famous and importend historical site that it is made a World Heritage Site by UNESCO. After reading all information that I could find, I agree that there is only one fair solution; a deep and very long. perhaps 4,5 miles is needed to protect the site and the breedinggrounds of the rare birds. I hope that you take my meaning serious, becouse it is. yours sincerely, Nicoloeschja Kniese"
Orla Jackson
"Points of interest: 1 - Stonehenge is the most architecturally sophisticated and only surviving lintelled stone circle in the world. You have a responsibility not only to the locals but the entire world- academic and domestic 2- a heinous defamation of British culture and history 3- an eyesore and mass upheaval for the local residents "
HOWARD SMITH MRICS on behalf of P J ROWLAND & SONS (FARMERS) LIMITED (P J ROWLAND & SONS (FARMERS) LIMITED)
"Plot 7 – 19 The proposal put forward by Highways England is to close this bridleway so that access from the A303 is stopped however, currently this bridleway provides access to the two fields that I farm in that location however, there is no point in stopping this access unless Highways England can secure access currently owned by the MOD which needs to be properly documented at the same time as the closure of this bridleway. Without that I have no alternative access arrangements to this field. Where the bridleway exits the land to the MOD land this needs to be a fully gated access so that the stopped up bridleway does not become abandoned allowing it to be used for fly tipping purposes. Providing the bridleway is stopped and the access gated the abandoned bridleway will be restored to full agricultural production. Plot 11 – 09 Access to the north eastern corner of this plot is currently directly on the to the existing Allington Track however, Highways England’s proposals do not currently show any proposals for access on to the proposed Highway to be constructed here. This has been highlighted with Highways England but no proposal has been forthcoming as to exactly where the replacement access point will be provided. The proposed Highway linking Equinox Drive to the existing Allington Track is welcomed but only works providing Equinox Drive has double yellow lines installed along its entire length to prevent obstructions being caused by parked vehicles affecting the agricultural access required at all times to the land south of plot 11-09. If appropriate road traffic orders are not put in place my farming business will be affected which has been explained at length to Highways England and which will attract compensation payments. Plots 10-01, 09-43 and 09-30 Explanations have been given as to why additional capacity is required at either of the Electricity Sub-Stations but no definitive answer has yet been given as to which Electricity Sub-Station needs to be expanded or that the required additional capacity can be installed without extension being required. Expanding 10-01 and/or 10-03 will affect my business as Highways England will need to provide me with a new chemical store and wash down facility as currently this is the position of those facilities serving the entirety of my farming acreage at Amesbury. Highways England together with the appropriate utility provider need to consider the proposal put forward to ensure that any additional cable work required in plots 10-02, 09-48 and 09-41 are located in the field running in a north and south direction from the Sub-Station to plot 10-02 rather than be located in the road, there may be insufficient room to install the cables in the road, due to existing cabling. Installing the cables in the field will be more efficient and have less impact on the other properties and businesses served by the private road reducing potential claims. We also have concerns concerning the effect the proposals may well have on the River Avon watercourse and if any subsequent rise or fall in water levels will be as a result of the scheme, the explanations of which contained in the documentation presented to the Inspectorate lack precise detail. The diverse farm business supports various coarse fishing lakes generating an income for the business which may well be affected by the scheme and the lack of secure knowledge that water levels will not be affected by the proposals for the A303. As tenants of Ratfyn Farm we also have concerns concerning increasing light and noise pollution from the proposals for the Countess Roundabout. Both of these concerns are relevant, particularly as there appears to be no provision for sufficient tree planting to absorb noise which is a point lost on specialist advisors. "
Paul C. Chaney
"If English Heritage exalt Stonehenge as “....one of the wonders of the world and the best known prehistoric monument in Europe.” Then why would Highways England go against highly respected Archaeologists and Academics, such as those from Stonehenge Alliance and UNESCO, whom profess that the Expressway would irrevocably damage this World Heritage Site?! Surely this proposal lays-bare the belief that the Ultimate Agenda is NOT the Conservation of Stonehenge, this Unrivalled glimpse of Neolithic Life, preserving her for All of our future peoples, but is purely Financially driven! Would it not be more Honest & Open to simply “Dismantle” her in one go (rather than this drawn-out affair) and Auction her up into Oblivion?!"
Paul Raithby
"UNESCO advisers do not accept the proposed tunnel scheme Blick Mead Mesolithic site is too important to be destroyed Loss of wildlife habitat Lack of proposed alternatives "
Penny Fletcher
"Why would you want to even remotely risk potential damage to a World Renowned, First Class Heritage Site ? Surely this will risk not only freedom of access to people from across the world but also loss of income to local establishments, Eateries, B& B's , local Pubs, Shops to name but a few that must surely benefit financially from year round visitors to Stonehenge ! Why potential damage ? Constant vehicular traffic nearer to the Site will cause vibratinary movement that will eventually, and possibly sooner than we can evaluate cause the Stones to loosen and fall ! I have seen similar events take place here in B.C. where a Brit by Birth has chosen to make her home for the last 30 years, with Ancient Trees ! That's right 3-400 year old Trees toppled by an increase in traffic that was rerouted closer to them, have had their roots loosened and toppled over ! I urge you therefore to reconsider your proposal for roads closer to Stonehenge and let this World Renowned Monument rest as it has, where it is, for thousands of years ! "
Peter Daw
"1. The road and tunnel scheme would severely damage the most precious archaeological remains 2. The road and tunnel scheme would compromise the WHS and probably result in loss of WHS status 3. The road and tunnel scheme is being considered against UNESCO advice 4. The road and tunnel scheme would severely compromise the visual setting of Stonehenge in scale and lighting 5. The road and tunnel scheme is unnecessary. Other parts of the A303 such as Blackdown Hills are much slower in traffic movements 6. The road and tunnel scheme is appalling value for money at estimated, let alone final cost 7. Alternatives exist that would be just as effective in reducing congestion at much great value for money "
Phaedra elson
"I am very passionate about preserving our ancestry, our landscape and our history. Stonehenge is a World Heritage Site and needs preserving for future generations. Haven't we decimated enough of our landscape for the convenience of people? This would not happen in other countries, the Great Wall of China would not have a bridge over it for convenience, the Pyramides in Egypt are protected. It seems that our government does not respect our ancestry and our ancient history. Please stop this."
Philip Polley
"This is an irreplaceable landscape. Advances in science produce continuing new insights & information from excavation both physical & electronic. Driving a tunnel through it will cause irreparable damage, the consequences of which cannot as yet be understood. It is quite simply a crime against our national heritage & will be condemned as grotesque & stupid by future generations. "
Public Health England
"PHE considers that the public health impacts likely to arise from the impact of the development on air, land and water have been adequately considered in the related sections of the submission. However, in its scoping opinion PHE highlighted that the potential for impacts from electric and magnetic fields (EMF) had not been addressed in the available documentation. PHE could not identify any subsequent consideration of EMF within the ES either. While human health impacts from EMF are not typically of concern for projects of this nature, we have registered an interest simply to assure that this hazard is considered (if only to be scoped out). PHE did not raise any issues regarding the wider determinants of health during the earlier consultation phases and as such will not at this later phase. "
R M Shannon
"1. Any major disturbance of any part of an historic landscape is unacceptable. 2. Land could be resumed somewhere "over the hills and far away" to build a by-pass road, so there is no disturbance. This would also be a cheaper option. Only traffic going directly to Stonehenge could use the present road. 3 The long term adverse effects to the Blick Mead water-table is an issue. 4. Reputable organisations (UNESCO included) have 'canned' the concept. 5 Adverse effects of spend such monies in a time when the residents of the UK are living with austerity measures and the NHS is in dire need... 5. I have walked the area (Stonehenge Avebury and Durrington Walls) landscape extensively and see this area, as it is now, an irreplaceable site in the UK "
Rachel Mayatt
"I am concerned about the destruction of important archaeological information and finds associated with the area, and the unrepairable damage to the site which has World Heritage Status. Also rare bird species disturbance and destruction of natural habitat. Personally I would be dismayed by the loss of vision of the stones when driving past which I value on my frequent visits near the area."
Richard James Kedie
"The proposed scheme will cause irreparable harm to the WHS and destroy its archaeology. No sane person can consider this to be acceptable. "
Richard Jell
"It's ridiculous to spend so much money on a tunnel, yes the traffic is terrible but there has to be less costly options on the table. I understand it is going to be. very difficult to come up with a solution but the has to be a better way to divert the a303 around this area."
Fowler Fortescue on behalf of Robert Turner
"Mr Robert Turner of Manor Farm, Winterbourne Stoke. DCO Registration of Interested Parties. I wish to make full written and oral representations on many aspects of the scheme (an outline of the representations I shall be making are given below). I do need to reserve the right to raise additional detailed submissions and representations – not least because many scheme design details and mitigations have not be fully proposed or explained by the acquiring authority. The National Farmers Union will also be making representations on our behalf in respect of specialist points. Please note that reference to features such as ‘Settlement Pond 1’ relates to annotations to plans accompanying our consultation response dated 19 April 2018. Comment Request / Requirement Land take is excessive • Unjustified land take (including; compound areas, boundary fence alignments, settlement ponds). • As Settlement Pond 1 has been removed from the scheme the redline in the vicinity of Foredown House can be relocated closer to the proposed route alignment. Severance & Business • The proposals severs our main farm steading and buildings from the land. Full and unimpeded access must be maintained for farm traffic during and after construction. • Severance of the calving operation at Foredown House from the main holding cannot be effectively mitigated within the scheme design so the relocation of farm infrastructure / farmsteading is required. • An events venue business is operated from the farm that will have trade severely affected by the scheme. Mitigations are required. • Access between Kighton Track, the A360 and tenanted fields on the WHS must always be maintained. Current staggered gate proposal inadequate. Water Abstraction • Manor Farm is reliant on borehole water abstraction. • There is a significant risk, as a result of the scheme of contamination and interruption of groundwater flow to the farm’s 5 points of abstraction points. • The farm’s internal water pipes traverse the proposed compound areas (for gravity feed purposes) so an alternative secure mains supply is required. • The farm cannot in any circumstances be left without water, a suitable and sufficient alternative mains supply needs to be contractually provided by the acquiring authority (with enduring legal rights for use by the farm). This alternative supply needs to be taken to Kighton Buildings. • I will request that the Inspector orders a binding Water Supply obligation upon the acquiring authority. B3083 • Absolute provision (legal and practical) must be made for full and unimpeded access between the B3083 to Land and property in Manor Farm’s ownership to the east of the road. Classification of access should be private right of way only. Settlement Ponds • Settlement ponds remain unsuitably shaped and located. No evidence has been given to justify the size, shape and positioning necessities of these features. • Access to Settlement Pond 3 should be routed from the east alongside A303 and not via a separate track. • The positioning of Settlement Pond 5, creates wasteful and unnecessary land take and sterilisation. Justification of proposal has not been evidenced. • Clarification and reassurance is required as to how these ponds will be maintained and how leaching will be prevented. Public Rights of Way • Proposals to add to and widen the existing network of public rights of way in the area should (unless directly affected by proposed engineering works) be heard and evaluated on their merits through normal rights of way protocols and not attached to central governmental infrastructure schemes. • I specifically object to the creation and alignment of a public right of way from Winterbourne Stoke to Longbarrow. • All rights of way along this route should be located on the southern side of the highway – This would improve road safety and user experience. This route can also be incorporated into the width of the existing road and verge (saving unnecessary land take). • Byway WST06B should be downgraded as part of the proposals to improve the quality of the public rights of way network and support the peacefulness of the greater WHS landscape. • The designation and routing of rights of way to and the former A303 and A350 are unsound and will lead to unlawful use (for example the existing layby near Scotland Lodge will not be removed and be vulnerable for illegal camping, flytipping etc). • I are concerned that inadequate provisions are being made to prevent unlawful activities on public rights of way (including hare coursing and camping). River Till Viaduct • Screens to reduce noise pollution should be fitted to both sides of the viaduct and should be non-reflective and a neutral colour. • The road must be surfaced in material designed to minimise noise. • The eastern bridgehead and earthworks from which the viaduct will project, should be reduced for flood and alluvial purposes. • Additional planting is required to the earth bank on the north side of the eastern bridgehead. • There is no need to plant a hedge alongside the Byway underneath the Viaduct (how will it grow under the shade of the viaduct and who will maintain those parts that do establish). It would be unjust for Manor Farm to have to meet this cost. Human Health and Injurious Affection • The issues of dust, noise, vibration and light pollution have been insufficiently risk addressed. • Additional specific mitigations are necessary and should be included in the scheme to better protect homes and businesses in the closest proximity. This should include additional ground works (e.g. protective bunds) and further tree and hedge planting. • There should be a prohibition against night work. Animal Health • The proposals have significant potential to distress through noise and disturbance animals grazing or being housed in proximity to the work. This has not been insufficiently recognised and mitigated. Adequacy of consultation • It is the acquiring authority’s intent to carry forward the detail of many critical mitigations so that the provisions are at the discretion of the ‘Design and Build Contractors’. I request that the Inspector insist that design, treatment and mitigation statements are contractually agreed and included within the DCO. These statements should include: o Soil and substrata protection, management and aftercare o Site compounds (limitation of use and reinstatement) o Fencing specifications o Field and road Drainage o Public Rights of Way and private points of access • No topographical information has been provided to show the extent of earthworks (the before vs the after). • The limited detail on mitigation provisions have made it impossible to comment in full in all aspects of the scheme. • Meaningful negotiation has not been undertaken due to lack of information. Village streetscape (Winterbourne Stoke) • The realignment of the road provides an opportunity to declutter the existing A303 route by removing street lamps, speed camera, reduction in size of layby and junction with B3083. This opportunity has been ignored. "
Rockerfella Hennessy
"I object to a dual carriageway running beside Stonehenge as I feel it would destroy the significance of the historical value of the site."
Rosalie Doekes
"Dear sir/madam, Please keep Stonehenge intact as it is now. An expressway could damage the site because of the vibrations of constructing it and from the cars especially the heavy ones.. And the view of the landscape would be changed forever. With kind regards, Rosalie Doekes"
Ruth Bradshaw
"I object to the plans for a main road very close to Stonehenge because, in digging the foundations of that road, irreparable damage will be done to any archaeological remains which are below the surface. I have seen reports that ancient valuable objects have been found below the ground in this area. if further such objects are destroyed by the machines digging the foundations of a new road, the possibility of finding out many facts about the prehistoric past around Stonehenge will be lost for ever."
Sacred Grove Western Isles & Astronumerical Druid Order
"We - Astronumerical Druid Order ADO and Sacred Grove Western Isles SGWI, OBJECT to this DCO Planning Application. REASONS FOR OBJECTION Viability / Judicial Review. The Treasury, National Infrastructure Commission, Office of Road & Rail and National Audit Office warn that the project is already over budget. Widespread opposition indicates a high risk of judicial review.Wiltshire Council resulted in excluding disabled via an ETRO quashed by Justice Swift on 21st December 2018; WHS Disability Discrimination. Disabled access to the WHS continues to be threatened if the tunnel is approved. Failed balancing exercises by Stakeholder Management WHSSM will now apply again for a Permanent WHS TRO despite Judge Behrens’ ruling in 2009 and reinforced by the 2011 Public Inquiry Decision by Alan Boyland BEng (Hons). Stonehenge community. The effect of the tunnel would be devastating on the community of general public, pilgrims, travellers, Druid Orders etc who celebrate regularly the Solstices, Equinoxes, solar, lunar and seasonal ceremonies on the WHS. Grassing the A303, planned reduction of BOATs to restricted byways/footpaths, render impossible the ‘since time immemorial’ gatherings. Equitable access would be lost to those who gather there sharing ancient knowledge, crafts, honouring Ancestors, holding ceremonies and ADO’s observational research. They are creating Intangible Cultural Heritage in the WHS Avebury & Stonehenge’s HOLY Places of Outstanding Universal Value; the importance of being able to continue these practices are described and recognised by UNESCO. Lack of transparency. The Developer’s own costings indicate the rejected southern route would be more cost effective. The Developer failed to provide overwhelming data against a southern route thus preventing the public from formulating effective counter arguments. Threat of loss of WHS status & monument damage. Highways England and the WHSSM continue to ignore strong warnings from UNESCO, ICOMOS, eminent groups of academics and archaeologists citing irreparable damage to the WHS, its archaeology and setting. A contractor incident of grave concern has already occurred to the unique Mesolithic site of Blick Mead. Threats to Wildlife and Habitats. Disturbance of rare bird species (Stone Curlew and Great Bustard) and habitat loss will increase once the A303 is grassed over. Any tree, plant or shrub that does not fit a Neolithic landscape has already been removed, drastically reducing bird cover. Pollution and noise health risks. The tunnel, designed short in order to avoid ventilation costs, will increase noise pollution. Inadequate and unclear data hinders public assessment of Developer’s estimates. Public Amenity loss of free view of unique monument. The iconic drive on the A303 to view suddenly this breath-taking, sacred monument will be prevented and the free-to-all view of the Stones will be tragically lost forever. "
Sarah Cattell
"I strongly feel that the proposals relating to the above scheme are wholly inappropriate for the landscape through which the road will be cutting. Whilst the scheme threatens to irreparably damage the area around Stonehenge itself it also threatens the wider landscape, all of which has unique and invaluable historic significance. Despite the likelihood of archaeological mitigation works, the significance of the area demands more that preservation by record only and will still facilitate the destruction of important archaeological features and deposits. The proposals require a complete overhaul with greater scrutiny and consultation on the impact to both the heritage and natural assets of this landscape. The fact that this feeling is also echoed by UNESCO should also prompt a rethink of the proposals."
Sarah Love
"It will irreparably damage the archeology of the World Heritage Site"
Sarah Tanswell
"I am concerned about the proposal as I think it will destroy this World Heritage Site. It is irreplaceable and is still giving archaeologists information. I also understand that rare birds will be adversely affected. In addition this proposed road will add to the traffic volume not decrease the congestion "
shirley mills
"I am against the proposed new highway as I believe it will be very damaging to this extremely important site and once spoilt it will be spoilt forever. UNESCO advisers are quite rightly against this scheme and should be listened to. Not enough alternative options have been given or discussed in consultation about this highway that would be less damaging. Rare bird species such as the Great Busted and Stone Curlew would be disturbed. This rare and important site must not be ruined.The UNESCO advisers must be listend to. "
Shrewton Parish Council
"1) The build is environmentally sound in relation to the river Till. 2) The realigned cross roads at Rollestone are constructed and open before any other works commence – reason to minimise on the impact of additional traffic through Shrewton 3) Local traffic management is in place during the construction – reason to minimise on the impact of increased traffic through Shrewton. 4) Permissive path is made from Shrewton to Stonehenge Visitor Centre – reason to improve non-vehicle access for local members of the public. "
Sophy Buckley
"The plan to turn the A303 into a under ground dual carriageway that runs close to the Stonehenge site has many flaws. It is ridiculously expensive and cannot give value for money in terms of a return on investment; it stands to destroy at worst and disturb at best an ancient site of great historical importance that we are learning more and more about with every passing year; it goes against UNESCO's own advice; there are alternative routes either south of or north of Stonehenge that would avoid the disturbance and thereby preserve the site and cost far less money; the work would disturb important sites for birds, particularly the Great Bustard which was only recently successfully reintroduced to Salisbury Plain; there are no guarantees that the work wouldn't adversely interfere with the water table which is critical to the health of the world famous Hampshire Avon, a beautiful chalk stream that attracts fishermen from all around the world; the only people who would benefit from this particular scheme are the construction companies that will charge the tax payer billions to build the tunnel. "
Stephen Meakin
"I'm very concerned that this tunnel, as proposed, could damage this World Heritage Site and disturb the land. It's just to risky! There must be a better way to improve traffic flow."
Steven Andrews
"I am very concerned about the proposals for the A303 at Stonehenge because I feel that the construction of such a dual carriageway and tunnel will do irreversible damage to the landscape of the area, which for many people of the Druid and Pagan communities, is a sacred landscape. As a naturalist, I am also worried that the noise of such construction work would be a potential disturbance to rare birds species, such as the stone curlew. Many British birds are endangered because of lack of habitat, amongst other reasons, and when a natural habitat exists where a rare species is known to live, it should be protected and maintained. We need to do all we can to protect our wildlife. "
Susan Baker
"I am opposed to the loss of one of our most precious cultural assets and its view when I travel along the A303. The stones are the only ones in the world and irreparable damage to the WHS, and its archaeology and setting, will be done if this change is sanctioned. It has been described by UNESCO as a ‘landscape without parallel’. I understand consultations have been had between UNESCO and international advisors who say the scheme should no go ahead in it's present form. Listen to them. I have concerns that damage would also be caused to other sites in the area e.g. Blick Mead Mesolithic site and its setting. Obviously if no alternatives are discussed in the consultation the Stonehenge site will be damaged forever. And once this action is taken there is no going back. We are only the keeper of the Stones and if the tunnel is built there will always be a need of payment from the public, because once the view of the Stones is lost the public will always have to pay to see them. This is not what was envisaged when the Stones were 'given' to the Country. I think both the National Trust and English Heritage are looking at this purely as a profit making exercise. They have not thought about the disturbance of rare bird species i.e. Stone Curlews and Great Bustard which will suffer from increased noise from faster traffic. If we look at the history of ownership: Sir Cecil Herbert Edward Chubb, 1st Baronet, was the last private owner of Stonehenge. He was a local man who wished to avoid the stones being acquired by someone overseas and therefore purchase them in 1915, and made a donation of them to the British government on 26 October 1918 as a Gift to the Nation. Who had the right to change his Deed of Gift and allow such as the National Trust and English Heritage to take over and ignore those who have more knowledge in saving one of our national treasures? Please ensure the right decisions are made and stop the idea of a tunnel which will bring its own problems and look for an alternative"
Teresa Price
"Do not do this... Stonehenge was built for a purpose. In alignment with planets and stars also tied to energies within the earth. This place is sacred. Would you bury underneath a cathedral? The answer is no. There is no difference. We have so little left of our ancient history. It will be scarred forever and its excistance at risk of damage in the process and over time. Leave it alone. Your decision to do this is is about your own origins too and that of your children and families. Think again before you do this to our heritage. Consider what I have stated... We know nothing in comparison to those who created this in relation to working with the earth which we are... a part of not separate from. "
The Campaign to Protect Rural England - Wiltshire
"CPRE Wiltshire Branch objects to the A303 Preferred Route and proposed alterations as an individual charity and as a supporter of the Stonehenge Alliance of NGOs. Our objections, supported by CPRE nationally, are substantially based on planning policy considerations, the World Heritage Site (WHS) Management Plan, and the Government’s commitments under the World Heritage Convention. Our concerns about the proper protection of the WHS and its setting are underlined by the advice given to the Government by joint Advisory Missions of international specialists and UNESCO’s World Heritage Committee to seek alternative options for the A303 scheme that would not impact adversely on the WHS and its Outstanding Universal Value. Highways England’s third key objective for the scheme, ‘to help conserve and enhance the WHS’ could not be met. Images of the completed scheme fail to show the contrasting impact of major alterations to the landscape, the extent of future signage, lighting and other infrastructure, and increased traffic on the Expressway. Full information is lacking on the hydrogeology of the WHS, giving rise to uncertainty concerning the potential for adverse impacts on the integrity of the River Avon SAC from construction of the tunnel (pollution and changes in groundwater movement). Furthermore, there would be adverse impacts on the integrity of the Stone Curlew population of the Salisbury Plain SPA during construction and operation of the road scheme, as well as adverse impacts on the Annex I Great Bustard population. The scheme proposals may be in breach of the Habitats Regulations and Habitats Directive and appear also to breach certain considerations and articles of Directive 2014/52/EU. There is no convincing evidence to show that the scheme would meet its fourth ‘broad objective’: ‘to improve biodiversity’. We are concerned about impacts of the scheme on the archaeology along the Preferred Route, especially within the WHS and its setting, despite lack of information concerning evaluations undertaken. There is little recognition or understanding of the WHS as an exceptional “landscape without parallel”. There would be further destruction of the integrity of the Nile Clumps, part of the former Amesbury Abbey park, with the restoration of which CPRE has been involved. There would be adverse visual impacts on Listed buildings, Registered parkland and the Amesbury Conservation Area. We note assessment of the scheme’s low value for money and that it would be poor value for money without the benefit of a questionable ‘heritage contingent valuation’. Convincing evidence that the scheme would bring economic benefit to the South West (another of the scheme’s four ‘broad objectives’) is absent – as is a Strategic Environmental Assessment of the impacts of the different scheme proposals planned for the A303/A358 corridor, both individually and in combination: essential to establishing the credibility and practicality of that aim. Finally, we again raise concern that consultation on scheme options avoiding the WHS was absent – as was full information on discarded options such that informed decisions could be made. We are also concerned about Highways England’s misleading statements concerning apparent benefits of the scheme. "
The Irish Fieldschool of Prehistoric Archaeology
"Stonehenge is one of the worlds most recognisable and iconic heritage sites and its setting and landscape are integral to its appreciation. The proposed development would severely impact its setting and set a very poor precedent for other cases."
Tiffany Reynolds-Flannery
"The proposed tunnel roadworks poses a significant threat to the precious cultural heritage of the area and will be detrimental to the aesthetic, cultural and historical values found in the area. I am concerned it will also have an ongoing negative impact on the economic values that are nurtured through careful planning in the area to sustain its current appeal."
Tula Chiarletti
"I am very concerned to hear about the proposed expressway on Stonehenge. IT is very disrespectful to the UNESCO international advisors and to thousands of pagans across the country, which place great importance in stonehenge. It is sacred, it needs protecting. Not destroying for the sake of private PFI's looking to make a quick selfish buck. Please reconsider this proposed road, it will be very damaging to wildlife and the mesolithic site and obstruct visitors views- which would probably lead to a decline in tourism for Wiltshire- an area already affected in parts by this governments horrendous austerity cuts. Please try to find empathy in your corporate determination and give serious consideration to other alternatives and the very serious issues that the stonehenge alliance have very clearly explained. Building more roads is not the solution to reducing traffic or helping people to be less reliant on their cars. Alternatives, although probably more expensive Im imagining, will enable a compromised and thoughtful response on your part, to ensure this sacred and treasured site is protected from harm and can be enjoyed for many many years to come. Please find it in your hearts to do what is right, not what makes a few greedy people money. Thank you. "
Vita FitzSimons
"A tunnel is a terrible idea. Not only could you be unwittingly destroying archeological treasures; you would be denying the majority of people who are not rich the iconic sight of the stones in their way down to the West Country. It is the highlight of most people’s journey. Not everyone has the money to make a special visit. Please find another way. "
Somerset County Council on behalf of A303/A30/A358 Improvement Partnership
"The A303/A30/A358 Improvement Partnership strongly supports the Department for Transport’s ongoing commitment to improving this vital strategic corridor between London and the South West. We welcome the progress to date on the Stonehenge, A358 and Sparkford to Ilchester sections. Our partnership of four county authorities and three LEPs is working in close liaison with Highways England colleagues to help deliver these important schemes and advance future work on the remaining unimproved sections of the corridor. Our region is coming from a low baseline for economic growth. Levels of productivity are among the lowest in the UK, (under 80% of the national average) with evidence that the gap between our area and the more prosperous areas of the UK is continuing to grow. Improving connectivity has been identified by all the LEPs, local authorities and MPs in the region as being the number one priority for improving our productivity and supporting the Government’s Industrial Strategy In 2013 we published our ‘A303/A358/A30 Corridor Improvement Economic Impact Study’, that demonstrated a number of benefits to the South West as a result of a whole corridor upgrade, including: • 21,400 jobs • £7.2bn employment related economic impacts • £8.6bn per year increased visitor expenditure • transport benefits of £1.9bn • Improved transport resilience At the end of last year, we refreshed this study so that it provides a more up to date evidence base. The existing economic climate of the South West region has been considered alongside business survey data in order to monetise the predicted GVA outcomes of implementing an improvement, over a 60-year horizon. The A303/A358 /A30 is one of the two main road routes from London to South West England; it is the trunk road corridor between London and Penzance and provides the most direct road link between the southwest peninsula and London and the South East. Despite its strategic importance to the South West region, the route is of poor quality, experiencing considerable congestion and road safety problems, and is seen as an extremely unreliable access point to the South West. As a result, an improvement to the A303/A358/A30 corridor has long been considered a priority by a strong coalition of local authorities. The need for improvement along the corridor was recognised in the Road Investment Strategy 2019/2020 (RIS1), announced in December 2014. This committed to spending £2bn on three major A303/A358/A30 dualling improvements at Amesbury to Berwick Down (Stonehenge), Sparkford to Ilchester and Taunton to Southfields. These schemes have continued to be developed over recent years and will require approval through the DCO process. As such, an updated indication of the benefit of upgrading the whole route corridor to the South West has been considered necessary. The South West economy is under-performing compared to the rest of the UK and, without improvement, the performance of the corridor will deteriorate, further limiting growth and prosperity. Businesses view the A303/A358/A30 route as unreliable, with congestion, delays and accidents adding to the perception that the South West is difficult to get to. Productivity in the South West is slightly below the national average, with those businesses along the M4/M5 corridor performing notably better than along the A303/A358/A30. Gross Value Added (GVA) per head along the M5 corridor exceeds not only other parts of the region, but also the UK average. In contrast, the areas served by the A303/A30/A358 all demonstrate GVAs lower than the national average, with productivity decreasing further west. In addition to this, wages are low along the corridor compared to the regional and national average, despite the skilled workforce relative to the UK average. Despite this, the populations of the corridor’s adjoining authorities have continued to grow, with further growth planned in the future. The existing Local Plans for Wiltshire, North Dorset, South Somerset, Taunton Deane, East Devon and Exeter allocate approximately 100,000 additional new dwellings and 420ha of employment to be delivered in the districts by 2031. 40% of these new dwellings are within 5km of the A303/A358/A30 corridor. Their close proximity to the strategic link of the A303/A358/A30 means the success of these developments will be expected to be influenced most by the future performance of the corridor. Large future growth is also planned for the wider South West, with large developments planned for the Greater Exeter area, Cornwall, Plymouth and Torbay. If all planned development comes forward, there will be a large resultant demand, and a high-quality transport network will be required to ensure the region’s population and economy can grow. It is vital that the A303/A30/A358 does not act as a barrier to the planned growth in the South West. As part of this study, levels of delay as a result of incidents occurring on both the M5 and A303 corridors have been monitored. This analysis demonstrates that certain sections on both routes are subject to unreliable travel conditions. Most notably, the consistently worst performing section is on the A303/A30 between Amesbury and Berwick Down, (in the vicinity of Stonehenge), followed by the M5 between WestonSuper-Mare and Bristol. Whilst the M5 incurs incidents of longer delay (i.e. collisions), the A303/A30 incurs a larger quantity of incidents which introduce smaller amounts of delay (i.e. congestion). The resultant level of average delay on each route is similar and similar numbers of incidents on both routes have been observed. In addition to this, there is no reliable trend of when delay occurs, preventing drivers from being able to make an informed route choice before travelling. Drivers to and from the South West therefore do not have a reliable alternative route to the rest of the country. Regular disruption to the rail network further exacerbates these issues, with no reliable alternative mode of travel to the rest of the country. GVA benefits for districts within the South West that are served by the A303/A30/A358 corridor were also calculated, which have been refreshed in this study using updated figures alongside 2012 business surveys results. This finds that an improvement to the A303/A30/A358 corridor would result in GVA benefits to the whole region of almost £40 billion. Somerset and Devon stand to receive the highest GVA benefits of £10.6 billion and £9.8 billion respectively. This report demonstrates that the South West stands to reap substantial benefits from improvements to the A303/A30/A358 corridor. Proposed RIS1 improvements, Amesbury to Berwick Down, Sparkford to Ilchester, and the A358 between Taunton and Southfields, as well as single carriageway improvements between Honiton and Southfields, will act as a catalyst to the whole route improvement, ultimately resulting in significant economic benefits to the region. Whilst the RIS1 improvements are worthy of building in their own right, the full economic benefit for the UK will only be achieved with a full end-to-end improvement along the A303/A358/A30 corridor. As such, a pipeline of schemes for the remaining unimproved sections will need to receive funding allocations in future RIS periods in order to ensure the proven need for a strategic second link to the South West are met. The A303/A30/A358 Improvement Partnership strongly supports the improvement of the A303 between Amesbury and Berwick Down (Stonehenge) but recognises that in order to maximise the benefit of this section the whole of the A303/A358/A30 corridor improvements need to be completed. "
Ainsley Allmark
"The area around Stonehenge is an EXTREMELY important World Heritage Site and as such should not be disturbed for any reason. I personally recommend that this application should be rejected. "
Alan Shipgood
"I don't believe the disruption to the Heritage site and the local roads and villages when the motorists try to find alternative routes would be worth the expense. I think it would be as ridiculous as the proposed HS2 railway line when it comes to making the local inhabitants suffer for the benefit of a few. I appreciate that the road needs to be capable of more traffic because of bottlenecks but that could be achieved easier with a dual carriageway and imaginative landscaping"
Aleta Mckechnie
"I am concerned about permanent damage to this World Heritage site and the lack of alternative plans that would not cause damage. Loss of view from the road of Stonehenge monument and people having to pay to see the stones, this has been part of the landscape for many years and people have been free to view the stones without having to pay. Danger to rare birds that currently inhabit the site, Stone Curlew and Great Bustard."
Alex Gimblett
"Permanent damage to the World Heritage Site, its archaeology and setting. UNESCO's advisers say the scheme should not go ahead in its present form. Concerns about damage to Blick Mead Mesolithic site and its setting. Lack of alternative options that would not damage the World Heritage Site in the consultation. Loss of view from the road and need to pay to see the Stones. Disturbance of rare bird species (Stone Curlew and Great Bustard). Increased noise from more and faster traffic."
Aline MacInnes
"The planned engineering works would scar the Stonehenge landscape for ever. There would be extensive tunnel cuttings into the chalk for four lanes of tarmac, and massive highway interchanges through sensitive archaeological areas. Over Countess Roundabout, shown under construction in the 1968 image above, there would be a colossal flyover into the World Heritage Site, looming close by the Mesolithic site of Blick Mead. The deep cutting through the hillside below Vespasian’s Camp, under woodland at the top of the image, would be further widened for the eastern tunnel approach over what was once the parkland of Amesbury Abbey and, long before that, a prehistoric cemetery, parts of which are still visible on the ground. Surely this is unacceptable in a national monument of such immense importance as Stonehenge"
Alison Dewar
"Concern over the future of the World Heritage Site"
Alison Hall
"Hello, The statements below, to my mind, have not been fully thought out. • Permanent damage to the World Heritage Site, its archaeology and setting. We're are constantly developing new ways to ascertain our ancestry but this will destroy any chance of further understanding of our past at any future date. • UNESCO's advisers say the scheme should not go ahead in its present form. Why are we not listening to them? And why do we want to lose UNESCO status when this brings in tourists? • Concerns about damage to Blick Mead Mesolithic site and its setting. • Lack of alternative options that would not damage the World Heritage Site in the consultation. Highways England haven't done enough to seek alternative routes, or even why change it at all? Make a bypass elsewhere. • Loss of view from the road and need to pay to see the Stones. As a member of the NT - I find it disturbing that it will be hidden away from all. • Disturbance of rare bird species (Stone Curlew and Great Bustard). As a member of RSPB, again this is not necessary. • increased noise from more and faster traffic. This landscape is ancient and therefore we shouldn't spoil the setting for anyone who wishes to explore with the noise from essentially a 70mph road with extra lanes. Regards Alison"
Alistair Sommerlad
"I am independent Chair of the Partnership Panel which oversees the management of the Stonehenge and Avebury World Heritage Site. I wish to provide evidence of the risks , benefits and opportunities of this road scheme. I also wish to represent the interests of the Site Management Plan which is prepared by my Coordination Unit and endorsed by partners including UNESCO."
Amanda Ayre
"We cannot allow anything to damage our cultural pastudies. Once gone it can not be recreated."
Andrea Dalton-Mills
"As someone who grew up in the area and whose family have been documented in the area as far back as the 16th century, likely earlier, I wish to register my objections to the DCO planning application A303 Stonehenge for the following reasons: 1. The project has been shown to already be over budget. 2.Damage to the Stonehenge landscape and threat of loss of WHS. 3.Threat to wildlife and their habitats. 4.Loss of view of a national treasured monument. 5.Discrimination against those that wish to worship at Stonehenge, following ancient religions and ceremonies, honouring our ancestors. 6.Discrimination against disabled and sick that wish to visit the stones on ceremonial days."
Andrew Differ
"Permanent damage to the World Heritage Site, its archaeology and setting. UNESCO's advisers say the scheme should not go ahead in its present form. Concerns about damage to Blick Mead Mesolithic site and its setting. Lack of alternative options that would not damage the World Heritage Site in the consultation. Loss of view from the road and need to pay to see the Stones. Disturbance of rare bird species (Stone Curlew and Great Bustard). increased noise from more and faster traffic. "
Andrew Flack
"My representation is made on the following points: - Concerns that permanent damage to the World Heritage Site, its archaeology and setting. - UNESCO's advisers say the scheme should not go ahead in its present form. - Concerns about damage to Blick Mead Mesolithic site and its setting. - There is a lack of alternative options that would not damage the World Heritage Site in the consultation. - Loss of view from the road and need to pay to see the Stones. - Disturbance of rare bird species (Stone Curlew and Great Bustard). - Increased noise from more and faster traffic."
Andrew Melville
"Such a historic UK site should not be interfered with. Other routes surely can be created. "
Andrew Ward
"UNESCO says no. Stone Curlews say no. The archeology says no. Therefore I am saying no. The only tunnel that should be considered is much longer and you won't pay for it. I cannot believe that there is even a discussion."
Anja Bruckner
"Dear Ladies and Gentlemen, I wonder how the UK government treats his World Heritage. Stonehenge needs to be protected for the future generation. A massive traffic around the site will destroy everything Stonehenge stands for. Tourists want to see the sight in an untouched surrounding without disturbing noises from traffic. Not to mention that heavy traffic could even lead to a damage of the whole site and its setting stones. Yours sincerely A. Brückner "
Ann Bradbury
"I am very concerned about damage to Blick Mead which offers a unique opportunity to study the lives of our Mesolithic forbears. It is a site which is rich in finds and is challenging our ideas about how people lived at this time; As well as informing the background to the creation of Stonehenge itself. It should be preserved for us and future generations, who doubtless will have more advanced equipment and techniques. It's loss to archaeology would be catastrophic. it has been recognised as an important site by Unesco. "
Ann Teague
"I am concerned that this ancient and Sacred World Heritage Site will suffer permanent damage. The sight of this unique stone structure from the road is breathtaking and it is wrong that it should only be seen if able to afford to pay. UNESCO's advisers say the scheme should not go ahead in its present form and there appears to be a lack of alternative options that would not damage the World Heritage Site in the consultation. Concerns about damage to Blick Mead Mesolithic site and its setting. I also have concerns over the disturbance and effect to wildlife. Specifically rare bird species such as the Stone Curlew and Great Bustard. increased noise from more and faster traffic may also be an issue. Thank you for reading my representation. Kind Regards Ann Teague (Mrs) "
Anne Lindup
"My concern is that this would cause permanent damage to the World Heritage Site, its archaeology and setting and there are concerns about damage to Blick Mead Mesolithic site and its setting. The loss of view from the road and need to pay to see the Stones is one that will effect many who pass the stones and pass this way just to do so as part of our local, national and world heritage. Those who are genuinely involved in alternative beliefs are impacted very seriously, you wouldn't drive a road through a cathedral so why would you affect this valuable site with an intervention such as this with the additional increase in noise and faster traffic? Additionally there is the grievous effect this would have on wildlife in the area including the rare Stone Curlew and Great Bustard. Given the lack of alternative options that would not damage the World Heritage Site in the consultation and the advice given by UNESCO's advisers who say the scheme should not go ahead in its present form, I formally submit my representation. "
Anthony Bicknell
"Briefly, the scheme desecrates a UNESCO world heritage site and risk causing irreversible damage to other late mesolithic remains in the area. It is likely that such a scheme would have an adverse affect on the habitat of local wildlife. Although the proposal would shorten journey times the cost involved is disproportionate to any slight advantage gained. Technology is advancing at such a rapid and exponential rate that in twenty or thirty years time, or even less, the current proposal might well not even be needed and it is surely not worth vandalizing and contaminating for such a short term gain. "
Anthony Bridges
"I have commented throughout the consultation process that the tunnel approach walls should consist of soil filled stacking planters as used extensively in Germany and France. These would soften the appearance of the walls by allowing them to be planted with climbing plants and create more habitat for small birds and mammals."
Anton Tagunov
"I firmly believe that Stonehenge is a unique and paramauntly important heritage site for preservation if which we are jointly responsible to the generations that come after us both in this country and abroad. I am also convinced that the proposed A303 scheme irreparably damages the integrity of this exceptional place and violates our ability to perceive it as it was constructed all those uncountable years ago. Please do reject the scheme"
Arthur Kincaid
"The proposed highway may cause damage to this World Heritage Site and would certainly increase noise there. They should both be avoided. "
Asha Lodh
"Our world heritage site should not be compromised in any way. It’s setting and environment are part of what makes it so stunning. UNESCO advisors are against this scheme. Permanent damage to nearby archeological sites has already happened. Our legacy to future generations should not be riding roughshod over universally acknowledged and protected sites, but protecting them and their impact."
Barbara Saville
"I am concerned that the proposed dual carriageway will damage the WHS irreparably. It will involve tunnelling into the ancient monument's surroundings, which MUST contain many artefacts which have lain buried for millennia and which will be lost forever. There are also concerns about damage to Blick Mead Mesolithic site and its surroundings - have these not been considered? UNESCO advisers say that the scheme should not go ahead in its present form and surely they should be listened to. I cannot understand why there weren't any other, less damaging alternatives considered in the initial consultations. There is also the matter of the rare bird species which live in that area - their habitat will be destroyed and it is possible they will not survive. Then there is the loss of view from the road and the consequent need for everyone to pay to see the stones, which is unacceptable as the monument belongs to us all. And, of course, there will be increased noise from more and faster traffic. I strongly protest that this proposal should not go ahead as it stands."
Barry Garwood
"“Couldn't find the freeway, had to take a backstreet called the M5.” US Tourist explaining why they had arrived late for dinner in the Waldorf Salad episode of the classic comedy series Fawlty Towers (BBC 1979). For many years the A303 east of Amesbury has been a bottle-neck for traffic, as the road reduces to a single carriageway past Stonehenge and through the village of Winterbourne Stoke. Winterbourne Stoke urgently needs a bypass, but the proposal to tunnel through the Chalk aquifer under Stonehenge, with tunnel portals within the World Heritage Site, is cause for considerable concern. Stonehenge, as we know it today, was built as a twentieth century tourist attraction by English Heritage and predecessor organisations, from a pile of old stones found lying in a field beside the A303. However, the original stone circle dates back over four thousand years, with the wider area showing signs of continuous habitation, uniquely in this country, for as at least as long again before that. There is considerable risk of damage to archaeology, both directly through the construction and indirectly through potential changes to the hydrogeology of the Chalk aquifer on which the Stonehenge site sits. There is also the loss of fine views of Stonehenge from the A303, and potential loss of interconnectivity in the local Public Rights of Way network to consider. The main advantages would be decreased journey times and increased revenues to the heritage industry and those companies awarded construction contracts. There would also be less traffic at the Stonehenge site. The consultation documents are weighted towards concepts such as opening a 'mile-a-minute' South-West Freeway, which might suit business travellers and visitors of the kind portrayed in the classic comedy Fawlty Towers, yet are vague on concepts such as preservation of archaeology and cultural heritage, with disadvantages largely glossed over. Our understanding of the wider historical context of the site is still in infancy and it is probable that there is more to be discovered in future. The proposals seem more likely to destroy culture and archaeology than preserve it. The tunnel portals and approach roads will seriously impede on the wider setting of Stonehenge and along with changes to the Chalk aquifer, which includes Phosphatic Chalk at Stonehenge Bottom, may lead to loss, or damage of as yet undiscovered archaeology. Alternative routes could be considered, including a bypass to the north of the World Heritage Site along similar lines to the proposed high-vehicle route via Larkhill, connecting with the Winterbourne Stoke northern bypass, perhaps combined with remodelling of the Countess and Longbarrow roundabouts to improve traffic flow along the existing A303. Stonehenge and its wider setting can reasonably be regarded as the cradle of English civilisation. It is too important to be treated as an afterthought to a road improvement scheme. Barry Garwood "
Basharat Ali
"A waste of money, siphoning off a national asset, denying a free view for the public "
Ben Parker-Wright
"I wish to oppose the application on the following grounds: Permanent damage to the World Heritage Site, its archaeology and setting. UNESCO's advisers say the scheme should not go ahead in its present form. Concerns about damage to Blick Mead Mesolithic site and its setting. Lack of consideration of alternative options in the consultation, such as a longer tunnel, that would not damage the World Heritage Site Loss of view from the road and need to pay to see the Stones. Disturbance of rare bird species (Stone Curlew and Great Bustard). increased noise at the site from more and faster traffic"
Brian Edwards
"Brian Edwards, Visiting Research Fellow, The Regional History Centre, University of the West of England, Bristol. Deputy representative of the Avebury and Stonehenge Archaeological and Historical Research Group (ASAHRG) to the steering group of the Stonehenge, Avebury and Associated sites World Heritage Site (WHS). My field of research is public history and historiography, particularly the impression of the past in relation to the WHS. The A303 road scheme features prominently in my publications and work in progress since 2014. The removal of the above-ground section of the A303 in the vicinity of the Stones would, in my opinion, have an irreversible negative impact on the Outstanding Universal Value (OUV) of the WHS. At the time of inscription of the property on the World Heritage List in 1986, the A344 was projected for closure not the A303. Commitments of conservation and preservation made at the time included the above ground section of the A303 and its inherent traditions. Attribute 7 of OUV is the ‘influence of the remains of Neolithic and Bronze Age funerary and ceremonial monuments and their landscape settings on architects, artists, historians, archaeologists and others.’ Travellers influenced by Stonehenge, the known list of which extends back to at least the 12th century, promoted the site as an inherent part of the national story. The removal of the above-ground section of the A303 would end the nation’s longest continual practice of mass encounter and engagement, by chance or intention, with an instantly recognisable large scale prehistoric built wonder from an adjacent main thoroughfare. When Stonehenge was given to the nation in 1918, there was expectation this tradition would be maintained. Since inscription of the WHS in 1986 an extensive tradition of engagement with Attribute 7 of OUV from and including the A303 is evident in writings, music, and photographs, countless examples of which are freely shared online. If this trend is not interrupted by removal of the road into a tunnel and cuttings, it can reasonably be expected to continue and evolve. Despite the A303’s potential, nothing has been done to recognise, research, understand and encourage instinctive engagement with roadside monuments within the WHS beyond eventually completing the installation of WHS entrance signs in 2016. The effect of the A303, particularly regarding sight and sound, has been disproportionately cast as a negative issue in comparison to the immediate impact of tourist crowds, the turnstile and fencing experiences, visitor transportation, and closure of the A344. Encouraged, the many identified and newly recognised archaeologically important sites could be more appreciatively celebrated individually and collectively by the captive audience journeying across the WHS. The travel experience could be enhanced through accessible smart equipment. Advancing technologies typified by handheld devices, and such as electric and driverless cars, pose advantageous refinements for travellers and visitors. Tunnel portals and infrastructure would unacceptably damage the property and the public’s cultural experience within the WHS. The tunnel was a fait accompli unfit for heritage purposes. Poor value for money and irreversible, the tunnel scheme must be rejected. "
Brian Inglis
"• UNESCO's advisers say the scheme should not go ahead in its present form and I would agree with them."
Brian Reid
"I am concerned that the excavations for this project will irretrievably damage this UNESCO world heritage site. There have already been reports that the initial groundwork has had an effect and I do not believe that enough consideration has been given to the damage that may be done to this special site."
Brian Schaffer
"Permanent damage to the World Heritage Site, its archaeology and setting. UNESCO's advisers say the scheme should not go ahead in its present form. Concerns about damage to Blick Mead Mesolithic site and its setting. Lack of alternative options that would not damage the World Heritage Site in the consultation. Loss of view from the road and need to pya to see the Stones. Disturbance of rare bird species (Stone Curlew and Great Bustard). increased noise from more and faster traffic."
Brian Thompson
"There are many reasons why the tunnel should not be allowed to proceed inc the following in no order of importance or priority 1 Current cost is bound to escalate which cannot be justified in present economic situation 2 To counter these costs a cutting would be more viable and which will not impact on archeological issues, it can be completed in quicker time span and can be designed as not to deter the visual impact of the stones 3 The current planned tunnel is too short whereas a cutting could be designed to satisfy this point 4There are serious doubts on the stability of the chalk and also the composition of the chalk 5 The probable damage to the ground water and underground streams will affect the historic site of Blickmead There is no doubt a road improvement is essential but the tunnel is not the answer bearing in mind the above and the many others aspects which have been highlighted over to past 30 years when numerous public enquiries have taken place. Sincerely and realistically Brian Thompson "
Bridget Fox
"I am registering as an objector to the current proposals for the A303 at Stonehenge. The NNNPS section 5.129 requires that decision makers take into account "the particular nature of the significance of the heritage asset and the value that they hold for this and future generations. This understanding should be used to avoid or minimise conflict between their conservation and any aspect of the proposal." The current road plans will cause irreparable damage to the Stonehenge World Heritage site, its archaeology and setting, described by UNESCO as a ‘landscape without parallel’. The World Heritage Site is a heritage asset of unique and outstanding value that no road scheme can justify damaging. The fact that there may be a demand for a new road or other developments in this location is precisely the reason that legal protections from such development are necessary, and precisely why we look to the planning system to uphold them. If small travel time savings are treated as a compelling reason to override planning safeguards in the case of the World Heritage Site, then protections for national parks and other protected landscapes will become meaningless and no area will be safe. There are also threats from the proposals to wildlife habitats including the RSPB's reserve for stone curlew breeding, and from the general increase in greenhouse gas emissions, contrary to the requirements of the Climate Change Act, that any significant increase in major road capacity will bring In addition, while devoting considerable attention to developing these proposals, Highways England has not sufficiently considered alternatives, including a longer tunnel, or traffic management measures, which could relieve the occasional congestion on the A303 without damaging the World Heritage Site. "
C Chapman
"lack of respect and protection for a sacred landscape Irreparable damage to the WHS, its archaeology and setting, described by UNESCO as a ‘landscape without parallel’ UNESCO’s international advisers say the scheme should not go ahead in its present form Concerns about damage to Blick Mead Mesolithic site and its setting Lack of alternative options in consultation that would not damage the World Heritage Site Loss of the view from the road and need to pay to see the Stones in future Disturbance of rare bird species (Stone Curlew and Great Bustard) Increased noise from faster traffic "
Campaign for Better Transport
"The A303 at Stonehenge is promoted as being part of a programme of improvements to unlock benefits for the South West economy, local communities and the Stonehenge World Heritage Site (WHS). However, the scheme has serious problems that undermine these claims. In the first instance there does not appear to have been any Strategic Environmental Assessment of the programme of improvements along the A303 / A358 corridor which we feel is essential to properly understand the full range of options and their impacts. This is an essential pre-requisite to ensuring the best possible solution is developed. We do not consider that the full range of alternative options has been properly assessed, either at the corridor level or for this specific scheme. We are particularly concerned with the way that Highways England appears to have ignored the advice and requests of UNESCO’s World Heritage Committee: • to take more time with the process to ensure the right solution is found and in recognition of the site’s international importance • to reduce the impact of the road on the WHS, including considering alternatives that would remove the road from the WHS altogether. Consequently, we are concerned that the UK Government could be in breach of its international duty to protect the Stonehenge World Heritage Site if it proceeded to approve this development as proposed. In addition, we are concerned about: • the severe and irreversible damage to the WHS, its landscape, including archaeology, and its setting • the loss of the view of Stonehenge from the A303 • the quality of the information provided for the examination • noise and air pollution, including carbon emissions • an inadequate consultation process including insufficient data to allow for informed responses • misleading publicity in the scheme consultation and promotion • ignoring public opinion in consultation responses • inadequate time for the planning process including the registration period, the latter of which was one of the shortest registration periods for any road scheme submitted as a Nationally Significant Infrastructure Project and in addition took place over Christmas and the New Year when many people were otherwise occupied. Significantly we do not believe that Highways England has made a compelling case for the need of the scheme for an area that suffers only seasonal problems. Although these might be severe over the summer months and occasionally at other times, overall the congestion experienced on this route is nothing like as severe as many other roads, particularly in and around urban areas. The economics for the case do not stack up either and the scheme has a very low value for money and only has a positive benefit-cost ratio because of the inclusion of the monetised heritage impacts. Without this questionable and partial assessment, the scheme would not even cover its costs. Combined with the damage this road will cause, the lack of demonstrable need, the case for this road is fundamentally flawed. This sets it at odds with the National Policy Statement for National Networks and therefore it should be refused permission."
Carl Burrows
"As a British citizen following the ancient religious ways of my Ancestors. I frequently use the areas commonly known as Stonehenge and Avebury circle for my religeous ceremonies (it is a place where I am closest to my Gods). Many of my forefathers are buried near and along the proposed path of the tunnel. It has become increasingly difficult to visit my Ancestrol site to hold my moments of worship since the takeover of Stonehenge by word heritage and their need to make a profit. The building of a tunnel would (in my opinion) desicrate the landscape and it's historical value and should therefore be left alone."
Carly Bannister
"Dear Sir or Madam, I have registered concerning Stonehenge Heritage Landscape. The reason why is simply because, I actually protest against the Architecture construction plan to go ahead. To be frank with you, if this work goes ahead it will cause significant damage to the historical grounds of Stonehenge without a doubt. The Landscape is totally unsuitable for changes to be made, which it will never be the same again if touched. It holds so much history and it will certainly spoil everything about. Which this is my valid point to you. All l can say it will be a great shame if this construction work happens, it's totally heartbreaking for myself and others. Please pay attention what I have stated. Thank you.Yours Sincerely Carly Bannister"
Caroline Price
"Stonehenge is a World Heritage Site. UNESCO's advisers have stated that the planned scheme should not go ahead, and no acceptable plans have been made. Blick Mead Mesolithic site would be damaged, and the stones would no longer be seen, from the road. Rare species, including the Stone Curlew and Great Bustard, would be disturbed by the upheaval, as well as by the increased traffic noise. Please take the long view, don't destroy our heritage; think ahead and do not bulldoze a massive dual carriageway through the upcoming generations' inheritance. "
Carolyn Sara Beckingham
"I wish to object to this proposal in the strongest possible terms. The dual carriageway would do irreparable damage to the World Heritage Site which UNESCO describes as "without parallel" and its international advisers have warned against the scheme. It would endanger rare birds (stone curlew and black bustard) and might damage the BlicK Mead Mesolithic archaeological site. Even if this were avoided, traffic would increase noise levels and therefore detract from the experience of visiting Stonehenge. Places such as this need a peaceful atmosphere which is wholly inconsistent with a dual carriageway. If this is allowed in a World Heritage Site, it makes a mockery of environmental standards. "
Charles David Foulstone
"1) I object to this Proposal on the grounds of the inevitable major disturbance, probable irreversible damage & possible destruction to an ancient & irreplaceable monument that the proposal will cause. 2) Should the proposed major highway be considered totally necessary, there are several alternative routes sufficiently distant from this ancient monument for construction to be undertaken without threat to this National asset. 3) Considerable expense has been incurred in the last decade in fencing off & policing Stonehenge to protect it from possible deterioration due to foot traffic from tourists & similar visitors. It would call into question the credulity of Local & National authorities if this expense should now be declared irrelevent by the major damage resulting from this proposal "
Charlotte Law
"Stone Henge is an extremely important national heritage site that should be preserved and not compromised in any way. It belongs to the people of Great Britain and the area should not be interfered with in any way, shape or form. "
Charlotte Yeomans
"I believe that this world heritage site would be ruined...that endangered species would be lost.There are alternatives that have not been heard."
Chris Bullen
"The plan will damage archaeology, as yet undiscovered above and below ground. It will reduce opportunities for viewing Stonehenge from a distance, such as that from the present A303. It will entail local people from the Amesbury area in making convoluted journies to visit friends carry out business etc, this will be the result of minor roads being blocked by route of the new highway. Public footpaths will similarly be blocked, reducing desirable healthy walking access in Stonehenge environs."
Chris Chinn
"I am deeply concerned that such major construction is proposed for this work heritage site. The economic case is flawed: the problem very likely overstated and the case put forward fails to allow for the irreversible damage to the site. The area should be protected and not partially destroyed by the tunnel and the works required around it."
Chris Crean
"destruction to historic sites of national and international importance more and faster traffic knock on effects to lead to ever more wider and higher capacity roads on this route and feeder roads into the corridor increased car dependency climate change and air quality emissions from tail pipe and manufacture and distribution of vehicles as well as increasing car dependency resulting in more not less cars traffic possible sprawl developments on this corridor effects upon biodiversity and los of green space / agricultural land greater levels of noise pollution not just from engines but also from surface interactions "
Chris Lowe
"I and my family have visited Stonehenge many times since I was a boy living in Dorset some 60 years ago, so I have a personal interest in trying to improve the local area to achieve a better experience for visitors. If helpful to you I could probably find photos from some of those visits. When I first visited Stonehenge one could walk around the stones, and of course there was comparatively little traffic. The situation became worse over the decades, but some of the decline was arrested and improved with the new Visitor Centre and removal of the fence between the viewing pathway and the stones, but of course the A303 traffic has now become horrendous. So my concerns about the Highways England proposals are that it does not do enough to improve the situation and does not restore the stones to their former glory and tanquillity. I consider that the proposals risk: Permanent damage to the World Heritage Site, its archaeology and setting. Damage to Blick Mead Mesolithic site and its setting. Loss of view from the road and need to pay to see the Stones. Disturbance of rare bird species (Stone Curlew and Great Bustard). increased noise and visual intrusion from more and faster traffic. The Highways England did not offer alternative options that would not damage the World Heritage Site in the consultation - which is a key requirement of Environmental Impact Assessments. It is well known that building or improving roads creates more traffic because of 'Induced traffic" effects. CPRE's 2017 report - The end of the road? Challenging the road-building consensus - has now found the most comprehensive evidence to date that building new roads is not the solution. The new research shows that road schemes: generate more traffic – often far above background trends over the longer term lead to permanent and significant environmental and landscape damage show little evidence of economic benefit to local economies See: www.cpre.org.uk/what-we-do/transport/roads So new thinking is needed, and not the tired old repitition of the "more roads" mantra. Highways England claims that: "Through the operation, maintenance and improvement of its roads, Highways England’s aspiration is: ‘a strategic road network working more harmoniously with its surroundings to deliver an improved environment.’" (www.gov.uk/government/publications/highways-england-environment-strategy). Clearly this proposal does not meet that aspiration, nor does it meet the Government's 25 year Environment Strategy which aims to create a better environment than we currently have. Finally, UNESCO's advisers say the scheme should not go ahead in its present form, so the Applicant must go back and reconsider options that would avoid all these apects. Thank you"
Christine Bardsley
"My representation will cover the following issues: - Permanent damage to the World Heritage Site, its archaeology and setting. - UNESCO's advisers say the scheme should not go ahead in its present form. - Concerns about damage to Blick Mead Mesolithic site and its setting. - Lack of alternative options that would not damage the World Heritage Site in the consultation. - Loss of view from the road and subsequent requirement to pay to see the Stones. - Disturbance of rare bird species such as the Stone Curlew and Great Bustard. - increased noise from more and faster traffic."
Christopher Sauvarin
"UNESCO does not approve of the current scheme, this alone should be a huge red flag against the scheme as it stands. The site is unique and only if the archaeology is preserved can it be subject to later study with new, improved and enhanced techniques that are likely to reveal new knowledge. Likely damage to the surroundings of Blick Mead Mesolithic site and itself. The lack of alternate options that would not damage the world heritage site. Environmental disturbance of wildlife including rare species. Traffic noise"
Christopher Wain
"I am very concerned at the risk of irreparable harm being done to a unique archaeological site."
Claire Kime
"UNESCO object to this scheme and other options have not been adequately explored or represented. "
Claire Mellish
"This is a World Heritage Site and it is also of great historical, cultural and emotional significance to all British citizens. Unfortunately this scheme is exclusive in nature, effectively putting even the sight of the stones behind a paywall with loss of view from the road and causing irreparable damage to the WHS, its archaeology, setting and view. I do not understand why no options were considered which avoided such harm. UNESCO’s international advisers say the scheme should not go ahead in its present form. Collateral damage to the Blick Mead Mesolithic site and its setting only became apparent later. I am also concerned about the fate of rare bird species (Stone Curlew and Great Bustard) during construction and lack of mitigation. This site is so important that it should not just be available to wealthier NT customers."
Claire Nahmad
" Permanent damage to the World Heritage Site, its archaeology and setting. UNESCO's advisers say the scheme should not go ahead in its present form. Concerns about damage to Blick Mead Mesolithic site and its setting. Lack of alternative options that would not damage the World Heritage Site in the consultation. Loss of view from the road and need to pay to see the Stones. (A document exists written and signed by the benefactor who bequeathed the site to the nation stating clearly that fees to see Stonehenge should never be more than one shilling.) Disturbance of rare bird species (Stone Curlew and Great Bustard). Increased noise from more and faster traffic. General recognition that this is sacred land, and that this applies not just to the surface of the land but beneath the surface as well. "
Colin Jones
"I am a concerned individual, and frequent user of the A303. I don't believe these works are justifiable to save a few minute's jorney time. I am concerned about permanent damage to the World Heritage Site, its archaeology and setting. There should be other alternative options that would not damage the World Heritage Site in the consultation. Besides that, I like to see Stonehendge when I drive through and it would be a shame to lose that."
Colleen I Spalding
"I do not think that Highways England should persist in its idea to put a large duel carriage way in place which will negatively impact on the UNESCO / Stonehenge World Heritage Site. I have expressed this opinion previously as have many others and it is disappointing to find that Highways England seems determined to ignore public opinion and risk damaging a site which has been in place for centuries to facilitate a small number of vehicles (in the overall scheme of things) being able to traverse the area somewhat more quickly. Hopefully the plans submitted to the Planning Inspectorate will be rejected and that there will be no presupposition that traffic access and speed should outweigh the need to protect such a unique and priceless site. Each generation on this earth is duty bound to protect the riches it borrows. Destroying a pre-historic site will hardly cause today's Government to be viewed with respect by history and future generations should it decide to approve this mistaken plan which cannot be supported environmentally or economically. If the plan should be approved (and Heaven forfend) the damage which will be done to Stonehenge, its archaeology and its setting is irrevocable. It will not be possible for future generations to realize what an appalling idea it was and redress the balance. In addition to damage to the actual site there is the fact that the site will no longer be visible from the road, that everyone will have to pay to see something which has been part of our history from time immemorial, that damage could well be done to the flora and fauna (rare bird species) as well as to the World Heritage Site by increased noise, disturbance during building, etc. Please do not approve this plan. Ask Highways England, instead, to propose an alternative which totally avoids this wonderful set of stones and the area surrounding them. "
Council for British Archaeology
"The Council for British Archaeology has long maintained an interest in the protection, conservation, management and public understanding of the Stonehenge & Avebury World Heritage Site (WHS). We have made detailed responses in recent decades to relevant consultations concerning Stonehenge. Our position has been guided by a set of Cardinal Principles, agreed by our members in General Meeting (most recently updated in November 2016), which are: 1. to protect and conserve Stonehenge itself and its landscape of inter-related monuments 2. to manage appropriately and plan for the whole WHS landscape whose prehistoric significance is now becoming increasingly clearly understood 3. to further public understanding of that increasing significance Our members also agreed a series of principles for assessing proposed changes to the siting and design of new infrastructure and land-use (and, where relevant, the removal or alteration of the existing). CBA trustees met in December 2018 to assess the latest published plans for the A303 at Stonehenge and agreed that the CBA should register as an interested party for the public examination of the proposals. We commend Highways England and their advisors for the considerable efforts which have been taken to improve upon previously published plans and work up proposals which will undoubtedly provide significant benefits within the WHS by removing a large part of the current A303 from its surface. However, we are not able to support the proposals as they will cause considerable damage to the surviving archaeological remains within the WHS and to the setting of key monuments within the landscape. This will have an unacceptable negative impact on the Outstanding Universal Value of the WHS. Our aim in registering as an interested party for the public examination is to allow us to make more detailed representations at the appropriate time and encourage further consideration to be given to the appropriate archaeological mitigation strategy to be used if the development were to go ahead in one of the world's premier archaeological landscapes. We are also concerned about the potential impact of the construction methods to be used on the groundwater levels in relation to the important Blick Mead Mesolithic site and the areas of the WHS landscape around the tunnel portals and surface dual carriageways. Further details are needed through the public examination to allow assessments to be made of the likely damage caused by the construction process. Whilst we do not necessarily object to new development within the WHS boundary (as we accept that the boundaries are relatively arbitrary in their current positioning), we are concerned about the potential impact on the surface of the WHS of the tunnel portals and the dual carriageway A303, particularly at the western end, and the implications for the setting and appreciation of the cultural landscape. We look forward to playing a constructive role in the public examination process to ensure that these issues of concern are explored more fully before a final decision is made. "
Council of British Druid Orders (CoBDO) (Council of British Druid Orders (CoBDO))
"1 . Irreparable damage to the WHS, its archaeology and setting, described by UNESCO as a "landscape without parallel", particularly in regard to the western section between the cut and Longbarrow X-roads. 2. UNESCO's international advisors say the scheme shouldn't go ahead in its present from, and their advice should be regarded as crucial. 3. Concerns about damage to Blick Mead Mesolithic site and its setting. This shows continuous occupation going back 5000BC and beyond. The oldest ceremonial complex in Europe, still in use today. 4. Lack of alternative options in consultation that would not damage the World Heritage Site, such as the long tunnel … 5. Loss of the view from the road, and need to pay to see the Stones in future. There is no observational platform/facility to observe Turner's "priceless" view. And there has been no joining up of byway 12 north and south, for others to enjoy view and/or attend Stonehenge for religious purposes. 6. Disturbance of rare bird species (Stone Curlew and Great Bustard) and others. 7. Increased noise from faster traffic, particularly in regard to the western section between the cut and Longbarrow X-roads, destroying the so-called "peaceful" atmosphere of the WHS, with background visual intrusion from night-time lighting, going into and out of "the cut"."
CPRE South West (Campaign to Protect Rural England) (CPRE South West (Campaign to Protect Rural England))
"CPRE SW represents the seven county branches in the South West of England and thousands of individual CPRE members. These comments add to and reiterate the concerns/objections already stated in our consultation responses of 28th February 2017 & 17th April 2018. CPRE SW objects to the proposed A303 Stonehenge Expressway for the following reasons: • Causing severe and irreparable damage to the WHS, its archaeology and setting, described by UNESCO as a ‘landscape without parallel’. UNESCO’s international advisers say this scheme should not go ahead. • It will not as purported improve the overall tranquillity and setting of the WHS. • Images used do not show the negative impacts from signage, lighting and other infrastructure, and the predicted increased traffic. • Damage to the archeological landscape and heritage features that remain including these still to be examined and discovered. • Failure to protect unique assets for future generations to enjoy. • Inadequate heritage impact assessment • Being contrary to relevant national planning policy, local plan policy and the WHS management plan, and to national and international legislation and conventions. • Negative impacts on the integrity of the River Avon SAC from construction of the tunnel (pollution and changes in groundwater movement). • Threats to the integrity of the ANNEX 1 Stone Curlew and Great Bustard population (Salisbury Plain SPA) from construction and operation of the road, and in breach of the Habitats Regulations and Habitats Directive. • There is no convincing evidence to show that the scheme would meet its fourth ‘broad objective ‘to improve biodiversity’ • The consultation has throughout been flawed with inadequate consideration of options, including non-road transport approaches and public transport. • A paucity of evidence and analysis has been provided for informed responses, and to justify the suggested ‘benefits’, including benefit or disbenefit to local communities • Will be damaging to local tourism businesses and the local economy. • Now to state that a road through the World Heritage Site is the “preferred route” is highly misleading. • The A303/385 scheme overall is poor value for money and even without the questionable, and from our evidence, ill-conceived benefit of the ‘heritage contingent valuation’, the economic case is extraordinarily weak. • No convincing evidence that the overall scheme would bring economic benefit to the South West. • The predicted increase in traffic on the route ranges from 20% to 40% or more, though the A303 Public Information brochure “improving journeys” makes no mention of this. • The Infrastructure Commission identified the need for connectivity improvements, and Highways England’s own stats show that the need is for better sub regional business and leisure connections and the benefits of highway and public transport options have not been considered together. • No assessment of the cumulative effects of the programme in terms of increased traffic and emissions. Given the above it is impossible to understand how this scheme has been justified, and we remain astounded that Government wishes to take forward a development that will damage forever what is one of the most important cultural places nationally and globally. "
Dan Lawrence
"Irreparable damage to the WHS, its archaeology and setting, described by UNESCO as a ‘landscape without parallel’ UNESCO’s international advisers say the scheme should not go ahead in its present form Concerns about damage to Blick Mead Mesolithic site and its setting Lack of alternative options in consultation that would not damage the World Heritage Site Disturbance of rare bird species (Stone Curlew and Great Bustard)"
Daniel J Teague
"My reason for completing this form include: Permanent damage to the World Heritage Site, its archaeology and setting. UNESCO's advisers say the scheme should not go ahead in its present form. Lack of alternative options that would not damage the World Heritage Site in the consultation. Disturbance of wild life and rare bird species (Stone Curlew and Great Bustard). increased noise and vibrations from more and faster traffic. There must be a better way that will not effect the ways of our ancestors."
Daniel Miller
"1 - there is no clear evidence road congestion will be improved 2 - there is too much focus on 'bronze age henge' and not enough planning for mitigation of impacts on multiperiod landscape and archaeology. 3 - specifically; there is very poor planning for the Mesolithic and potential Palaeolithic evidence that might be encountered/destroyed; evidence from these periods extends our understanding of Salisbury plain area back to 1000's of years before the first henge. The evidence might include soils and geomorphology, variably distributed lithic artefacts, and exceptionally important sites such as Blick Meads. Thus far, there is no indication that these issues/periods/material evidences are being seriously planne3d for in any mitigation of ground disturbance caused by the proposal. This area is far too important nationally and internationally to treated to the typical commercial (lacklustre) mitigation that usually accompanies schemes of this kind. It is also of wide interest, and any specific archaeological mitigation Briefs, Site works, and the Results should be absolutely Open, Timely and Transparent for all to see. There is no evidence that this will happen, therefore I object strongly to this scheme. "
Darrielle Devese Jenkins
"No permanent plans to put through anything that could damage the site any further. It' had historic and ancient burial ground and should not be distributed in any way that could damage it and destroy what is there . "
Dave Wallace
"The WHS is of global significance and much of the surrounding land has lain undisturbed and without proper academic archaeological investigation. The merits of a poorly located road build out are completely outweighed by the loss of undisturbed, globally significant scientific evidence and artefacts. Future techniques will undoubtedly yield even greater understanding., All of this will be permanently destroyed unnecessarily for a road which could bypass this particularly and uniquely sensitive area. It is unlikely future generations will look favourably on this unforgivable short term cost saving. Much as we now view the loss of ancient indigenous sites in the last centuary and earlier. A full public enquiry must be held and all view points heard and addressed. This must include the impact of the clearing and construction phase as well as the lasting legacy the area will suffer. "
David Atkin
"My main complaint is that this scheme in its current form irreparably damage the Stonehenge landscape for thousands of years to come and destroy fragile archaeology there needs to be preserved for future generations. Indeed, I’m given to understand the strategy so far adopted felt it should take into account any surviving archaeology in the subsoil with evaluation trenches just been cut straight to the natural chalk. "
David Barthram
"I am concerned that the plans for the A303 near Stonehenge will, if they are approved, cause permanent damage to the World Heritage Site, its archaeology and setting and concerned about damage to Blick Mead Mesolithic site and its setting. There seem to be no alternative options in the consultation that would not damage the World Heritage Site. I am also very concerned about disturbance to rare bird species like the Stone Curlew and Great Bustard. "
David Boston
"Driving a road through this area would lead to a loss of knowledge and area which would be a catostrophe."
David Ford
"This is an OBJECTION to the scheme for a number of reasons but principally the irreparable damage this will cause to the archaeology and site setting including Blick Mead Mesolithic Site. The existing road allows a longstanding view of the site which people use it for. It merely slows traffic and there is no justification for the expense of destruction of a World Heritage Site for merely speeding through traffic. There is much still to discover and we have a duty of care to future generations to keep/preserve as much as possible and no alternatives to do this. Disturbance of rare bird and other species and the long established undisturbed habitat, which has accrued over a long period of time and cannot be easily or even replaced. Measured against the uniqueness of the site, there is no justification for a new road which vandalises the site purely for those who wish to avoid it. "
David Holland Smith
"I am concerned if it is the case that the decision to proceed with this work is being taken without approval from UNESCO. Since one stated objective for the work is to restore the World Heritage Site towards its original setting, then risking the loss of WHS status, if this is the case, would be counter-productive. I am also concerned that the plans for Countess Junction are not sufficiently sympathetic, either aesthetically or acoustically, to the surroundings and the fact that the A303 effectively divides Amesbury into two pieces. The indicative drawings in the consultation document show no acoustic measures at the Countess fly-over and did not satisfactorily represent the proposal as it now stands. "
David Thalenberg
"Stonehenge is probably the most recognisable, iconic and well-regarded prehistoric site in the world. To construct a tunnel under it would both threaten o damage it, from the construction work itself, and from the traffic Passaic through. In addition, the requirement to conduct archeological studies during construction would create cost overruns that are not sustainable, and delays that are not planned. As an example, look at the London Crossrail project."
Davinia Baldwin
"If the application for the dual carriage way is allowed to go ahead it will result in .Permanent damage to the World Heritage Site, Stonehenge both in terms of its archaeology and setting. . potential damage to Blick Mead Mesolithic site and its setting .disturbance of rare birds the stone curlew and great bustard. .Loss of view from the road of the stones, further limiting individuals ability to visit / see this important part of our history. .increased noise from more and faster traffic which is fundamentally damaging to the nature of Stonehenge In addition UNESCO's advisers say the scheme should not go ahead in its present form. I feel that there must be alternative options which should be considered and these do not appear within the consultation which is at best an oversight and is a complete dereliction of duty "
Davy King
"I am seriously concerned about permanent damage to this World Heritage Site, its archaeology and setting. I am also worried about damage to Blick Mead Mesolithic site and its setting. UNESCO's advisers say the scheme should not go ahead in its present form. There is a lack of alternative options that would not damage the World Heritage Site in the consultation. "
Debi Lysaght
"Permanent damage to the World Heritage Site, its archaeology and setting. UNESCO's advisers say the scheme should not go ahead in its present form. Concerns about damage to Blick Mead Mesolithic site and its setting. Lack of alternative options that would not damage the World Heritage Site in the consultation. Loss of view from the road and need to pya to see the Stones. Disturbance of rare bird species (Stone Curlew and Great Bustard). increased noise from more and faster traffic. Also as a pagan I feel that this is a crude and abusive attempt to defame what is essentially a sacred religious site and as such, this site and its surroundings should be left alone not have roads put through/under it. It should be preserved not violated. You would not have this happening through York Minster or london cathedrals. Please listen to us the people and stop this once and for all."
Debi Richens
"These are all of my concerns: Permanent damage to the World Heritage Site, its archaeology and setting. UNESCO's advisers say the scheme should not go ahead in its present form. Concerns about damage to Blick Mead Mesolithic site and its setting. Lack of alternative options that would not damage the World Heritage Site in the consultation. Loss of view from the road and need to pay to see the Stones. Disturbance of rare bird species (Stone Curlew and Great Bustard). Increased noise from more and faster traffic. "
Deborah Lee
"I am concerned about the impact that the proposed works will have on the environment in an area of outstanding natural beauty I believe that it is wrong to deprive people a free view of such an important part of our heritage "
Deborah Walsh
"This road would mean irreparable damage to the WHS, its archaeology and setting, described by UNESCO as a ‘landscape without parallel’. UNESCO’s international advisers say the scheme should not go ahead in its present form and have cconcerns about damage to Blick Mead Mesolithic site and its setting. Lack of alternative options in consultation that would not damage the World Heritage Site Loss of the view from the road and need to pay to see the Stones in future Disturbance of rare bird species (Stone Curlew and Great Bustard) Increased noise from faster traffic."
Denise Long
"That the proposed scheme will cause severe, irreparable damage to the environs of Stonehenge to the detriment of its World Heritage status and future generations. It is not just about the henge itself, but it's place in the much wider prehistoric environment; a site of international importance. The tunnel needs to be longer to avoid damaging sensitive areas that are likely to contain other significant finds and which, with future developments in archaeological techniques, could increase our knowledge about this world class landscape"
Dennis Price
"Dear Sir This is the most important archeological site in Britain. It needs to be treated as such not by having a tunnel that will damage the area during its construction but when built. Whilst not against a tunnel it must be built in so that the construction does not compromise the site ie it need to be deep and much longer than currently planned so as not to be inany way obtrusive or damage any historic artifacts. Please ensure this is the case as damage cannot be undone after and we must remember we are custodians of the site for future generations. Yours sincerely. Dennis Price."
Derek Flockton
"Stonehenge is unique; hence its UNESCO World Heritage status. There can be no justification in damaging any part of the site just as we would not allow damage to Hyde Park or York Minster. The proposed new road would damage nesting sites of rare birds such as the Stone Curlew and Great Bustard. We have a duty to protect wild habitats, otherwise we have no moral right to urge Brazil's Trump of the Tropics not to destroy the Amazon. If we cannot protect the last vestiges of historical and habitat sites, why should countries like Brazil save us from Climate chaos.. why not destroy their precious habitats? They have done far less damage than us so far."
Derek Harris
"I find it detrimental to the history of the historic monument that is Sonehenge to interfere with the surrounding area and to build more roads and an underpass. This will destroy one of our oldest heritage sites."
Dilys Guildford
"The area of the A303 Stonehenge, is a World Heritage site, I strongly object to the new duel carriage highway intrusion. It should not go ahead in its present form. There has not been an alternative option or plan put forward to prevent the permanent damage to this vitality important site. The disturbance to the wild life and the wild rare bird species will cause irreparable damage. UNESCO's own advisers say the scheme should not go ahead in its present form, please respect and listen to reason. This is a World Heritage site that the public wish to be able to see from the road, and be able to enjoy Blick Mead Mesolithic site. The surrounding area of Stonehenge has many other archaeological excavations to be undertaken, the remaining works must be assisted for our heritage to be complete."
Dr Caroline Hawkyard
"Concerns over the following: increased noise and air pollution due to elevation of the road in relation to our property, as well as increased volume and flow of traffic. Effect on the views from our property as a result of the road elevation (into the field of view from all elevations of our property). Impact on house value and ability to sell."
Dr Dave Buxton
"I believe that the new expressway planned will cause permanent damage to the World Heritage site, a view shared with UNESCO itself."
Dr Ian Magrath
"The massive nature of the excavations and the roadworks themselves will dwarf the historic site, while at the same time the tunnel portals will be too close to the stones: a longer tunnel (though obviously more expensive) would produce less visual impact in relation to the central site. However, not only are other historic elements present over a larger surface area than the well-known central portion, but excavations will inevitably bring to light new historically important findings at various depths, given that the whole area has probably had religious significance for thousands of years. There are likely to be delays to the works and consequent costs while any such finds are investigated."
Dr John Collier
"The proposed changes to the A303 are totally unsuitable."
Dr Michele Wollstonecroft
"• Irreparable damage to this unique, emblematic and vulnerable site, both the archaeology and setting, which is described by UNESCO as a ‘landscape without parallel’ • UNESCO likewise recommends against this highway plan • It would damage not only Stonehenge but a number of other important archaeological and heritage sites, including the Blick Mead Mesolithic site and its setting • Other options do not appear to have been considered • The vista surrounding the site, and it's visibility across the landscape would be ruined • The proposed highway would also disturb wildlife in the area, including rare and endangered species • The impact of increased traffic and noise on the area, could, over time, damage the site"
Dr Tim Marshall
"There are more than sufficient strong reasons for the Inpectorate to recommend refusal of this project. This should be refusal of the whole scheme. If the Examining Inspectors find reasons to consider say one part, such as for example the Winterbourne Stoke bypass, as possibly approvable, Highways England should go back to the beginning and consider this part afresh. It is essential that the scheme is considered as a whole, in relation to alternative options, and within a long term perspective, the kind of perspective looking to the end of the century and fully taking into account the likely changes in society, technologies and climate over this period. It will be tragic if the early twenty first century destroys an area that has survived to the degree it has for the millenia since the area was settled by humans, this destruction happening in the blink of an eye in comparison with those timescales, by the operation of a thoroughly flawed logic. Two of the central reasons for not approving the DCO are as follows. Firstly, the scheme emerged simply from a Treasury decision in 2013, not from a genuine and rigorous consideration of alternative options in the proper wider sense - as the documentation makes clear, for example in chapter 3 of the PEIR (weak as this is). All the narrowing down which has taken place since 2014 has no doubt been conscientiously carried through its various Stages, but the absence of proper consideration at the start means that this all has limited validity. The PINS examination should consider this, to make this examination worthwhile. The current National Networks NPS, in spite of its widely criticised weaknesses, does not provide carte blanche support for approval of all sub-standard road schemes. This scheme should have been the subject some years ago of a full and totally independent public debate, sponsored not by the developer (Highways England), whose remit to build the scheme is after all clear enough. Unfortunately no such full debate was held, when the real alternatives of long term sustainable transport policy making could have been presented and deliberated on. The widespread public scepticism about these consultation processes will only increase if the current procedures are not amended. The A303 project is a good example of the problems generated. There are practical alternatives, as I and others have repeatedly argued. Government and Highways England simply turn a blind eye to these alternatives. Secondly, the scheme worsens the impact on the area as a whole. The present situation is not seriously damaging to the area, in the opinion of very many visitors and archaeological and planning experts. The project damages the landscape by its massive scale and by its intrusion into the ground of the district, to achieve something which is not at all necessary, in long term transport policy, planning and environmental terms. The project will in fact seriously worsen the long term prospects for moves to sustainable travel patterns in this part of England. "
Dr. Lauren McIntyre
"The plans for the Stonehenge Tunnel as they currently stand have serious negative implications for the landscape, archaeology and surrounding environment,as follows : · Irreparable damage to the World Heritage Site, its archaeology and setting. · UNESCO's advisers say the scheme should not go ahead in its present form. It is also possible the site will lose its world heritage status, a blow to UK tourism · Will cause damage to the Blick Mead Mesolithic site and its setting. · Lack of alternative options that would not damage the World Heritage Site in the consultation. · Loss of view from the road and need to pay to see the Stones. · Disturbance of rare bird species (Stone Curlew and Great Bustard). · increased noise from more and faster traffic"
Duncan Burwood
"1) At a time when greenhouse gas driven climate change is an imminent world crisis, we should not be building more roads which increase the capacity of the road system. 2) Any major roadworks risks serious damage to Stonehenge & the surrounding historical archaeological sites."
Duncan Cameron McGill
"This site is a World Heritage site and should be preserved as such for future generations and not be endangered by highway expansion. Increased traffic volumes will increase atmospheric pollution and this will harm not only the monument but wild life and also farm animals which form part of our food chain. There is also a great danger to the bee population, upon which we rely for pollination of our food crops."
Edmond Deighton
"The Stonehenge landscape is unique, not only to England but around the world, and should be protected in perpetuity. The proposed works will cause irreparable damage to the surrounding area and are against UNESCO advice, thus endangering its World Heritage Status. More cost-effective ways of promoting faster journey routes along that stretch of the A3030 and cheaper solutions to create a more functional road system that will ease congestion on the A303 have been ignored in order to progress the tunnel 'vision. The A303 is not one, continuous roadblock - there are peak times in the year when it becomes congested due to holiday traffic but queuing/delays are mostly caused by drivers slowing down to look at the Stones. I have watched this occur on multiple occasions, with coaches being one of the main instigators. Solutions should be sought for the specific issues encountered - the problem has been way overstated to justify the scale of this project. We are on the verge of an historic catastrophe if Highways England continue with this plan."
Elaine Bailey
"I think this scheme desecrates an ancient sacred landscape, the tunnel will further damage important archeological artefacts and the iconic view of Stonehenge from the road will be forever lost. UNESCO advise is that a complete rethink is in order, and we have already seen wanton destruction by surveying engineers demonstrating that Highways England do not understand the nature of the landscape at all. There are other Mesolithic sites in the vicinity which are being ignored in this planning and will be damaged or destroyed. These plans need to be put on hold until more vital archeological work has been done and advise from experts heeded rather than ignored in the interests of money saving on one hand and money making by Stonehenge paying tourism on the other. In short it’s a catastrophic disaster of a plan and needs to be completely re thought out by disinterested experts. "
Eleanor Chandler
"This scheme would cause permanent damage to the World Heritage Site, its archaeology and setting, and no alternative non-damaging options have been offered. UNESCO's advisers say the scheme should not go ahead in its present form. There are concerns about damage to Blick Mead Mesolithic site and its setting. Rare bird species (Stone Curlew and Great Bustard) would be disturbed. The stones would no longer be visible from the road."
Elisabeth Edwards
"The proposed scheme will cause devastating and permanent destruction to a unique and irreplaceable landscape, of world importance for its archaeological contents. UNESCO has advised against the current scheme going ahead. Already contractors have caused irreparable damage to the archaeological site at Blick Mead. Stonehenge sits within an ancient landscape, and all sense of this context will be lost if the Stones are no longer visible except for a fee. The proposed scheme will have a damaging environmental impact too, especially on rare bird species, such as the Stone Curlew and Great Bustard. The proposed scheme would create a greater volume of faster-moving traffic, at a time when the Government should be discouraging the use of fossil fuels for private transport. I believe that there are possible options for alternative, less destructive, schemes which have not been presented."
Elizabeth Hankins
"Stonehenge is one of Britains most important sites, a jewel in our crown and of world importance archeologically. Its natural beauty will be destroyed. It is described by UNESCO as a ‘landscape without parallel’ UNESCO’s international advisers themselves say the scheme should not go ahead in its present form and is unacceptable. The ley lines that run beneath Stonehenge are energetic links that will be disrupted. It is a spiritual site and mould be given the same respect as Uluru and other sacred sites worldwide. There have been no viable alternative options in consultation that would not damage the World Heritage Site It will mean the loss of the view from the road and turn it into a money earning tourist attraction, further demeaning its status. The need to pay to see the Stones in future is against the ethos of the stones. The excavations and building work and then increased traffic will cause disturbance to rare bird species in this location including Stone Curlew and Great Bustard. There will be increased noise from faster traffic and more pollution affecting this unique landscape and its ecology. "
Elizabeth Lodh
"I am concerned that this road will cause damage to the world heritage site. Why are there no alternatives in the plan, which would not damage or spoil the Stonehenge site? Why has the UNESCO advice not been listened to?"
Elton Barker
"The extent and scale of the potential damage to the archaeology and setting of this unique World Heritage Site are poorly understood. We *do* need to listen to experts."
Emma Hodgson
"I am familiar with Salisbury Plain, Stonehenge and the A303. I have lived in the area for 12 years. I object to the length of the proposed tunnel being too short and damaging the landscape. I object to the proposed routes to the west of Long Burrow roundabout bypassing Winterbourne Stoke. I fear that the route from the new A303 to the Stonehenge visitor centre along the A360 will be a bottleneck with vehicles languishing underground in pollution filled tunnels. I object to the cost of the project. I believe it is a poor use of government finances. I understand that the Heritage site status is at risk."
Emma Summers
"My view is that Stone Henge is Internationally famous. If we build a busy road too close to it there is absolutely no way to guarantee that the famous historical site will not suffer irreparable damage. To allow this to happen would broadcast us on the world stage as philistines who care nothing for our heritage. I would be embarrassed by my country if we allow the endangerment of such an iconic part of our history."
Emma Tilbury
"Stonehenge is a UNESCO World Heritage Site and Should be Preserved and the area around it by whatever means, Any work around & underneath it could Permanent damage this World Heritage Site, its archaeology and setting. UNESCO's advisers say the scheme should not go ahead in its present form. Aalternative options should be looked that would not damage the World Heritage Site in its consultation. Loss of view from the road and need to pya to see the Stones. There is also the Disturbance of rare bird species Stone Curlew and Great Bustard. "
Freeths LLP on behalf of English Heritage
"Application by Highways England for an Order Granting Development Consent for the A303 Amesbury to Berwick Down English Heritage relevant representation to Planning Inspectorate 10th January 2019 1. Introduction: 1.1 English Heritage (EH) is a charitable trust which cares for over 420 historic buildings, monuments and sites across the country on behalf of the nation. Our role is to conserve these historic sites to the highest possible conservation standards, in-keeping with their status as scheduled ancient monuments which form part of England's national heritage. 1.2 The prehistoric stone circle of Stonehenge is the best known site within our care and as part of the wider Stonehenge and Avebury World Heritage Site (WHS), it is a powerful witness to the once great communities of both the Neolithic and Bronze Age. We are responsible for conserving and managing a significant element of the WHS and welcome over 1.5 million visitors a year to Stonehenge from all around the world. 1.3 To date, EH has been involved in the A303 scheme as a stakeholder being represented on a number of Highways England groups including the Heritage Monitoring and Advisory Group (HMAG) and the Stakeholder Strategy Board. EH has offered our expert advice to Highways England as a major conservation body and operators of the globally iconic visitor attraction of Stonehenge. 1.4 EH is also an “affected person” under S59 of the Planning Act 2008 in that Highways England proposes to acquire EH land and land interests. 1.5 Removing the old Stonehenge visitor facilities adjacent to the Stones and the grassing over of the A344 in 2013 through EH’s Stonehenge Environmental Improvements Project have had a significant positive impact for the public and WHS. We consider that the current proposed A303 road scheme has the potential to further transform the Stonehenge part of the World Heritage Site and make significant improvements to the setting of the Stonehenge monument (which is one of the WHS’s attributes of Outstanding Universal Value (OUV)). Provided it is well designed and located sensitively, this scheme could greatly enhance the OUV of the WHS whilst simultaneously improving the setting of the Stones themselves, and people's experience of them. 2. English Heritage interests 2.1 Impacts on Stonehenge and the World Heritage Site 2.1.1 EH is particularly interested in the design details and finishes of the scheme and how they might impact upon the WHS and its attributes of OUV. EH has taken note of the documents provided in the DCO application and understands that the design details of some elements are not provided at this stage. However, given the highly sensitive heritage environment and significance of Stonehenge and the WHS, EH considers that further information is required at this stage in order to properly assess the proposals in order to understand the physical and visual impact of any infrastructure within the WHS - to ensure all elements of the scheme are designed and located to allow the benefits of the scheme within the WHS to be fully realised. These details include the surfaces and extent of proposed Non-Motorised User (NMU)/PROW routes, fencing, signage, lighting, street furniture, the portals, articulation and form of the cutting and walls and the green bridge (within the WHS) design and any other significant changes/introductions. 2.1.2 EH intends to continue discussions with Highways England over the further details required. 2.1.3 EH understands that there is potential for the restriction of future archaeological research within the affected part of the WHS (e.g. above the tunnel route). This would be contrary to the provisions of the Stonehenge WHS Management Plan. 2.2 Access to the English Heritage Visitor Centre and Stonehenge 2.2.1 As well as conserving the site of Stonehenge, it is part of EH’s remit to welcome visitors to the site hoping that we will inspire people to value, visit and enjoy it. EH wants to ensure visitors have an easy route to the Stonehenge Visitor Centre, both during the construction phases and after the scheme is finished. Ease of access and signage to the Stonehenge Visitor Centre is key to this. The DCO and application papers do not give any detail on what road signage will be installed to ensure it is clear and intuitive for drivers wanting to visit Stonehenge. There is a lack of detail on the temporary infrastructure for the construction period therefore EH is unable to assess its impact on the WHS and our visitor operation. 2.3 Public Rights of Way, NMU routes and vehicular access across the World Heritage Site 2.3.1 EH supports the opportunity this scheme offers to connect rights of way and remove unnecessary vehicular access within the WHS so that there is increased access and potential for people to explore the landscape on foot or on a bicycle or horse (where appropriate) in order to enjoy and understand Stonehenge within its wider landscape setting. 2.3.2 During the public consultation process EH voiced its objection to the proposal to link existing byways open to all traffic (BOATS) 11 and 12 with a new byway open to all traffic which we believed would create a new line of traffic across the WHS and negatively impact upon views from and towards the Stonehenge monument. EH welcomes the removal of the link but still remains concerned about the negative impact of traffic within the WHS particularly past Stonehenge itself caused by the existing BOATs. 2.3.3 As outlined above, EH feels there is a lack of information about the form of various NMU routes across the WHS. 2.3.4 EH objects to the section of the proposed restricted byway running alongside the A360 within the boundary of the Stonehenge Visitor Centre complex, creating a 4-metre wide byway for pedestrians, cyclists and carriages within the boundary of the Stonehenge Visitor Centre. EH objects to this proposal for the following reasons: • Potential safety risks particularly conflict between non-motorised byway users and motorised visitors • Potential security risks • Potential negative impact on EH visitor operation • Potential negative knock-on impacts for A360/B3086 road users • Negative impact on design principles of the Stonehenge Visitor Centre • Negative impact on recent investment in car parking 2.3.5 There are alternative routes that are better that would not give rise to the impacts above, including following, but outside the boundary of the Visitor Centre site as suggested by EH. The proposal for the restricted byway across part of the Visitor Centre site was introduced late and there was failure to consult and liaise with EH on the proposed right of way route selected before submission. EH has suggested the alternative route outside of the boundary of the Visitor Centre site, which is the subject of discussions with Highways England. The fact that EH’s suggested alternative route mentioned above is outside the land identified for compulsory acquisition does not a constitute compelling reason in the public interest to compulsorily acquire the land and interests in question, given the impacts. 3. Other Matters 3.1 EH’s last representation dated 13 August 2018 should be read in conjunction with and taken into account as part of these representations. 3.2 As an “affected person”, EH wishes to exercise its right to be heard at an examination hearing. 3.3 EH reserves the right to make additional representations including on any heritage assessments and impacts, impacts on EH’s property, land interests and operations including its Visitor Centre, impacts on its customers and the public, public right of way issues, any application documentation, the details and detailed design of the scheme and representations and documents of other people and bodies. 4. Conclusion: 4.1 For the reasons outlined above, EH registers as an interested party in the examination of the A303 DCO application."
Esso Petroleum Company, Limited
"Dear Sirs Esso Petroleum Company, Limited (Esso) and its agents, Fisher German, have been engaging with Highways England (HE) in relation their proposals for the A303 at Stonehenge (the Project) since 04 October 2017. The Project potentially impacts and interferes with Esso's existing underground 6” fuel pipeline which runs from Esso’s Fawley refinery near Southampton to Esso’s fuel distribution terminal at Avonmouth. This pipeline is one of a network of fuel distribution pipelines that form a critical part of the UK’s fuel supply network. Please note that Esso has funded, constructed and now operates this pipeline as a private company and not pursuant to any statutory undertaker powers. This pipeline is protected by easements secured through deeds of grant with the individual landowners and occupiers who host the pipeline. Construction works near or over the Esso pipeline can damage the pipeline or affect its future operation for the following reason. • Restriction of future access by surcharging the pipeline easement, thus rendering the pipeline unsafe should a fault or feature be identified by future in line inspections. • Third party damage during construction including strikes and pipeline failure due to repeated heavy plant crossing • Stress to the pipeline by overburdening without correct support Subject to the comments below, whilst Esso does not have concerns with the Project as a whole, Esso does have concerns over any impact to the operation of its pre-existing pipeline. Esso therefore objects to any interference with. extinguishment or suspension of the land rights relating to the pipeline or any Project activity that risks the operation of the pipeline. Barring infrequent maintenance, the pipeline operates on a continual 24/7 basis and interruption to its operation will have a significant impact on fuel supply in the south west of England and will have serious financial consequences for Esso. From Esso's engagement with HE to date, we understand that HE ‘s order limits at Ordnance Survey Grid Ref 407031,141374 encompass Esso's pipeline (and in particular the 6.125 meter “easement strip” where potentially damaging operations are prohibited by the land owner). This creates a risk to the pipeline. In addition HE has requested that Esso divert its pipeline in this area. The diversion will be in parallel to the existing line and constructed out of heavier wall pipe to allow for the over burden from the A303 Amesbury to Berwick Down Project. It is necessary to reflect that Esso will not gain future access to its pipeline as a result of the planned new road level. Any such works requires alternative land to be made available to us and requires careful planning and co-ordination to ensure the continued operation of the pipeline during the diversion works and wider Project construction works. There are therefore two areas in which HE and Esso will need to reach agreement. Firstly, the protective provisions to be included within the DCO regarding how HE will work in proximity to the pipeline asset, and secondly a diversion agreement to cover the funding, routing, procurement, associated land rights and construction of the requested pipeline diversion and subsequent abandonment of the diverted section of pipeline. Any such diversion will need to allow for the continued operation of the pipeline during the construction and commission of the diversion works. Esso fully expects these works to be at HE’s costs and in addition Esso expects, in the usual way, that HE will cover its advisor's costs in preparing and negotiating the protective provisions and the necessary agreements to cover the diversionary works. Esso have internally prepared drafts of the relevant protective provisions and diversion agreement. Esso's lawyers, VWV, first approached Pinsent Masons (lawyers for HE) for a cost undertaking on 22 August 2018. VWV finally received an acceptable undertaking for protective provisions on 24 October and sent Pinsent Masons Esso's proposed protective provisions on 22 October 2018. To date Esso or VWV have not received any response or comment on these proposals. VWV also requested on 31 October 2018 that an extended undertaking be provided to cover the diversion agreement. To date, VWV has not received this undertaking. Therefore, despite Esso's (and its advisors) best efforts and its proactive engagement with HE, Esso is unable to progress at this stage the necessary documentation or state it is close to an agreed position with HE. Esso is confident that the parties, acting responsibly, will be able to progress matters but at this stage Esso must make a relevant representation regarding the risk to its pipeline asset and Esso objects to any interference or risk by the Project to this asset and its related land rights. Esso looks forward to updating the Planning Inspectorate upon the state of negotiations and, if necessary, detailing our continued concerns in subsequent written representations to the Planning Inspectorate. "
Ewen Leveroni
"I'm very worried about the destructive effect that this new road will have on both the environment and on the archaeological value of the site. Clearly damage to the rivers is a very serious concern both during building and afterwards with issues of sunlight and habitat change. Furthermore there could be a serious impact on the Stone Curlew and the Great Bustard, 2 very rare birds. The topography of the area would also be altered we should be mindful of what the Iron Duke said about the irreparable damage caused to the battlefield site at Waterloo by the monument. In effect he argued that any understanding of the battle was now impossible because of the changes in topography. We must avoid similar around Stonehenge. In newspapers recently mention was made of damage to a Stone Age table by excavations linked to this project. This is a timely warning of the damage feared by UNESCO and many notable archaeologists. The road project represents a permanent scar through an unrivalled historical landscape: a landscape littered with informative and valuable archaeology. Furthermore there has been a paucity of alternatives and it seems to me a lack of desire to find a less damaging option. Finally the loss of the view of the stones from the road would be very sad as it makes the journey down the A303."
Frances Green
"My concern is about the longterm effect of this project on the enviroment. The proposed planns will have a severe impact on the local geology. The area represents a point where many old paths/roads meet. Digging a tunnel will undermine the locallity, disconnect and destablize."
Frances Howard-Gordon
"I am very concerned about the huge amount of permanent damage to the setting and precious archaeology of the Stonehenge World Heritage site and its environs if this proposed scheme is allowed to go ahead."
Francis Arthur Edwards
"I am concerned that this proposal will cause irreparable damage to this world heritage site & to the archaeology within it. Also the setting & nature of the whole area will be adversely affected by this road should its construction go ahead."
Francis Philip James Stoner
"“I OBJECT to this DCO Planning Application." REASONS FOR OBJECTION Viability / Judicial Review. The Treasury, National Infrastructure Commission, Office of Road & Rail and National Audit Office warn that the project is already over budget. Widespread opposition indicates a high risk of judicial review. Disability Discrimination. Disabled access to the WHS continues to be threatened if the tunnel is approved. Failed balancing exercises by Wiltshire Council resulted in excluding disabled via an ETRO quashed by Justice Swift on 21st December 2018; WHS Stakeholder Management WHSSM will now apply again for a Permanent WHS TRO despite Judge Behrens’ ruling in 2009 and reinforced by the 2011 Public Inquiry Decision by Alan Boyland BEng (Hons). Stonehenge community. The effect of the tunnel would be devastating on the community of general public, pilgrims, travellers, Druid Orders etc who celebrate regularly the Solstices, Equinoxes, solar, lunar and seasonal ceremonies on the WHS. Grassing the A303, planned reduction of BOATs to restricted byways/footpaths, render impossible the ‘since time immemorial’ gatherings. Equitable access would be lost to those who gather there sharing ancient knowledge, crafts, honouring Ancestors, holding ceremonies and ADO’s observational research. They are creating Intangible Cultural Heritage in the WHS Avebury & Stonehenge’s HOLY Places of Outstanding Universal Value; the importance of being able to continue these practices are described and recognised by UNESCO. Lack of transparency. The Developer’s own costings indicate the rejected southern route would be more cost effective. The Developer failed to provide overwhelming data against a southern route thus preventing the public from formulating effective counter arguments. Threat of loss of WHS status & monument damage. Highways England and the WHSSM continue to ignore strong warnings from UNESCO, ICOMOS, eminent groups of academics and archaeologists citing irreparable damage to the WHS, its archaeology and setting. A contractor incident of grave concern has already occurred to the unique Mesolithic site of Blick Mead. Threats to Wildlife and Habitats. Disturbance of rare bird species (Stone Curlew and Great Bustard) and habitat loss will increase once the A303 is grassed over. Any tree, plant or shrub that does not fit a Neolithic landscape has already been removed, drastically reducing bird cover. Pollution and noise health risks. The tunnel, designed short in order to avoid ventilation costs, will increase noise pollution. Inadequate and unclear data hinders public assessment of Developer’s estimates. Public Amenity - loss of free view of unique monument. The iconic drive on the A303 to view suddenly this breath-taking, sacred monument will be prevented and the free-to-all view of the Stones will be tragically lost forever."
Friends of the Earth
"Relevant Representation from Friends of the Earth The DCO should be rejected because: 1) It fails to meet the tests set out in the National Networks NPS that: “the Secretary of State must decide an application for a national networks nationally significant infrastructure project in accordance with this NPS unless he/she is satisfied that to do so would: • lead to the UK being in breach of its international obligations; • ... • ... • result in adverse impacts of the development outweighing its benefits; • be contrary to legislation about how the decisions are to be taken. 2) The A303 Stonehenge scheme does not fulfil its stated objectives, specifically those of: “Cultural Heritage - To help conserve and enhance the World Heritage Site” - in that it actually would cause serious and irreversible harm to part of the WHS, harm its setting and lead to loss in the site’s Outstanding Universal Value; and “Environment and Community - To improve biodiversity” - in that there is a high risk of loss of two Annexe 1 breeding bird species, Stone Curlew and Great Bustard, from the locality as a result of construction and operation of the scheme 3) No alternatives that avoid harm to the WHS were properly appraised or consulted upon 4) The effects of the scheme have been consistently mis-represented during consultations, and feedback received from consultations not taken into account 5) The economic case is extremely weak and very strongly depends on a manufactured heritage “benefit” expressed in monetary terms 6) The impacts of dualling the entire A303/A30/A358 corridor – a longer-term plan to which the government has announced its commitment, and of which this scheme is a part - are not properly factored in. Future traffic growth and its impacts are calculated as though only this scheme and two others (A303 Sparkford – Ilchester and A358 Southfields – Taunton) were to be constructed. However the actual longer term aim includes another five schemes that are expected to be included in a future roads investment period, with the aim of creating a continuous dual carriageway expressway between the M3 and the South West. If carried out in its entirety this programme would fuel further traffic growth and transfer from other corridors that would in turn aggravate negative impacts on landscape, biodiversity, heritage, communities, air quality and climate change. 7) The decision to progress the A303 Stonehenge scheme, as part of the A303, A358 and A30 corridor, should have been subject to Strategic Environmental Assessment, as set out in European directive 2001/42/EC and The Environmental Assessment of Plans and Programmes Regulations 2004, but this was not done. "
Gaynor Leake
"• Permanent damage to the World Heritage Site, its archaeology and setting. • UNESCO's advisers say the scheme should not go ahead in its present form. • Concerns about damage to Blick Mead Mesolithic site and its setting. • Lack of alternative options that would not damage the World Heritage Site in the consultation. • Loss of view from the road and need to pay to see the Stones. • Disturbance of rare bird species (Stone Curlew and Great Bustard). • increased noise from more and faster traffic. "
Gemma Allerton
"I am unhappy about the whole scheme, from the fact that no reasonable alternative was given during the consultation period to the lack of care given to the unique landscape.During the consultation period the residents of Amesbury were assured that no harm would come to the internationally imporant blick mead archaeoligical site but I have seen no plan thus far as to how they will carry out those assurances. This is a unique archaeolocial landscape, one of very few that does have features under the chalk line which may be harmed no matter how far under the ground the tunnel goes. I am concerned that UNESCO have been so damning to the scheme and I worry about the impact of the whole scheme on the World Heritage site. Why do we have World Heritage sites if we can still put a tunnel in them. Nobody knows what else is in this area of intese archaeology and it is not worth risking our heritage future for a road scheme which may or may not ease congestion (congestion which is only there during limited parts of the year unlike many other roads which are more in need of this investment of money). The most prominent archaeologists do not want the scheme and neither do the local people (despite the consultation telling them it was being done for them). There is not enough assurances about the traffic issies going throuhg the local villages especially with regards to coach companies using Amesbury as a car park to get a free view of Stonehenge which will no longer be available from the road. This road does not need this drastic action, there are other alternatives which are cheaper and better for the landscapes and these need to be explored properly before this scheme goes ahead."
Gerard Hales
"Stonehenge is an ancient site sacred to many who practice or are interested in the "Old Religion" of the British isles...believers assert that there are subtle energies which permeate and pervade at the site which come from underground water sources and the geology of the area..any disturbance of which is a desecration of the sacred landscape....It is nor permissible that the govt. should ignore the beliefs and feelings of so many or deny future generations access to an unspoilt place of worship...this is especially true as the true nature of the site (and-others like it), is not yet fully understood by modern science and that further study depends upon having the area preserved in totality with as little invasive technology or disturbance as possible...It a breach of fundamental religious freedoms to tunnel under or anywhere near this sacred landscape and the ancient structures upon it.."
Gill Stride
"The site may yet reveal more."
Gillian Cockwill
"I just wish to say that this is an Historical Site and any work being done in or around it would lead to earth subsidence or possible damage to the Stones themselves. There is no need to have a road running so near the site and can be put somewhere else. This would be a tragedy for future generations if this site was to be destroyed."
Gillian McAlister
"Permanent damage to the World Heritage Site, its archaeology and setting. UNESCO's advisers advise against the scheme in its present form. Serious concerns about damage to Blick Mead Mesolithic site and its setting, previously affected by the building of the A303 and must be preserved. The consultation considers no alternative options that would not damage the World Heritage Site. For instance, widening the road and planting trees to shield the road from the site. Loss of view from the road and need to pay to see the Stones which were given to the public by the last owner. Disturbance of rare bird species (Stone Curlew and Great Bustard). HUGE waste of money"
Graham Downie
"I object to the proposed scheme because I believe that: a) its scale and form will inevitably result in irreparable damage being done to this World Heritage Site, b) it is too easy a solution to the traffic problem and wholly lacking in vision, c) insufficient consideration, if any, has been give to alternative routes that would avoid Stonehenge entirely."
Great Bustard Group
"Great Bustards are listed as Annex 1 birds and designated vulnerable by the IUCN. The birds became extinct in the UK in the mid-1800s, the odd migrant bird has been recorded since. The Great Bustard is the Wiltshire County bird and is now on the Wiltshire Flag and the County Coat of Arms recognising its historical importance. A trial re-introduction project was set up in the UK 1998 with the first Great Bustards being imported from Russia in 2004 and Great Bustard eggs from Spain since 2014. The birds are reared on Salisbury Plain for release under licence from Natural England. In 2009 the project was successful in having the first wild hatched chicks, since then a minimum of 10 wild reared chicks are in the south west of the UK. The present population is at approximately 70+ birds with most of the population residing in South Wiltshire. The re-introduction of these bird was part of an EU Life project several years ago. The concern of the Great Bustard Group is that after huge input and 12 years of imports, the wild breeding will be severely compromised because of all the disturbance in already established breeding areas. The DCO application states that although disruption will be evident during construction it will not impact after construction as it is an ‘open grassland’ birds. Although old literature state this, observations since the project started has seen birds spend a high percentage of their time, particularly in the winter, on agricultural land and on similar habitat to Stone Curlews. The sightings and breeding of the birds on farmland that is earmarked for the scheme on the road construction and the construction villages itself has been observed for several years. The birds even though large, are extremely difficult to see and very shy. The disruption both in the pre-construction period and during construction is liable to disperse the birds further afield and away from the area they have chosen to inhabit themselves. The plan to ‘open up’ the land for access to the public, non-motorised vehicles etc. is also of great concern. At present much of the land surrounding the proposed construction sites is closed to walkers, cyclists etc. giving all wildlife, including the bustards, deer, Common curlews, many stone curlews and several more species the opportunity to hide, breed and not be disturbed by humans, dogs and vehicles. Unfortunately, the Great Bustard Group have not been approached for any detail regarding the birds and project even after post consultation representation has been given. Instead, information was obtained from outdated information from 3rd parties far removed from the present project giving a distorted view of the current situation. The bustards have been recognised as a success story in the media in recent years. All have visited the site and presented the bustard story both on television and in various magazine and newspaper articles. The Great Bustard Group would be happy to host a site visit in order to present true up to date information. "
Green Lane Association (Wiltshire area) (Green Lane Association (Wiltshire area))
"The Green Lane Association (GLASS) through local representation has been involved with the scheme through all of the Pre-application process and seek to continue involvement through the rest of the process. We were encouraged by the efforts made by Highways England in the early part of the process, with the Byways Open to All Traffic (BOAT) being retained and the proposal of a newly dedicated link between BOAT’s Amesbury 11 & 12. However, with the now proved illegal imposition of the Experimental Traffic Regulation Order by Wiltshire Council it is obvious that we need to continue our opposition to certain elements of the scheme as follows: 1. Much is made in the documentation of the “Cultural Heritage” of the World Heritage Site (WHS) we would contend that the existing byways with their current public rights are worthy of heritage status themselves and form an important link to the evolution of the site. 2. There appears to be an agenda to “restore the tranquil environment and setting of Stonehenge” surely this is an impossible aim whilst facilitating a 1,582,532 (2017 figures) visitor footfall. As the majority of these visitors travel from the visitor centre to the stones by shuttle bus the relatively small number of vehicular movements along the byways surely pales into insignificance. It is also to be expected that once the traffic on the A303 is travelling through the proposed tunnel motor vehicles pulling off the main road for occupants to view the stones will be eliminated as will the risks associated. 3. The documentation states “The scheme will do much to re-unite the two halves of the site” maintaining the current public rights of way and reinstating the pre-application link between BOAT’s Amesbury 11 & 12 will aid in the achievement of this aim. 4. Wiltshire has a unique network of un-metalled roads. In its submitted form the scheme would necessitate the stopping up/closure of two BOAT’s, with the likelihood of another attempt to exclude motorized users within the WHS being almost inevitable this would add a further two and would have the effect of destroying the historic route of un-metalled road between the North and South of the area. 5. The scheme claims to be “Creating public rights of way” but from a recreational motorised user or a horse and carriage drivers perspective it seeks to extinguish long held public access rights. "
Green Lanes Environmental Action Movement (GLEAM) (Green Lanes Environmental Action Movement (GLEAM))
"Introduction The Green Lanes Environmental Action Movement (GLEAM) was founded in 1995 to campaign for changes in the law of England and Wales to stop off-road drivers damaging or destroying green lanes and for the rights of walkers, horse riders, pedal cyclists, carriage drivers and the disabled to use green lanes (public rights of way not sealed with tarmac or concrete) without danger, difficulty or inconvenience. Points we agree with GLEAM supports the provision of new restricted byways (RBs) as part of the A303 scheme proposed by Highways England, because these will expand the public rights of way network in the area for non-motorised users. We also support the stopping-up of byway open to all traffic (BOAT) AMES 11 where it meets the former A303, as this should reduce the number of motor vehicles using it. Points we disagree with However we think that Highways England should go further, and should liaise with Wiltshire Council to stop up or otherwise prohibit recreational motor vehicle use of the BOATs AMES11 and AMES 12 (which passes within 300 metres of Stonehenge). Otherwise, “the scheme’s objective of fully removing the sight and sound of traffic from the vicinity of Stonehenge” (page 40 of the consultation booklet) will not be achieved. Prohibiting recreational motor vehicle use of the two BOATs would also avoid adverse impacts on the Normanton Down Barrow Group, which is also part of the Stonehenge World Heritage Site. We also ask that Highways England reconsider its proposals to upgrade bridleway BSJA3 to BOAT (label reference C in document 2.6 Rights of Way and Access Plans) and to create a new BOAT (label reference D) between BSJA3 and the existing A303. These proposals contradict the Preliminary Environmental Information Report, which said that new public rights of way would be non-motorised user routes (paragraph 2.2.46) and specifically said that the route now labelled reference D would be a non-motorised public right of way with a private means of access (paragraph 2.2.45(a)). We pointed out in our consultation responses that creating a new BOAT or upgrading a bridleway to BOAT requires express creation (by an enactment or instrument or otherwise) of a public right of way for motor vehicles, as a result of section 66 of the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006. We do not see why Highways England is treating these two routes differently from the other new public rights of way for non-motorised users where private motor vehicular rights are being provided for land access. We also note that Winterbourne Stoke Parish Council (in whose area part of new route D would lie) wants all BOATs round Winterbourne Stoke downgraded (Consultation Report, Appendix K7), indicating that it would not want route D to be a BOAT."
Gwyneth Jones
"I am concerned that the proposed expressway will do irreparable damage to the character and the significance of the Stonehenge site, surroundings, and valuable natural environment, simply by the introduction of high volume, high speed traffic. This is a World Heritage site, and UNESCO has recommended against the scheme "in its present form", and yet no alternative options have been proposed. I feel strongly that no such scheme should be implemented at all. People have a right to undisturbed and paywall-free access to Stonehenge, a place of immense significance. "
H. Wright
"The proposal will cause irreparable damage to Stonehenge, a world heritage site, and also to Blick Mead, as well as threatening endangered bird species. In view of the UNESCO status and the advice from UNESCO’s international advisers that the scheme should not go ahead in its present form, I strongly make representation for the scheme to be rejected."
Heart of the South West Local Enterprise Partnership
"The Heart of the South West Local Enterprise Partnership strongly supports the Department for Transport’s ongoing commitment to improving this vital strategic corridor between London and the South West. We welcome the progress to date on the A303 Stonehenge, and A303 Sparkford to Ilchester sections, and the A358 Ilminster to Taunton dualling. Together with our partner LEPs and county authorities we are working in close liaison with Highways England to help deliver these important schemes and advance future work on the remaining unimproved sections of the A303 corridor. Our region is coming from a low baseline for economic growth. Levels of productivity are among the lowest in the UK, (under 80% of the national average) with evidence that the gap between our area and the more prosperous areas of the UK is continuing to widen. Improving connectivity has been identified by all the LEPs, local authorities and MPs in the region as being the number one priority for improving our productivity and supporting the Government’s Industrial Strategy In 2013 the partnership published our ‘A303/A358/A30 Corridor Improvement Economic Impact Study’, that demonstrated the scale of benefits that would accrue to the South West over a 60 year period as a result of a whole corridor upgrade, including: • Wider economic impact of over £40bn • 21,400 jobs • £7.2bn employment related economic impacts • £8.6bn per year increased visitor expenditure • transport benefits of £1.9bn • Improved transport resilience The A303/A30 is one of the two main road routes from London to South West England; it is the trunk road corridor between London and Penzance and provides the most direct road link between the South West peninsula and London and the South East. Despite its strategic importance to the South West region, the route is of inconsistent standard, experiencing considerable congestion and road safety problems, and is seen as an extremely unreliable access point to the South West. As a result, an improvement to the A303/A358/A30 corridor has long been considered a priority. The need for improvement along the corridor was recognised by Government in the Road Investment Strategy 2019/2020 (RIS1). This committed to spending £2bn on three major A303/A358/A30 dualling improvements at Amesbury to Berwick Down (Stonehenge), Sparkford to Ilchester and A358 Taunton to Ilminster. These schemes have continued to be developed over recent years and will require approval through the DCO process. At the end of last year, we refreshed the 2013 study so that it provides a more up to date evidence base. The existing economic climate of the South West region has been considered alongside business survey data in order to monetise the predicted GVA outcomes of implementing an improvement, over a 60-year horizon. The South West economy is under-performing compared to the rest of the UK and, without improvement, the performance of the corridor will deteriorate, further limiting growth and prosperity. Businesses view the A303/A358/A30 route as unreliable, with congestion, delays and accidents adding to the perception that the South West is difficult to get to. Productivity in the South West is below the national average, with those businesses along the M4/M5 corridor performing notably better than along the A303/A30/A358. Gross Value Added (GVA) per head along the M5 corridor exceeds not only other parts of the region, but also the UK average. In contrast, the areas served by the A303/A30/A358 all demonstrate GVAs lower than the national average, with productivity decreasing further west. In addition to this, wages are low along the corridor compared to the regional and national average, despite the skilled workforce relative to the UK average. However, communities in the local authorities adjacent to the A303/ A30/ A358 corridor have continued to expand, with further growth planned in the future. The existing Local Plans for Wiltshire, North Dorset, South Somerset, Taunton Deane, East Devon and Exeter allocate approximately 100,000 additional new dwellings and 420ha of employment to be delivered by 2031. Some 40% of these new dwellings are within 5km of the A303/A30/A358 corridor. Their close proximity to the strategic link of the A303/A30 means the success of these developments is expected to be influenced by the future performance of the corridor. Significant future growth is also planned for the wider South West, with large developments planned for the Greater Exeter area, Cornwall, Plymouth and Torbay. If all planned development comes forward, there will be a large resultant demand, and a high-quality transport network will be required to ensure the region’s population and economy can grow. It is vital that the A303/A30 does not act as a barrier to the planned growth in the South West. As part of ongoing study, levels of delay as a result of incidents occurring on both the strategic routes to the South West – the M5 and A303/A30 corridors have been monitored. This analysis demonstrates that certain sections on both routes are subject to unreliable travel conditions. Most notably, the consistently worst performing section is on the A303/A30 between Amesbury and Berwick Down, (in the vicinity of Stonehenge). The earlier assessment of wider economic benefit has been refreshed in this study using updated figures alongside 2012 business surveys results. This confirms that an improvement to the A303/A30/A358 corridor would result in GVA benefits to the whole region of almost £40 billion. Somerset and Devon stand to receive the highest GVA benefits of £10.6 billion and £9.8 billion respectively. The proposed RIS1 improvements, A303 Amesbury to Berwick Down, A303 Sparkford to Ilchester, and the A358 between Taunton and Ilminster will act as a catalyst to the whole route improvement. However, while the RIS1 improvements are worthy of building in their own right, the full economic benefit for the UK will only be achieved with a full end-to-end improvement along the A303/A358/A30 corridor. As such, a pipeline of schemes for the remaining unimproved sections will need to receive funding allocations in future RIS periods in order to ensure the proven need for a strategic second link to the South West are met. The Heart of the South West Local Enterprise Partnership strongly supports the improvement of the A303 between Amesbury and Berwick Down (Stonehenge). "
Heidi Rogers
"Permanent damage to the World Heritage Site, its archaeology and setting. UNESCO's advisers say the scheme should not go ahead in its present form. Concerns about damage to Blick Mead Mesolithic site and its setting. Lack of alternative options that would not damage the World Heritage Site in the consultation. Loss of view from the road and need to pya to see the Stones. Disturbance of rare bird species (Stone Curlew and Great Bustard). increased noise from more and faster traffic."
Helen Marriott
"object to stonehenge tunnel"
Helen Taylor
"I object to the A303 Stonehenge scheme going ahead because: 1) There will be permanent damage to a World Heritage Site and UNESCO Advisers (who know what they are talking about) say it should not go ahead in its present form. 2) There are serious concerns about irreparable damage to the Blick Mead Mesolithic Site. 3) There is a lack of alternative options considered in this application which would not damage this precious area. They exist but have been excluded merely on the basis of cost. This is a priceless national monument that belongs to every citizen in this country. If some people want this "improvement" then they must be prepared to pay the price required to absolutely protect its integrity. 4) The view from the road would be lost and this will mean that only people who can afford to pay will ever be able to see it in future. It belongs to us all, not the moneyed few. 5) Rare bird species will be disturbed (stone curlew and great bustard) and their extinction may be made more likely and hastened. 6) There will be an increase in noise from more and faster traffic, destroying the precious peace and ambience of this ancient site of our pre-history. 7) Perhaps most important, this is completely unnecessary. It is the application of a 20th century solution to a 21st century problem. Traffic volumes have to decrease dramatically and we will shortly be forced to reconsider our addiction to single occupancy cars if our world is to survive ecological disaster. By the time this scheme is completed, it will be unnecessary because traffic volumes will have had to dramatically decrease. Future generations will never forgive us for the wanton and unnecessary destruction of this infinitely precious site. We should be embracing a new future that does not require this road scheme, not encouraging the short-termism and lack of imagination that this scheme represents. As planners and guardians of our future, the Planning Inspectorate must reject this scheme for the unsound reasoning behind it and the vandalism that is being contemplated."
Henry Dashwood
"Don't build it. The land through which the tunnel would go is too precious. Ignore the congestion in the south and improve transport in the north of England. Maybe implement a congestion charge on the A303 instead."
Hilary Greene
"Dear Sirs, I use the A303 frequently and although it is annoying when you reach Stonehenge and it's environs when it has bottle necked and you are slowly having to get through it which can take up to half an hour. I would rather have that than Stonehenge being torn up and replaced with underground tunnels etc. I love passing this unique site and often you glide by with no traffic and it always lifts my spirits. Goodness knows what we are getting ourselves into when you disturb a sacred site like this. I think that this is a huge mistake and to protect this wonderful architecture I strong oppose any road reconstruction around this area."
Ian Broom
" This scheme will cause permanent damage to the World Heritage Site, its archaeology and setting. UNESCO's advisers say the scheme should not go ahead in its present form. I have concerns about damage to Blick Mead Mesolithic site and its setting. There is a lack of alternative options that would not damage the World Heritage Site in the consultation. Disturbance of rare bird species (Stone Curlew and Great Bustard). "
Ian Clarke
"Permanent damage to the World Heritage Site, its archaeology and setting. UNESCO's advisers say the scheme should not go ahead in its present form. Concerns about damage to Blick Mead Mesolithic site and its setting. Lack of alternative options that would not damage the World Heritage Site in the consultation. Loss of view from the road and need to pya to see the Stones. Disturbance of rare bird species (Stone Curlew and Great Bustard). increased noise from more and faster traffic."
Ingrid Eglese
"That the proposed works will irreparably damage this unique archeological landscape. "
International Council on Monuments and Sites UK (ICOMOS-UK) (International Council on Monuments and Sites UK (ICOMOS-UK))
"Stonehenge A303 Planning Inspectorate Reference: TR010025 ICOMOS-UK wishes to register as an Interested Party for the Examination of the above application for development. ICOMOS-UK is concerned that the A303 development proposal as it stands may impact adversely and potentially irreversibly on the attributes of Outstanding Universal Value (OUV) of the World Heritage site (WHS) of Stonehenge, Avebury and Associated sites. We support in principle the idea of a tunnel for the A303 and seek to advocate that the tunnel be long enough to ensure that its tunnel portals, associated approach roads and cuttings do not impact adversely on the OUV of the WHS, but do not consider that this parameter has been fully satisfied. We wish to comment on why we consider that the development proposal impacts adversely on the OUV of the WHS, in particular on the following: • The potential impact of the current proposals on the overall integrated Stonehenge prehistoric, archaeological landscape and thus on the OUV of the WHS; • The reasons why the benefits of the development proposal within a part of a WHS, however great, cannot compensate for loss to the attributes of OUV resulting from the proposal elsewhere in the WHS; • The obligations of the World Heritage Convention; • The recent decisions of the UNESCO World Heritage Committee on the Stonehenge proposals and the reports of the ICOMOS Advisory Missions. "
Isabella Lazlo
"I am concerned about the prosed plans and the permanent damage these would cause to one of England's most Sacred ancient sites, a World Heritage Site, its archaeology and its setting. It is clear this is a ludicrous idea and UNESCO's advisers say the scheme should not go ahead in its present form. I am concerned about increased noise from more and faster traffic, about the damage to Blick Mead Mesolithic site and its setting. There was a lack of alternative options that would not damage the World Heritage Site in the consultation and these are obviously the way to go in this instance. If we do not protect our land and our heritage then we are lost. There is also great risk of disturbance of rare bird species (at Stone Curlew and Great Bustard). "
J Bradley
"I am deeply concerned by this proposal and do not believe it should go ahead."
Jack Cox
"I am concerned about the damage and disturbance this would cause to this World Heritage sacred site, including noise pollution."
James Gunter
"1. It is applying an old approach to a problem without considering implications of new technology on future transport systems e.g. driverless cars 2. There is much important archaeology e.g. Blicks Mead, in the areas to be torn apart by the works. The fact that this site has only recently been discovered clearly points to yet more to be unravelled about the Stonehenge landscape. The destruction of large area by this scheme will kill off any chance for future discoveries to be made. 3. The site is a World Heritage Site. Cutting huge holes into part of a WHS cannot be seen as "preserving" it for future generations. 4. This is the most important prehistoric monument and landscape in Britain. Every archaeologist who works in this landscape - including me - have raised concerns and objections to the scheme - all of which has been ignored. The triumph of the car over culture. 5. As a WHS the decision on what can be done to the site must take into account what UNESCO advise. This is a decision beyond the narrow wishes of the UK government. 6. As a stand alone scheme it cannot solve the problem it claims exists on the A303. There are many other schemes for sections of the A303 that also must be completed before there can be any real impact on traffic flows. Even this week it has been announced that the scheme to upgrade link to the M5 has been postponed. 7. The cost is now already higher than the alternative of re-routing the road to the south. The nation cannot waste this sort of money. 8. The actual traffic delay recorded by Dept of Transports own data there is "insufficient data" (source: Licence Bureau road use statistics 2016 pdf). 9, There will be major impact on local residents and farmers who will have years of noise, dirt and diversions to put up with and many types of vehicles will be banned from using the A303 tunnel. 10. You are planning to create a wonderful target for terrorist acts. The bridges also make great suicide sites. 11. The consultation thus far has been restricted to only be able to comment on the Highways Agency's preferred scheme. There should and must be an open consultation on the supposed problem and all possible solutions. 12. Why has nothing or little been published on the response to the initial round of consultation. What were the conclusions of that exercise. "
James Hamer
"I object to the proposed A303 road /tunnel development around the Stonehenge World Heritage site because it will irreparably damage and destroy the important archaeology in the surrounding area. Proof of this predictable outcome, if any were needed, is the recent unintended damage that has occurred. An alternative re-routing of the A3O3 should be sought that removes the road construction from the whole area, enabling the environment to be restored and protecting the archaeology for future excavation and analysis."
James Houghton
"For many years I have studied ancient sites and have visited many World Heritage sites across the globe One of the things that I have come to realise is that almost ubiquitously there are signs of historical damage done by previous generations to these important and unique sites. There is graffiti all over the great pyramids of Egypt, there is damage to the ecosystem of the Great Barrier Reef, there are roads that run through Avebury and many of the Stones have been destroyed with fire and water changing forever the nature of these historic sites. We have this one opportunity to protect Stonehenge and preserve it as best we can for future generations and this is why I am adding my voice to those who object to any change in the Stonehenge landscape. So that in the future a traveller enjoying the wonderful Wiltshire countryside will hopefully not look back with regret and shame that our generation did irreversible damage to this wonderful place. "
James MacAonghus
"The proposal is insufficiently sensitive to the special requirements of this unique site. The extremely important and rare nature of Stonehenge means we should not go nowhere near any semblance of affecting its aesthetic and structural integrity, and this A303 proposal will do that. No doubt this has been considered and a decision made "on balance". But in this particular case, Stonehenge should tip any balance very very heavily in its favour. I imagine other options might raise more immediate economic concerns, but surely everything is outweighed by the extreme importance of Stonehenge."
James McDonald
"The above plan will, in my view: Cause permanent damage to the World Heritage Site, its archaeology and setting; ignore UNESCO's advisers who say the scheme should not go ahead in its present form; threaten damage to Blick Mead Mesolithic site and its setting; offers no alternative options that would not damage the World Heritage Site in the consultation; cause loss of view from the road and need to pay to see the Stones; disturb rare bird species (Stone Curlew and Great Bustard); increase noise from more and faster traffic."
Jane Willmore
"I object to the current application on the following grounds: I object to any further disturbance of this incredibly rich and vast area of prehistory I object to the disturbance of any wildlife I wish to be able to continue to view the stones from the road as I have done for more than thirty years as a resident in this area. I regard this as an important human right. "
Jennifer Kreit
"The new expressway could cause extreme damage to an amazing World Heritage Site. UNESCO’s international advisers say the scheme should not go ahead. There are also a lack of alternative options in consultation that would not damage the World Heritage Site With the looming climate crisis we need to be conserving and cherishing any natural ecosystems and their inhabitants (like the rare bird species around Stonehenge), not investing in high carbon infrastructure like an expressway. "
Jennifer Laute
"I am very concerned that this proposed development will harm the environment and potentially risk losing the heritage status."
Jilaine M Callison
"All my life I have dreamed of going to Stonehenge. It would be a horrible thing to have it undermined by tunneling on the grounds surrounding it. It would weaken the soil and cause the stones to fall. This is a World Heritage Site. It doesn't just belong to the developers to destroy - this belongs as a treasure for people all over the world."
Jinny Fisher
" The most important point that I hope the planning Inspectorate will consider is that the proposed scheme will cause permanent damage to the archaeology and setting of a unique World Heritage Site. This will be irrevocable and UNESCO has advised that this form of scheme should not go ahead. I hope that the government would not want to have such damage on its conscience in the future. My concern is that alternatives should be considered in the consultation. This is not a binary choice fro the Inspectorate! "
Joanna Wright
" Permanent damage to the World Heritage Site, its archaeology and setting. UNESCO's advisers say the scheme should not go ahead in its present form. Concerns about damage to Blick Mead Mesolithic site and its setting. Lack of alternative options that would not damage the World Heritage Site in the consultation. Loss of view from the road and need to pya to see the Stones. Disturbance of rare bird species (Stone Curlew and Great Bustard). increased noise from more and faster traffic. "
Joanne Edwards
"Permanent damage to the World Heritage Site, it's archaeology and setting. Concerns about damage to Blick Mead Mesolithic site and its setting. UNESCO's advisers say the scheme should not go ahead in its present form. Loss of view from the road and need to pay to see the Stones. Disturbance of rare bird species (Stone Curlew and Great Bustard). Lack of alternative options that would not damage the World Heritage Site in the consultation. Increased noise from more and faster traffic. "
Joanne Underwood
"I oppose the plan to take the A303 under the plain near Stonehenge. Stonehenge is itself too important a monument to be put at risk by these works. The plan will also risk the disturbance and destruction of other archeological features which either have not yet been examined, or which bear further examination. While it is true that the traffic on the A303 is usually slow, this is not a good enough reason to put at risk this unique monument, which has been in its position long before we began to impact on the environment with our selfish use of resources. A better response would be to concentrate on improving public transport to reduce the volume of traffic on the A303."
John Repsch
" 1. With thousands of motor vehicles passing by Stonehenge every day, there would be the risk that: (a) Levels of nitrogen dioxide would increase to such an extent that over decades they would produce toxins on the stones, and these toxins would themselves adversely react to weather conditions. (b) Road surface run-off (metals, paints, rubber, oil, road-building materials) would leach into the surrounding vegetation or become airborne as dust. Either way, they could pose a risk to the stones by undermining the ground on which they stand or by adding to the toxins gathering on the stones themselves. 2. As motor traffic volumes increase - especially that of HGVs - the constant noise and rumbling vibrations might affect the strata on which Stonehenge was built. This damage could not then simply be corrected - it would be permanent. 3. If we don't protect this site, other World Heritage Sites may find their own protection undermined. 4. If UNESCO are saying that the scheme should not go ahead, why are the Government saying, No, we should take the risk? 5. The unsightliness of modern urbanization would spoil a natural historical setting. 6. Building a road so close to this ancient monument would give the impression that we don't care about its welfare. 7. There may yet be undiscovered archaeology located between Stonehenge and the proposed dual carriageway. Such archaeology might also become adversely affected."
Jon V Ziemba
"Ruining the Stonehenge World Heritage Site would be a grave, irreparable mistake. Why ruin something that has stood for hundreds of generations? 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. The UK Government proposes to widen the A303 trunk road to the south west. This road crosses the iconic Stonehenge World Heritage Site (WHS), which has been called “the most archaeologically significant land surface in Europe”. The whole site, extending to beyond the horizons around the famous stones themselves, is c. 5.4 km across. All of it makes up a “huge ancient complex” that holds many secrets yet to be discovered. The proposal is to put the road into a tunnel where it passes the stones, but the tunnel would be at most only 2.9 km long. This would result in at least 1.6 km of above-ground 21st-century road engineering within the WHS, consisting of new dual carriageway descending in massive trenches to the tunnel portals and possibly a new underpass with slip roads on the western WHS boundary. All archaeology in the construction zones would be destroyed and the A303 would become the largest ever human intervention in an area fashioned and revered by over a hundred generations of our ancestors. The whole Stonehenge landscape has an outstanding universal value that is of immense significance for all people for all time, and this transcends any consideration of sorting out a 21st century part-time traffic jam."
Jonathan Lambert
"I object to the proposed road scheme because: 1. It will cause irreparable damage to a site not just of national but of global significance. It will also impact the important archaeology of the area meaning future generations will have their understanding of the site severely compromised by an act I am confident they will view as vandalism. 2. It will diminish the experience of visitors through the noise pollution the faster cars will generate. 3. It will screen this iconic monument from public view, at least from the road, meaning visitors will effectively have to pay to see it. 4. Cars will not be here forever. It is doubtful whether individual travel on such a scale as the road is meant to facilitate is sustainable. In the 1930s the guildhall in Norwich was almost demolished to make way for a tramline. I arrived in the city in the 1980s. There were no longer any trams. Why inflict such enormous damage to something so ancient for such a short term gain? "
Jonathan Mann
"I am staunchly against this proposal as I believe it to be a desecration of our historical landscape."
Joshua Knowles
"As an individual and a citizen of the British Isles I am shocked and concerned by the proposals around the Stonehenge site. This landmark is a true and irreplaceable representation of our nation's heritage; an outstanding icon of world history and civilisation as we understand it today. It's placement and standing in the landscape is an incredible asset to the nation's tourism and culture and should be prioritised over all the considerations in the local area. To undermine or infringe upon the site's footprint and immediate surroundings in any way is cultural vandalism and a short sighted disservice to the nation's assets. There is more than enough space to rebuild roads away from the site, preserve and enhance the experience of Stonehenge for British citizens and international visitors alike for years to come. Any compromise of the sanctity of the Stonehenge site for the sake of convenience or short term profit would be of small benefit and overall a catastrophe for the nation's pride. Please reconsider the plans and protect the site and experience of Stonehenge. Yours sincerely, Josh Knowles "
Julie Louise Wilkinson
"I am registering my interest in this application as I personally feel if the plans go ahead as they stand, the impact on the site in terms of the permanent damage to the archaeology that will be caused will be catastrophic and irreversible. I also object to the fact the new road will mean the loss of the view of the stones from the road (always a highlight for our young family and us) during our trips to Devon, not to mention the impact on the local wildlife."
Julie Trevellick
"As someone who has recently completed an extended diploma in wildlife conservation my chief concern regarding the proposed dual carriageway at Stonehenge is the detrimental impact it would have on all types of flora and fauna in the local and wider area. I am of course also concerned at the potential damage the project could cause to such an archeologically, historically and cultural important site. "
Juliet Chaplin
"I first visited Stonehenge in 1958 and have always loved the site, so I am very concerned that the plan regarding the A303 Expressway would cause huge and irreparable damage. Indeed the site might well lose World Heritage Status. That's serious. UNESCO's advisers recommend that the plan should not go ahead in its present form. The plan would also disturb wildlife, including the rare Great Bustard and Stone Curlew, not least because of increased noise from faster traffic. I am familiar with the A303 and clearly something needs to be done to solve the problem of bottleneck on this road, but not at the expense of the wonderful, unique, World Heritage Site!"
K Bastin
"This is a UNESCO world heritage site. The whole landscape around it is part of the site - as time goes on more is being discovered about the site and the wider area, how it was accessed and how it was used. It is a very important site for many groups of people for both belief, cultural, historic, educational and environmental reasons. This proposal will adversely affect the historic and sacred landscape, the local wildlife and will limit who can view the site to payment only. It will create noise pollution in a sacred site. Such a major monument and site needs sensitive and respectful solutions and for other alternatives to be considered."
Karen Meager
"I agree with UNESCO that this is a place of special interest and so should be protected for future generations. Personally I feel spiritualy connected to this space and would like to record my objections to disturbing my religious temple"
Kate Forwood
"As someone who frequently uses the A303 to travel between Kent and Devon, I have, over the years, resigned myself to a slow journey on this particular stretch of road. However, I would rather the delays and traffic jams than see the wonderful landscape, (particularly the view of Stonehenge despite it looking so forlorn these days) on either side of the road ruined forever by an ill-thought out 'express highway' plan. I can only add my voice to what I am sure are thousands of comments on the damage to a World Heritage Site; disturbance to the wildlife, particularly rare birds; and the loss of critically important archaeological sites en route. Where are the alternative options? Please concentrate on considering those rather than desecrate forever what is all ready there. "
Kate Simpson
"I OBJECT to this DCO Planning Application."  REASONS FOR OBJECTION  Viability / Judicial Review. The Treasury, National Infrastructure Commission, Office of Road & Rail and National Audit Office warn that the project is already over budget. Widespread opposition indicates a high risk of judicial review.  Disability Discrimination.  Disabled access to the WHS continues to be threatened if the tunnel is approved. Failed balancing exercises by Wiltshire Council resulted in excluding disabled via an ETRO quashed by Justice Swift on 21st December 2018; WHS Stakeholder Management WHSSM will now apply again for a Permanent WHS TRO despite Judge Behrens’ ruling in 2009 and reinforced by the 2011 Public Inquiry Decision by Alan Boyland BEng (Hons). Stonehenge community. The effect of the tunnel would be devastating on the community of general public, pilgrims, travellers, Druid Orders etc who celebrate regularly the Solstices, Equinoxes, solar, lunar and seasonal ceremonies on the WHS. Grassing the A303, planned reduction of BOATs to restricted byways/footpaths, render impossible the ‘since time immemorial’ gatherings. Equitable access would be lost to those who gather there sharing ancient knowledge, crafts, honouring Ancestors, holding ceremonies and ADO’s observational research. They are creating Intangible Cultural Heritage in the WHS Avebury & Stonehenge’s HOLY Places of Outstanding Universal Value; the importance of being able to continue these practices are described and recognised by UNESCO.  Lack of transparency. The Developer’s own costings indicate the rejected southern route would be more cost effective. The Developer failed to provide overwhelming data against a southern route thus preventing the public from formulating effective counter arguments. Threat of loss of WHS status & monument damage. Highways England and the WHSSM continue to ignore strong warnings from UNESCO, ICOMOS, eminent groups of academics and archaeologists citing irreparable damage to the WHS, its archaeology and setting. A contractor incident of grave concern has already occurred to the unique Mesolithic site of Blick Mead.  Threats to Wildlife and Habitats. Disturbance of rare bird species (Stone Curlew and Great Bustard) and habitat loss will increase once the A303 is grassed over. Any tree, plant or shrub that does not fit a Neolithic landscape has already been removed, drastically reducing bird cover.  Pollution and noise health risks. The tunnel, designed short in order to avoid ventilation costs, will increase noise pollution. Inadequate and unclear data hinders public assessment of Developer’s estimates.  Public Amenity - loss of free view of unique monument.  The iconic drive on the A303 to view suddenly this breath-taking, sacred monument will be prevented and the free-to-all view of the Stones will be tragically lost forever. "
Katharine Thomas
"Permanent damage to the World Heritage Site, its archaeology and setting. UNESCO's advisers say the scheme should not go ahead in its present form. Concerns about damage to Blick Mead Mesolithic site and its setting. Lack of alternative options that would not damage the World Heritage Site in the consultation. Loss of view from the road and need to pya to see the Stones. Disturbance of rare bird species (Stone Curlew and Great Bustard). Increased noise pollution from more and faster traffic."
Katherine Challis
"I oppose the current plans surrounding the highways around Stone Henge for the following reasons: Permanent damage to the World Heritage Site, its archaeology and setting. •UNESCO's advisers say the scheme should not go ahead in its present form. •Concerns about damage to Blick Mead Mesolithic site and its setting. •Lack of alternative options that would not damage the World Heritage Site in the consultation. •Loss of view from the road and need to pya to see the Stones. •Disturbance of rare bird species (Stone Curlew and Great Bustard). •increased noise from more and faster traffic. Personal loss from damage to a site with spiritual significance to my practices. "
Kim Adoue
"I am concerned with the obvious and possible irreversible damage to archaeology of this unique site. The loss of view of the site. Stonehenge is an important visual antiquity on the landscape of Salisbury plain. Permanent damage to the landscape that has a history of thousands of years. Redevelopment could be more of a money making excessive than an attempt to preserve and enhance an ancient site. My worry is that the site of Stonehenge will be over commercialised and become a crowded theme park type visitor centre and not the accessible site it used to be. I don't want the visual supermarket shopping mall type car park that takes over acres of land and becomes a blot on the landscape. Vast concrete marked out parking spaces reminiscent of an industrial estate. The modernisation and enlargement of the facilities at this site could ruin the look and the feel of this ancient site. I believe things should be kept small. Sell tickets online, control visitors. If its sold out to the max then you will book tickets in advance (like the downton abbey house)You will make less money from this site, but money making is not the point of Stonehenge. Protection of its uniqueness is. Preservation of the site is paramount."
Kim Iannucci
"This is our heritage, once destroyed that's it. Please use sense and don't be known as the thing that destroyed the Stonehenge landscape."
Kirsten Espensen
"This is a unique World Heritage Site and should be protected as such. The road is not required and should most definitely not be built. Stonehenge has stood for many hundreds of years and this road, should it be built, will go down in history as the ultimate desecration of an ancient and sacred site. "
Lara Williams
"I object to the scheme for the following reasons: It will cause permanent damage to the World Heritage Site, its archaeology and setting. UNESCO's advisers say the scheme should not go ahead in its present form. Concerns about damage to Blick Mead Mesolithic site and its setting. Lack of alternative options that would not damage the World Heritage Site in the consultation. The loss of view of the Stones from the road Disturbance of rare bird species (Stone Curlew and Great Bustard). increased noise from more and faster traffic."
Layla Fowler
"To whom this Representation may concern I object to the proposed A303 Highway proposal as a citizen of the world and as one of billions of people of our time who are the inheritors of the ancient structures like Stone Henge, left to this day which have survived thousands and thousands of years. My objection is based on the following points: 1. undermining effect upon the stability of Stone Henge structure which will be caused by earth movement works and explosives 2. it will block the local people, and all travellers both local and international from being able to view Stone Henge from the road, which was meant to always be visible to people following Sir Cecil Chubb's request for the people 3. Its not within the rights of the infrastructure highway department of the UK to decide upon the visual accessibility of a monument that was gifted to the nation over 100 years ago and should remain visually accessible by the people and not obscured from sight. The current road works within this right of the nation while the A303 will be against this right. 4. It is a right of all people on earth to have access to viewing this monuments from any distance without hindrances created to obscure them from sight. 5. the lack of viable alternative options by the Dept and the sole promotion of the A303 proposal warrants further investigation of the A303 proposal and investigation of why feasible and viable options that do not harm the world heritage sites and that could provide suitable relief of current traffic congestion issues have not been provided to the people of the UK and to the world, since it is a world heritage site. Without providing these alternative viable options the A303 is not an option it is a mandate against the rights of people to have visual access to Stone Henge and will harm the site itself. There are always better options available when the option given is harmful. Alternative options could prove to be more cost effective, require less resources and provide sooner relief to the aim of improving road congestion without imposing or harming Stone Henge and the pockets of the UK people. I would encourage a review of potential viable options as best practice and review of the potential damage to Stone Henge that will affect it for years to come. There is only one Stone Henge in the world, but there are many highways and its all our responsibility to preserve it at all costs for generations now and those to come. I thank you for accepting and reviewing my representation on this matter and I faithfully believe that a better option exists and is achievable successfully. I wish you all the best for your review and consideration of this matter, as this decision is a very serious matter that will have consequences for years to come. Kindest regards, Layla Fowler"
leaynn swateridge
"We need a moment of self reflection here, Why is there a need for a damaging highway to be put on this site? Because we have lost ourselves to impatience, anger, instant gratifictation..feeling like we own the road..feeling like we own other beings that reside on earth, we have created a mindset with technology that everything has to be fast, fast food, fast love, fast transportation.. we are disconnected, we are lost an this is why we do not take the time to SLOW DOWN, SELF REFLECT and REALISE REAL EYES that this plan is wrong on so many levels.. have we not done enough.. have we not bombarded the world enough with enslavement, prejudice and corruption..we need to STOP this, we are only hurting ourselves, look what happened to natives in america..read, bury my heart at wounded knee..we are turning this earth into a concrete knightmare..please do not do this. "
Les Cloutman
"This scheme will do irreparable damage to a whole landscape that has some of the most iconic prehistoric sites in the world. Many of which we are only now beginning to appreciate and understand. We owe it to future generations to treat the whole area with respect, and not to blunder through with schemes that would wipe out archaeological treasures that we may never even know had existed! Sincerely Les Cloutman "
Laws and Fiennes on behalf of Lincoln College
"On behalf of our client, Lincoln College, I wish to register an objection to the Development Consent Order based on the issues outlined below. The College owns land north and south of the A303 to the north east of Amesbury that is affected by the scheme. I would consider raising this objection if these issues were satisfactorily dealt with. All of these items have been raised with Highways England and meeting minutes or emails are available on request. Highways England will make an electrical connection for the tunnel at one of two substations at Ratfyn Farm and run a cable across land owned by the College. As a landowner preparing for the scheme, it is necessary to know the following: 1. Which substation will be used? 2. Will that substation need extending? 3. The proposed cable route 4. The type of legal right required for the cable 5. Who the acquiring authority would be (Highways England or Scottish and Southern Energy?). Highways England has yet to provide definite answers to these questions. The uncertainty is problematic for the College and particularly for the College’s farm tenant, who has made his own representations. If the southernmost of the two substations were used, the cable would be laid in the verge along the farm road. This route will be impractical due to other services in the verge and the disruption to the road, which is in regular use by the tenant, the MoD and Wessex Water. The farm tenant has proposed an alternative in farmland east of the road and I believe this should be adopted. Secondly, Highways England proposes to delete byway “BULF12”, which crosses a triangle of land owned by the College at the eastern end of the scheme. On behalf of the College I support this, but the deletion of BULF12 removes the College’s only legal access to the land and an alternative legal access must be provided, or the land becomes worthless. The two solutions are a new access from Amesbury Road to the west or agreeing a private right of way from the road known as “Double Hedges” to the north, over land owned by the MOD. Highways England is yet to secure a solution. An informal approach has been made to the MOD, but no formal agreement for a right of access has been reached. The DCO plans do not indicate a new access from Amesbury Road. To the west of Earls Farm Down, a new public highway will be created between Equinox Drive and Allington Track, with land set aside as open space. This raises two issues: • A new access to Earls Farm Down off the new public highway will be needed (not currently included) • The open space should either be fenced or planted (not currently proposed), to reduce security issues on the College’s adjoining land. Finally, the Countess flyover will devalue Ratfyn Farmhouse due to increased noise, light and dust. I feel more tree planting and screening is needed than is currently proposed. "
Lionel Welch
"While I fully understand the problems on the A303 past Stonehenge, I do not accept that a diversion round the site cannot be made, with the A303 at that point should only be used by those who are going to the site. Undermining this historic site, as suggested, could have horrendous outcomes, as nobody knows for sure exactly what lies underneath. Ancient earthworks and burial grounds could be lost to posterity for ever. However nice artefacts may look in a museum, they look better in their natural environment. Were I a spiritual person I could go on about the interruption of ley lines and electromagnetic force, amongst other things that people believe about the history of the henge, and what lies beneath. "
Lisette MacKenzie
"It is inappropriate to take a busy road through this unesco world heritage site. It will increase traffic and air pollution, noise and damage to the site! Absolute philistines to even consider this to be an acceptable solution. It will encourage industrialisation of the area, and completely destroy its mystique!"
Lois Fry
"The site is a sacred site and has been known as such for hundreds of years. Just because you are unaware of the properties of a site or it's connections to the earth and the energy surrounding it and underneath it, it does not give you the right to intrude on it's integrity. Find another way and avoid destroying this incredible British landmark. "
Louise Hobson
"Stone henge is a NATIONAL treasure, no one 'owns' it, there are simply guardianships of it. You cannot own what you did not create nor purchase. Therefore no road should be allowed to be built in the immediate vicinity or underneath Stone Henge without the express permission of the people of the British isles. So far I have not been asked. Nothing should be built there, it should be left as it is before damage is create that cannot be undone. "
Madeleine Atkinson
"I support the Council for British Archaeology's statement regarding the Stonehenge Tunnel, which they describe as "will cause considerable damage to the surviving archaeological remains within the WHS & to the setting of key monuments within the landscape." While I understand there would be some merits to the tunnel I don't think they come even remotely close to justifying the damage it would do to the area. I fear that because there have been relatively recent discoveries in the landscape around Stonehenge, there are more artefacts to be found which may be destroyed by the building of the tunnel. The fact that our government supports the preservation of our shared history (whether it be through funding museums or charities like English Heritage) is a great source of pride for me. I think that in increasingly divided times the reverence of places of such great historical significance like Stonehenge is vital. I feel Tom Holland's description of the Tunnel as "desecrating the Stonehenge landscape" is accurate, and to build the tunnel would set a concerning precident for respect paid to other, less well known but still important, sites around the UK."
Marcus Stafford
"1. It's a World Heritage Site and any works will cause damage to both the site and the wildlife around it. 2. It will no longer be visible from the road for free. It belongs to all of us and removing that for pay-to-vire is unacceptable. 3. Increased noise from faster traffic and potential for increased polution and damage to stones. 4. Disturbance of Stone Curlew and Great Bustard nesting and breeding sites."
Marguerite McGinty
"I am convinced that the planning propsal TRO20025 will cause detrimental effects to the national monument of Stone Henge and the surrounding natural environment; I therefore wish to register my opposition to this proposal"
Maria Edge
"I [redacted], WRT Edge vehemently against the building of this tunnel *It destroys archeological remains of unique historical importance and value * it is too expensive, while many alternatives have not been explored * it just is not true that p *Drivers slow down to look at Stonehenge; I drive along the a303 weekly * problems of delays and jams on a303 are not solved with so many other Bottle necks along the way. * the locals just do not want it!"
Marija Currell
"I would like to register my issue with the proposed expressway. The ancient history of this area is not fully understood and I am particularly concerned about damage to Blick Mead Mesolithic site. The planning inspectorate needs to consult and listen to Archaeologists. We are about to loose an important window into our past. "
Mark Allen
"I do not live near the area but I wish it to remain unspoilt for the people as it is one of the oldest sites and want it left unspoilt for the sake of humanity and of all beliefs. This structure should not be spoilt and is part of our heritage and it goes back many hundreds or thousands of years and should not be touched Yes perhaps there is a need for more road infrastructure but it needs to be many miles from the Stonehenge site as this site is monumental."
Mark Byrne
"I am in favour of a tunnel under the Stonehenge site, its about time we treated this iconic, world renowned site with the respect it deserves. However the current proposals fall woefully short of what is required. The tunnel must begin and end well outside the Stonehenge area. Even before permission has been given to start the project damage has been done to the archaeology of the area. UNESCO has declared that the scheme as currently proposed is not suitable and risks Stonehenge losing its the World Heritage status. Once the scheme has been completed Stonehenge will only be able to be seen by people who can afford the entrance fee. People who arrive on foot, bicycles, electric cars or public transport should face a much reduced entrance fee. The ridiculous site of internal combustion engined vehicles taking people down what was the A344 must be stopped and the vehicles replace with green alternatives."
Mark Hallworth
"I object to the scheme for the following reasons: * Permanent damage to the World Heritage Site, its archaeology and setting. * UNESCO's advisers say the scheme should not go ahead in its present form. * Concerns about damage to Blick Mead Mesolithic site and its setting. * Lack of alternative options that would not damage the World Heritage Site in the consultation. * Loss of view from the road and need to pay to see the Stones. * Disturbance of rare bird species (Stone Curlew and Great Bustard). * increased noise from more and faster traffic."
Mark Lipski
"The current plan will result in irreparable damage to the Stonehenge and related sites, and UNESCO's advisors have opposed the plan on this basis. There will also be other environmental damage, both to local wildlife and from noise pollution. There also seems to be a lack of alternative plans proposed."
Martin Stephens
"I am against this development because: 1) The only way to view Stonehenge will be to pay to see it, instead of the henge being a part of the publicly visible landscape. 2) UNESCO does not want the project to go ahead in it's present form, and UNESCO's views should be respected. 3) Stonehenge is part of a landscape that has existed for thousands of years and the permanent damage this project will cause, will deprive future generations. Also, damage will occur to the archaeology of the landscape. 4) The Blick Mead Mesolithic site may be damaged, and the site is too important to risk. 5) No alternative options were examined during earlier phases of planning, which could have avoided damage to the site. "
Mary Branson
"UNESCO's expert opinion is that this scheme should not go ahead in its present form. I value the opinion of experts. The scheme would not be reversible and would cause permanent damage to this ancient World Heritage site. I am very concerned that this scheme would also damage the Blick Mead site and its setting. The consultation was very limited and did not offer even one alternative that would not damage the site. Increased traffic means increased noise and pollution but this is not addressed. The business case is weak and not proved. "
Matthew DeHaven
"As an American and two time visitor to Stonehenge, I think it is important that you consider opinions from outside the UK. This past September I visited Stonehenge again, the first time being in 2005. Both times I was granted Inner Circle Access. I do think my recent experience at Stonehenge with all of the new changes was an improvement, however I believe this is where it should stop. The tunnel and road removal will cause irreparable damage to the landscape and its archeology, and nothing is worth that loss! For the sake of future archeological discovery and keeping Stonehenge and its sacred enviroment as it is, you must abandon this proposal."
Melanie J Hazen
"Please, please for all of us do not change any of the Stone Henge area. It would totally ruin the whole History of our Earth. There is still too much work the archeologists need to examine, explore, and share with us all. Please don't put the tunnel through the area. I want to go there and see it for myself one day. Thank you for considering my request. Melanie Hazen, [REDACTED]"
Michael Blyth
"I am concerned that thee seem to be the situation where public concerns, including those far more knowledgeable than me, are not being addressed by the provision of alternatives. This site is in need as maximum protection rather than what is proposed."
Michael Devlin
"It would be an affront to history and to national pride. Future generations cannot and would not forgive."
Michael Emanuel Rosenbloom
"I object to the proposal on the grounds is unnecessary and damaging to archaeological environment. "
Michael Hinton
"Please do not pursue this crazy idea! "
Michael Nelson Johnson
"I am a retired architect and for 10 years represented the Council for British Archaeology on Planning matters affecting Listed Buildings in West Lancashire. My concern with this proposal is that this World Heritage Site must be respected and protected when any matters which have an impact on the archaeology and setting of Stonehenge and its environs are intended. These current proposals fail in this requirement and should not be allowed to proceed. Short-term thinking must not prevail!"
Michele McIntyre
"Please do not destroy an ancient and priceless landscape for the sake of traffic convenience. I frequently travel along A303 and welcome the pause in my hectic life to view Stonehenge from my car. To tunnel would be a desecration."
Mike Tregent
"The whole site comprises a lot more than just the stones, the landscape dates back thousands of years and it is imperative that it is protected (and possibly enhanced), in its whole! This is a reason why INESCO is opposed to the current proposal, the risks of visual intrusion, disturbance of the landscape and its flora and fauna,noise and vibration (from works and subsequent traffic), could all impact adversely on the site. This site has also developed unique habitats and species characteristics, due to its protected landscape, the proposal poses risks to this finely tuned habitat!"
Moira Gomes
"I am one of thousands of members of the public that really resent Highways trying to ignore views and force their plans through. There are very few sites of special significance in England. I personally believe we have a responsibility to protect the whole area. To intend to force through and ignore our views in favour of the motor car, running roughshod no less than three times is simply abhorrent. Once bulldozers begin there can be no reparation. This site in England is barely understood as to purpose or history. It’s intrinsically important to protect. We damage the area at our peril, and certainly not to satisfy ever faster movement across this important landscape which is of incalculable value. The twenty first century must calm down, refuse the need for speed on normal roads, respect the environment of which we are only erstwhile custodians for future generations. Refuse to skateboard through sacred sites - and most of all respect disparate views! "
Mr Andrew Bonnet
"This unique World Heritage site, should be protected, NOT impacted upon by any development of any kind. The fact it is being considered is extraordinary in itself. It is morally wrong and shows complete lack of understanding, with no respect for what this site represents or the people who truly appreciate Stonehenge for what it is."
Mr James Phethean
"I use the A303 regularly to commute to work and return to Cornwall and I want to be sure that Stonehenge is protected during this road scheme work"
Mrs Elizabeth Fairweather
"I believe this scheme should not go ahead because it would cause permanent damage to the World Heritage Site. Furthermore, UNESCO's advisers say the scheme should not go ahead in its present form. There was a lack of alternative options which would not damage the World Heritage Site in the consultation. If it were to go ahead, it would cause disturbance to rare bird species such as the Stone Curlew and the Great Bustard. "
Mrs Irene Joan Byrne
"I believe that there will be permanent damage to the World Heritage Site, its archaeology and setting. Also UNESCO's advisers say the scheme should not go ahead in its present form. There are concerns about damage to the Blick Mead Mesolithic site and its setting. There were a lack of alternative options that would not damage the World Heritage Site in the consultation. There will be a loss of view from the road and therefor a need to pay to see the Stones. Disturbance of rare bird species (Stone Curlew and Great Bustard). increased noise from more and faster traffic. The whole wonderful atmosphere of the site will be lost forever."
Mrs Joy Shallcross
"The scheme will do irreparable damage to a World Heritage site, you simply cannot be allowed to do this."
Mrs Sarah Frances Collins
"Stonehenge is a unique and beautiful place, and there is no justification for intruding upon the site. The road can be built on another route, Stonehenge cannot be moved. It is time we valued our unique British heritage and stopped the destruction of our ancient monuments and sites of cultural importance. This proposed act of wanton vandalism is a disgrace. Move the road! "
Ms Elizabeth Murfitt
"I disagree with Highways England's proposal to drive a massive dual carriageway through the UNESCO site at Stonehenge. My reasons for objecting are - 1. Permanent damage to the World Heritage Site, its archaeology and setting. 2. UNESCO's advisors say it should not go ahead in its present form. 3. Damage to Blick Mead Mesolithic site and its setting. 4. Lack of alternative options that would not damage the World Heritage Site in the consultation. 5. Loss of view from the road and the need to pay to see the stones. 6. Disturbance of rare bird species (the Stone Curlew and the Great Bustard). 7. Increased noise from more and faster traffic. 8. Public opinion has twice rejected this proposal in the last two years. 9. The Planning Inspectorate should not make a presumption that the scheme should go through - which is bias. Please make England's Natural and Cultural Heritage your priority and reject this ill-advised scheme."
Ms lawrence
"Dear Sir/ Madame, I have already done this, anything that threatens National heritage needs to be stopped. You will not have a country of any distinction if this goes on, stop a Philistine, Ms lawrence"
Ms Lucia Nixon
"Plans to drive a massive dual carriageway into the UNESCO World Heritage Site around Stonehenge will have negative effects on this precious area."
Myfanwy Lloyd Jones
"I am very concerned about the adverse implications of the proposed development for a unique and important landscape of outstanding archaeological importance."
Myfanwy Millward
"I believe that putting a dual carriageway through the World Heritage Site of Stonehenge will be damaging not only to the environment, destroying the habitat of rare bird species and increasing air pollution, but will devastate one of the UK's greatest treasures. Stonehenge and the area around it should be protected for future generations to enjoy. We should respect this wonderful ancient site, that has been treasured for thousands of years. These plans should not go ahead under any circumstances. "
Nadine Holt
"The proposed development would undoubtedly cause irreparable damage to the Stonehenge World Heritage Site and its surroundings. There are many sites of archaeological interest in this area which may also be damaged, I cannot believe that this site which is too delicate for people to touch or walk on should be subjected to major earthworks. From a road users point of view, I don't believe this is necessary, the road could be widened on the opposite side and a viewing lay-by provided. As I grew up in this area I am a frequent traveller on this stretch of road and what I see is traffic slowing down to have a better look at the Stones, why not make it easier for people? I also think that people should be able to view the Stones briefly without having to pay. "
Nigel Parkin
"I wish to register a protest against the desecration of the ground around Stonehenge. We have no idea what is contained in the ground under and surrounding the Monument. The Drilling machines will, potentially desecrate burial grounds centuries, if not millenia old. Untold history will be crunched and dumped elsewhere. An alternate route HAS to be found. We are losing enough historic areas, like Bosworth field due to encroaching development. "
Nigel Wright
"I am very concerned about the proposed dual carriageway expressway past Stonehenge. The potential damage to the World Heritage Site and the associated archaeology and landscape is significant and UNESCO have specifically stated that the current scheme should not proceed. In addition ,other environmental impacts, such as the impact to rare bird species in the vicinity (Stone Curlew and Great Bustard) and the noise and vehicle emissions impacts have not been sufficiently considered. There are other alternatives that have not seriously been considered and the economics of the proposed route do not meet Highways England economic criteria. Furthermore, this is part of an overall policy to provide a second dual carriageway option from the South East to the West Country. However, other parts of this project, in particular the dualling of the carriageways from Ilminster to Exeter via either the A358 to the M5 or the A303/A30 upgrade have not been resolved and the current proposals for these are also flawed. These should be sorted before any final decision (if any) on the Stonehenge section is finalised. "
Nina Murdoch
"Dear Madam/Sir, I wish to object to this road scheme on the following points. There will be permanent damage to the world heritage site, archeology and setting. The world heritage site’s protection should be the priority not the road. UNESCO’s advice should be adhered to. There are a lack of alternative options that would not damage the site. Yours sincerely, Nina Murdoch"
Oliver Harwood
"I am a regular user of the A303 for business and pleasure and have always enjoyed the unparalleled view of Stonehenge and its landscape setting as I have passed by, on occasion stopping and enjoying the view from the public road without having to pay to enter the site. I understand that the proposals will deny me this opportunity as well as causing irreparable damage to Stonehenge which was described by UNESCO as a ‘landscape without parallel’ I am also as a keen conservationist deeply concerned that insufficient attention has been paid in selecting this hugely damaging option to the Blick Mead Mesolithic site and its setting and disturbance of rare bird species. You have rejected the most sustainable option without even looking at it: given my concerns regarding landscape and conservation, I would happily swop my view of Stonehenge from the car for the (unconsidered) long tunnel option which would restore the ancient landscape and setting of this incomparable marvel. If we are to call ourselves a civilised nation (the sixth largest economy in the world) we should not penny pinch and select a scheme that causes so much harm without properly examining the longer tunnelled alternatives. Thank you Oliver Harwood MA (Cantab) FRICS"
Open Access to Stonehenge (OAtS) (Open Access to Stonehenge (OAtS))
"Open Access to Stonehenge (OAtS) is a Page and a Group on Facebook. Both are public, and the Group currently has more than 3,500 members, not just from the UK As time is short, I shall submit the same grounds of OBJECTION to this application as I made myself in an individual capacity, on behalf of Open Access to Stonehenge. The overwhelming majority of members are NOT IN FAVOUR of the scheme for a tunnel. “I OBJECT to this DCO Planning Application on behalf of members of the Facebook Group and Page called Open Access to Stonehenge" REASONS FOR OBJECTION Viability / Judicial Review. The Treasury, National Infrastructure Commission, Office of Road & Rail and National Audit Office warn that the project is already over budget. Widespread opposition indicates a high risk of judicial review. Disability Discrimination. Disabled access to the WHS continues to be threatened if the tunnel is approved. Failed balancing exercises by Wiltshire Council resulted in excluding disabled via an ETRO quashed by Justice Swift on 21st December 2018; WHS Stakeholder Management WHSSM will now apply again for a Permanent WHS TRO despite Judge Behrens’ ruling in 2009 and reinforced by the 2011 Public Inquiry Decision by Alan Boyland BEng (Hons). Stonehenge community. The effect of the tunnel would be devastating on the community of general public, pilgrims, travellers, Druid Orders etc who celebrate regularly the Solstices, Equinoxes, solar, lunar and seasonal ceremonies on the WHS. Grassing the A303, planned reduction of BOATs to restricted byways/footpaths, render impossible the ‘since time immemorial’ gatherings. Equitable access would be lost to those who gather there sharing ancient knowledge, crafts, honouring Ancestors, holding ceremonies and ADO’s observational research. They are creating Intangible Cultural Heritage in the WHS Avebury & Stonehenge’s HOLY Places of Outstanding Universal Value; the importance of being able to continue these practices are described and recognised by UNESCO. Lack of transparency. The Developer’s own costings indicate the rejected southern route would be more cost effective. The Developer failed to provide overwhelming data against a southern route thus preventing the public from formulating effective counter arguments. Threat of loss of WHS status & monument damage. Highways England and the WHSSM continue to ignore strong warnings from UNESCO, ICOMOS, eminent groups of academics and archaeologists citing irreparable damage to the WHS, its archaeology and setting. A contractor incident of grave concern has already occurred to the unique Mesolithic site of Blick Mead. Threats to Wildlife and Habitats. Disturbance of rare bird species (Stone Curlew and Great Bustard) and habitat loss will increase once the A303 is grassed over. Any tree, plant or shrub that does not fit a Neolithic landscape has already been removed, drastically reducing bird cover. Pollution and noise health risks. The tunnel, designed short in order to avoid ventilation costs, will increase noise pollution. Inadequate and unclear data hinders public assessment of Developer’s estimates. Public Amenity - loss of free view of unique monument. The iconic drive on the A303 to view suddenly this breath-taking, sacred monument will be prevented and the free-to-all view of the Stones will be tragically lost forever."
P Addison
"the project should not destroy land in one the most important areas in the world the overwhelming scientific opinion is the tunnel would cause repairable damage to the stonehenge area other important areas such as blick mead have already been damaged, and does not look promising for the rest of the area. there is no evidence to suggest that stonehenge stood isolated, in fact the opposite is true the people of the world will no long be able to see this place for free there are far better ways to alter the road than a tunnel there are far cheaper ways to increase the roads capacity "
Patrick Duncan, PhD
"Irreparable damage to the WHS, its archaeology and setting, described by UNESCO as a ‘landscape without parallel’"
Paul Davis
"I strongly object to this DCO planning application, the tunnel will cause untold damage to archaeology in this area which has been inhabited since the Mesolithic Period, Wildlife in the area which include endangered species such as Stone Curlews, Short Eared Owls and the recently reintroduced Bustard, which are now starting to breed, use this habitat, are at threat. Stonehenge for myself and thousands of others, is a sacred place, a temple and a place to honour our ancestors, we view the land as sacred and to bore a tunnel through the heart of the landscape is an abomination, druids, pagans, travellers and astronomers, the general public, and people of all persuasions, use this area, all this will be denied, if a tunnel is built. A more cost effective way to remove congestion on the A303 would be a bypass at the southern route, thus enabling a free view of Stonehenge to all that use the A303. "
Paul Gossage
"Please can I strongly object to the proposed Stonehenge A303 Stonehenge tunnel etc for the following reasons: It will seriously damage Blick Mead (BM). The current excavations are smaller than the size of a tennis court yet they have already revealed so much rare and vital information. Particularly about the puzzle as to how humans got from being hunter-gatherers to the culture of people who built the wider Stonehenge landscape, with its causeway enclosures, mysterious cursuses, and the enigmatic Coneybury Anomaly etc. It is obvious that BM (which has been consistently damp for thousands of years) will dry out and this will significantly reduce the opportunities for carbon dating. As well as the damage to BM, at the western portal there will be physical and aesthetic damage to the area around the Normanton Down Barrows cemetery group. I agree with [Redacted] and [Redacted] (both on the A303 Scientific Committee) that these are unique in world terms and should be preserved by you not allowing the tunnel. UNESCO say that if the tunnel goes ahead as it is, then the overall WHS will be irreparably damaged and they will take away WHS status. This would be very damaging to the reputation of the UK and set a dangerous precedent for other countries to damage their WHS sites. The tunnel will mean that people won’t have the much-appreciated view of Stonehenge as they drive past. For example the ex National Trust Chairman [Redacted] said in 2018: "Most people who enjoy the stones do so from vehicles on the A303. The stones look magnificent from this distance. They have no need of close inspection. They can be appreciated at a glimpse, without need of visitor centres, car parks, coaches and multimillion-pound tunnels. Why should the overwhelming majority of those who enjoy Stonehenge be deprived of this pleasure at vast public expense to satisfy a profession and a quango?" (He means some archaeologists and English Heritage). On the winter Solstice sunset, the historically important view from the Heel Stone through the centre of the stone circle, will (still) be spoilt by headlights of vehicles shining into it. The rare Great Bustards and Stone Curlews, which are very susceptible to disturbance, will be displaced and probably won’t be able to relocate anywhere. They cannot speak for themselves, so I am pleading with you to speak for them. Finally, the tunnel is not value for money. The cost-benefit ratio is extremely bad. There are alternative routes that cost much less and won’t irreparably damage the precious World Heritage Site. The main beneficiaries of the tunnel are English Heritage and National Trust as they will have a selfish financial monopoly of Stonehenge and yet won’t be paying any of the £1.6 billion. Most road projects (particularly with tunnels) go over their budget so this one is likely to be even worse value for money. For all the above reasons, please don’t let this tunnel go ahead (as it is). "
Paul Jennings
"The proposed scheme has already damaged the important Mesolithic site at Blick Mead and will undoubtedly cause further damage. It will impede progress on the reintroduction of the Great Bustard to the area. It will cost huge sums of money at a time when we are told that public money is not available for vital services. It has been advised against by UNESCO. In short, it would be not only a white elephant but also an act of irrepairable cultural vandalism. "
Paul Timlett
"My Representation will be based on the benefits this scheme will have for local communities and the threats to those communities if the plans are not delivered. It will detail the damage that is being done to the area surrounding the WHS due to the inability of residents to traversae the area due to the congestion on the A303. It will deal with the suffering caused to local communities and the economic damage as a result of traffic rat running to avoid the A303. It will set out how I believe the current intolerable situation will get measurably worse due to the rapid population growth in the area due to Army Rebasing. The A303 is THE critical transit route for residents in the region."
Paul Woodham
"1. Objection to potential damage to Blick Mead Mesolithic site. The site is still poorly understood. The development will destry the very delicate archaeology there. 2. I object to the lack of alternative options which would avoid the site. Several alternative proposals have been put forward in the past, why are these missing from the consultation? 3. I have regularly commuted this road for nearly 40 years, I will be sad to lose the view of the Stones. 4. Why have the Highways Agency not considered simply dualling the road by covering the archaeology with material (Soil from another site) and laying a road on top of the undisturbed archaeology beneath? The road is "new" in terms of the time frame of this site. Leaving the archaeology undisturbed underneath a dual carriageway preserves it for future generations. 5. UNESCO object to this proposal, I agree with their objections."
Paula e diment
"I would like it known that I strongly protest against this proposal of a road going through or under the site which is a sacred area of Stonehenge I believe this would cause among other things severe damaging of the ancient site areas which may never have already been looked at by archaeological and also I feel that due to the sacred area this would be a damaging act against the ancients of this country and our heritage. I believe there are options that can be done without damaging anything in this area"
Pauline King
"I believe it is totally inappropriate to build as planned as loss of habitat is for many species irreplaceable, already we are seeing flora and fauna decreasing and the British countryside is rapidly becoming a barren landscape. I think it would harm the historic site irrevocably and many a trip past the stones with my own children have shown me that even if we don't stop simply seeing the stones from the current roadway is both awe inspiring and encouages children to realise how much history matters."
Peak District Green Lanes Alliance
"The Peak District Green Lanes Alliance is a co-ordinating body for groups and individuals concerned about the problems posed by using off-road vehicles on unsealed and unsurfaced tracks in the countryside. Our main focus is the Peak District but our interests extend to major landscape features throughout the country, such as National Parks, Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty and National Trails. We regard the Stonehenge World Heritage Site (WHS) as a similar feature requiring protection from recreational use of off-road vehicles. The main points we will cover in our written representation are:- 1 We acknowledge the significant efforts Highways England has made to adapt the A303 upgrade to encompass community, environmental and heritage considerations. 2 However we agree with the third ICOMOS/UNESCO Advisory Mission that the scheme does not adequately protect the Outstanding Universal Value (OUV) of the WHS and are concerned that Highways England has ignored the Mission’s recommendation that the scheme should not go ahead in its current form. We agree with the Mission that ideally an upgraded A303 should avoid the WHS completely. 3 We do not feel that a suitable surface route can be found either to the north or south. We therefore feel a tunnel is unavoidable. 4 Again ideally such a tunnel should traverse the whole of the WHS. We can see the practical difficulties of extending it at the eastern end under the Avon valley. We do however feel it should be extended at the western end to start before the WHS boundary. We share the Mission’s concern about how intrusive the cutting would be approaching the western portal. 5 We believe Highways England has imposed a limit on the tunnel length because of an arbitrary budget constraint which requires them to make each phase of the total A303/A358 upgrade show a positive payback. This means that any phase which is particularly difficult will end up with a less than optimum solution. In this case the unique circumstances surrounding Stonehenge are being ignored and possible alternative funding sources (such as the lottery) are not being explored. 6 We are concerned that the scheme does not go far enough in supporting the WHS Management Plan in avoiding the detrimental impact of motor vehicles and encouraging exploration of the whole WHS on foot. We therefore feel advantage should be taken of essential changes to the network of Byways Open to All Traffic by extending them to exclude all recreational motor vehicle use within the WHS. Thus: 6.1 Byway 11 should be stopped up at its source rather than creating a cul-de-sac route ending at the A303. 6.2 Byway 12 should be stopped up over its whole length because it passes through so many heritage features. 6.3 We agree with the dropping of the proposal to link these two Byways. 6.4 If left unaltered, both these Byways will encourage vehicular approach to Stonehenge itself and the concomitant parking and unofficial camping. 6.5 We are aware that Wiltshire County Council wanted to impose experimental traffic regulation orders on these two routes but made mistakes in procedure leading to the process being stopped by the High Court. We think this scheme could achieve the same end in a most expedient manner. 7 We support downgrading the existing surface route of the A303 to restricted byway. 8 We do not feel the scheme should be supporting the creation of any new Byways Open to All Traffic, such as BSJA3, whether within the WHS or without. "
Peter Crowem
"There should be no development close enough to the site that causes visual or audible damage to the experience of visiting the site "
peter jones
"totally unnecessary , appalling waste of public money , badly thought out , no alternatives offered or even it would appear considered . The damage to this most important world heritage would be catastrophic . "
Phil Manning
"I would like to object to the construction of the tunnel past Stonehenge as I feel this will cause damage to the ancient landscape. I would request that the government consider a bypass well away from the monument which would also take away the appalling and increasing through traffic that we here in Salisbury have to endure. two birds, one stone."
philip matthews
"I wish to object to the proposed tunnel on the A303 at Stonehenge on the grounds that it will destroy archeological remains Philip Matthews [Redacted] "
Rachel Stott
"I feel very strongly that then proposed tunnel should not go ahead due to the unique importance of the site, both archaeological and natural."
Rhidian Stoddart
"UNESCO have provided funds to help preserve this site and a lot of its heritage. Much of that heritage is still uncovered. Unless we are prepared to pay those monies back we shouldn’t take UNESCO’s help and then destroy such cultural heritage."
Richard L Sweetnam
"Permanent damage to the World Heritage Site, its archaeology and setting. UNESCO's advisers say the scheme should not go ahead in its present form. Concerns about damage to Blick Mead Mesolithic site and its setting. Lack of alternative options that would not damage the World Heritage Site in the consultation. Loss of view from the road and need to pya to see the Stones. Disturbance of rare bird species (Stone Curlew and Great Bustard). increased noise from more and faster traffic."
Richard Lilley
"Because of the irreparable damage to the important archeological remains at Blick Mead. The objection of so many distinguished and thoughtful people knowledgable in the field has entirely changed my mind about supporting a superficially appealing project. Dont do it. The risks are irreversible. "
Richard Roberts
"Iam greatly disturbed by the plans for a tunnel under what is a sacred monument. The loss of the iconic and free view is unacceptable,as is the damage to the nature and countryside with what is a flawed scheme..This is a ridiculous idea that needs rethinking. A tunnel that is too short so as to save on ventilation costings. Distruction and vandalism of a Sacred site is unacceptable and needs stopping for good.Birds like the Stone Curlew and others will have their vulnerable habitat damaged by the cutting of trees, not to mention the increase in vehicle numbers and additional pollutants."
Rob Donovan
"I submit that not enough attention is being given to the opinions of international bodies that have an interest in preserving the character of this historic site. "
Robert Canner
"I wish to register as an Interested Party with respect to the proposed changes to the A303 in the vicinity of Stonehenge. I am a British Citizen and resident of the South West, wishing to represent my personal views. I am concerned about the possibility of permanent damage to the World Heritage Site (WHS), in terms of cultural heritage, archaeology and the setting of the various ancient places. I am also concerned about implications for wildlife and biodiversity, and the possibility of increased traffic noise within the WHS. I am proud that we have such a WHS in Britain and I think it is important that we listen to UNESCO's advisers when they recommend that the scheme should not go ahead in its present form. I believe it is regrettable that the consultation so far has lacked alternative options that would not damage the WHS."
Robert Hunt-Grubbe
"The sight of Stonehenge as it comes into view from the east is unforgettable at all times. With the sun setting overhead it is truly magical. This monument was given to the nation by Sir Cecil Chubb and should therefore be freely enjoyed by all its citizens. I approve any scheme which retains this view to users of the A303, but do NOT consider a tunnel to be money well spent."
Robert Wakefield
"I would dislike seeing Stonehenge encroached upon."
Roberta Brockman
" Permanent damage to the World Heritage Site, its archaeology and setting. UNESCO's advisers say the scheme should not go ahead in its present form. Concerns about damage to Blick Mead Mesolithic site and its setting. Lack of alternative options that would not damage the World Heritage Site in the consultation. Loss of view from the road and need to pya to see the Stones. Disturbance of rare bird species (Stone Curlew and Great Bustard). increased noise from more and faster traffic. "
Robin Bainton
"• Permanent damage to the World Heritage Site, its archaeology and setting. • UNESCO's advisers say the scheme should not go ahead in its present form. • Concerns about damage to Blick Mead Mesolithic site and its setting. • Lack of alternative options that would not damage the World Heritage Site in the consultation. • Loss of view from the road and need to pya to see the Stones. • Disturbance of rare bird species (Stone Curlew and Great Bustard). • increased noise from more and faster traffic. The scheme is unlikely to have wider benefits as any increase in highway capacity and speed will just move traffic jams further along the road. I believe the balance of benefit lies with retaining the existing road. It is too precious a site to endanger in ways that cannot be predicted. "
Robin Wrigley
"I am opposed to the building of a tunnel for several basic reasons. 1. The huge cost at a time when the country simply cannot afford it. 2. The simple building of another lane on the A303 would alleviate the current bottle neck for fraction of the cost of a tunnel. 3. The tunnel will uncover and destroy immense number of buried historical treasures. 4. The time to finish a tunnel will run into generational timeframe. 5. Costs will multiply exponentially. 6. It simply does not make sense in the minds of ordinary people and is just a pipedream of English Heritage dreamers."
Rod Archard
"The proposed short tunnel will compromise the area around Stonehenge. The tunnel portals are much too close to the stones so their environment will be noisy rather than tranquil. The scheme fails to take advantage of the land profile which would make a longer tunnel emerge well to the west of the site. This would also be deeper underground causing less likelihood of problems with the ground conditions and avoiding the extremely obtrusive cuttings and portals presently planned. The present scheme would be bad close to any heritage site - in the context of Stonehenge it is outrageous."
Roger Plenty
"Damage has already been done by driving a bore hole through a Mesolithic platform. If this happens even before work gets under way, what damage can we expect when contractors with heavy plant are on the site? The whole area is riddled with known and unknown archaeology, and advice from UNESCO is that the scheme should not go ahead in its present form."
Rosalind Daws
"I object to the current proposal for several reasons. Firstly there will be permanent damage to the World Heritage Site, its archaeology and setting. UNESCO's advisers say the scheme should not go ahead in its present form. I have concerns about damage to Blick Mead Mesolithic site and its setting. There is a lack of alternative options that would not damage the World Heritage Site in the consultation. It will mean a loss of a view of the stones from the road and mean you need to pay to see the Stones. They are such a monumental icon of ancient British culture this is shortsighted and elitist. There will be a disturbance of rare bird species (Stone Curlew and Great Bustard) and I creased noise from more and faster traffic. More roads means more traffic and it is a shortsighted policy to damage such an iconic and ancient site for the sake of traffic. We are at a turning point in our history and evolution, with 12 years to make changes necessary to avoid climate disaster every decision needs to be reassessed with regard to assumptions and direction of growth that it is part of in the larger picture. More traffic is not a wise choice. "
BNP Paribas Real Estate on behalf of Royal Mail Group Limited
"Under section 35 of the Postal Services Act 2011 (the “Act”), Royal Mail has been designated by Ofcom as a provider of the Universal Postal Service. Royal Mail is the only such provider in the United Kingdom. The Act provides that Ofcom’s primary regulatory duty is to secure the provision of the Universal Postal Service. Ofcom discharges this duty by imposing regulatory conditions on Royal Mail, requiring it to provide the Universal Postal Service. The Act includes a set of minimum standards for Universal Service Providers, which Ofcom must secure. The conditions imposed by Ofcom reflect those standards. Royal Mail is under some of the highest specification performance obligations for quality of service in Europe. Its performance of the Universal Service Provider obligations is in the public interest and should not be affected detrimentally by any statutorily authorised project. Royal Mail’s postal sorting and delivery operations rely heavily on road communications. Royal Mail’s ability to provide efficient mail collection, sorting and delivery to the public is sensitive to changes in the capacity of the highway network. Royal Mail is a major road user nationally. Disruption to the highway network and traffic delays can have direct consequences on Royal Mail’s operations, its ability to meet the Universal Service Obligation and comply with the regulatory regime for postal services thereby presenting a significant risk to Royal Mail’s business. The A303 is a strategically important distribution route for Royal Mail. Any construction phase delays can be expected to have direct impact on all local and regional Royal Mail vehicle movements using the affected section of the A303. In addition, Royal Mail’s has two operational Delivery Offices both within 0.5 km of the proposed DCO boundary near Amesbury (Amesbury Delivery Office SP4 7EW and Bulford Barracks Delivery Office SP4 9JB). Therefore Royal Mail is concerned that its future ability to provide an efficient mail sorting and delivery service to the public in accordance with its statutory obligations may be adversely affected by the construction of this extensive A road improvement as proposed in the DCO application. Royal Mail submitted a s42 consultation response in April 2018 which made two requests of Highways England for inclusion in the draft DCO. These requests have not been satisfactorily addressed in the draft DCO, so Royal Mail wishes to further protect its interests through submission of this relevant representation. Royal Mail requests that the final DCO includes requirements that: 1. Royal Mail is pre-consulted by Highways England on any proposed road closures/ diversions/ alternative access arrangements, hours of working and the content of the final Construction Traffic Management Plan (CTMP). 2. The final CTMP includes provision for a mechanism to inform major road users about works affecting the local network (with particular regard to Royal Mail’s distribution facilities in the vicinity of the DCO application site). Contacts for Royal Mail: Holly Trotman ([email protected]) of Royal Mail’s Legal Services Team Daniel Parry-Jones ([email protected]) of BNP Paribas Real Estate. "
Ruth Lerew
"I believe from the evidence I have seen that the plans will have a detrimental affect on Stonehenge. This listed site needs to be protected. Not enough has been done to look at alternatives. I strongly object this proposal and urge the planning inspectorate to consider the environmental impact on the heritage site. "
S Slater
" Permanent damage to the World Heritage Site, its archaeology and setting. UNESCO's advisers say the scheme should not go ahead in its present form. Concerns about damage to Blick Mead Mesolithic site and its setting. Lack of alternative options that would not damage the World Heritage Site in the consultation. Loss of view from the road and need to pya to see the Stones. Disturbance of rare bird species (Stone Curlew and Great Bustard). increased noise from more and faster traffic. "
Samantha Cutlan
"I have so many concerns about this....but in brief -Permanent damage to the World Heritage Site, its archaeology and setting. -UNESCO's advisers say the scheme should not go ahead in its present form. -Concerns about damage to Blick Mead Mesolithic site and its setting. -Lack of alternative options that would not damage the World Heritage Site in the consultation. -Loss of view from the road and need to pay to see the Stones. -Disturbance of rare bird species (Stone Curlew and Great Bustard). -increased noise from more and faster traffic."
Sandra Alexander
"I believe construction regarding the road widening of the A303, Stonehenge will be irrevocably damaging to this ancient site, which should be considered as a whole, even extending to its horizons and extending, too, below ground - an equally sacrosanct area. As a visitor to Stonehenge I do not want to be in sight of a road or to know that modern engineering had disturbed the land below with a road tunnel. This would be utterly disrespectful of this World Heritage Site, so important to everyone living in today's world. Furthermore, I would like existing roads to be re-sited much further away and the Stones only approachable on foot as they would have been long ago."
Sandra White
"I am extremely concerned that this Stonehenge should be preserved in its entirety. I visit the stones often and my time there is extremely precious. I also drive past the site and the current view from the road is important too - the distant view enables the full magnificence of the stones and structure as a whole to be taken in differently from being close by. I do not find that the current proposals pay due respect to this World Heritage Site which, once damaged, can never be restored. I am also concerned that the advice from UNESCO, that the current proposals should not go ahead, is being ignored. I cannot understand why the world's expert opinion is not being taken into account - this indicates to me that the importance and status of Stonehenge for the whole world is not being taken seriously enough. I have not seen a singe proposal put forward that does not damage the whole World Heritage Site or the Blick Mead Mesolithic site and its setting. Given the importance and status of these sites for the whole world, and the way Stonehenge itself is cherished and vitally important for significant numbers of people in their spiritual practice and also a significant site in Britain's the world's history, I consider that not damaging these sites should be the priority in any scheme to improve traffic flow in the area. A real, authentic consultation should include proposals that incur no damage, as that would be taking account of the importance of these sites for a very wide range of people who are interested in them for different reasons. I understand from the Stonehenge Alliance that the proposals threaten the habitats of two rare species of bird, namely the Stone Curlew and the Great Bustard, and rank this extremely high in order of priority - we must be learning now the importance of safeguarding our biodiversity and upholding habitats of threatened species. I am concerned that increased traffic flow, with its concommitant noise, will cause lasting damage over time, I also want to see proposals that would make visiting Stonehenge and the whole World Heritage Site financially accessible to everyone, including people on very low incomes. "
Sara Bryant
"1) I believe that the proposed work will cause permanent damage to this World Heritage Site, its archaeology and setting, making impossible much overdue work to explore it in greater depth than ever before, something which shows enormous promise in the light of recent discoveries at Blick Mead. 2) Needless to say, Blick Mead and other equally sensitive and so far unexplored sites would be damaged and ruined for ever as a resource for understanding our prehistory and the true context of Stonehenge. 3) It seems that there is a woeful lack of alternative options that would avoid damage to this site and the entire area, and not enough effort made to unearth such suggestions. Almost anyone you ask would be delighted to see it made a National Park and that would also make the entire area a much more attractive place for visitors from around the world to come to. There appears to have been a lack of sufficient consultation and of the necessary willingness to listen to the wishes of the people of this country regarding such an important site. 4) Opposition to the current proposal, at least in its current form, is also strongly backed by the august body of UNESCO, which should not be discounted. 5) Also, not to be forgotten is the disturbance the work would cause to rare bird species, such as the Stone Curlew and Great Bustard, and also the inevitable and unacceptable increased noise created by more and faster traffic. 6) Moreover, the view of Stonehenge from the road, which has always existed, would be lost, and those who wish to see it, even from a distance, would be sure to have to pay. While nobody minds helping to fund the preservation of such a site, this seems the wrong way to go about it and likely to alienate people rather than encourage them to contribute. It could appear to be a cynical money-making exercise, excluding those without sufficient funds but who have a right to see the stones. I trust a sense of responsiblity will prevail and that this entire exercise will be re-examined with a very open mind. "
Sarah Bowles
"This World Hertitage site should be preserved for future generations, intact, unspoiled undamaged. "
Sarah Rapley
"Permanent damage to the World Heritage Site, its archaeology and setting. UNESCO's advisers say the scheme should not go ahead in its present form. Concerns about damage to Blick Mead Mesolithic site and its setting. Lack of alternative options that would not damage the World Heritage Site in the consultation. Loss of view from the road and need to pay to see the Stones. Disturbance of rare bird species (Stone Curlew and Great Bustard). increased noise from more and faster traffic."
Sean Barclay
"Stonehenge is a unique and treasured National Monument of great scientific and other valueror some it still has religious significance and we have a duty as a nation to guaranteee protection of all valuable historical and archeological sites its sanctity must not be violated and also there should be access for people on foot the proposed plan is horrendous and will destroy all this "
Sheila Gale
"I believe the current application will damage the World heritage Site, both its archaeology and its setting. UNESCO has said that it should not go ahead in its present form. The traffic flow will be faster therefore there will be more noise pollution. The view from the road will disappear and you will only see Stonehenge if you pay."
Sian Griffiths
"My representation is my concern for Stonehenge as a World Heritage Site, any planning application should not jeopardise this status. Stonehenge is an ancient monument which is visited by thousands of people, both from home and overseas each year - any planning application should not reduce the views or access that visitors currently have."
Simon Larn
"I have monitored this proposal since it was first suggested, and from my point of view as an amateur archaeologist (but with some hands on professional experience), I am firmly opposed to this plan for several reasons. The damage to this World Heritage site as currently understood (which is important), that would be caused by the excavation of both the lead-in ramps, and also the tunnel itself would prevent the possibility of further contextual study of these areas in the future. Fundamentally, I start from the position that as it stands no one can say with any certainty why Stonehenge is where it is, why it was built at all, or precisely what the pre-historical context of the monument is within a landscape that has clearly been of significance to people since at least the Mesolithic period. So, given such an indisputable lack of understanding, it seems absurdly short sighted to cause this amount of damage without even knowing what it is that might be missed in the course of the destruction of areas of previously untouched landscape. I can see no possible justification for this scheme on the basis of relieving a temporary traffic congestion issue that has existed for maybe 30 years, and might persist for perhaps another 40 years (depending on how you view the future of personal transport by car), when requiring the destruction of potential archaeological data that has been undisturbed for anything up to 10,000 years. I don't think this is anything other than a very logical position to take, and I trust that common sense will ultimately prevail. My suggestion would certainly be that if road improvements are deemed a national strategic necessity, then this is done in such a way as to cause no significant damage to the land surface. That surface is not replaceable, and until anyone can argue that no further information is required in order to understand this unique area, or indeed that the necessity for this tunnel is known to be long term, which I know is not the case, then this scheme in it's current form should not go ahead. Many thanks for listening, and please do take the obvious decision on this. "
Simon Marshall
"I am writing to express serious objection to the plans to build a dual carriageway through the UNESCO World Heritage Site around Stonehenge. The area is one of unique archaeological and ritual importance, which is by no means restricted the known monuments. While I understand that budget is a constraint, given the high stakes I am shocked that the consultation lacks alternative options that would not damage the World Heritage Site. It's almost unbelievable that this plan has come so far without anyone recognising the severe and permanent damage it will do to one of the most significant prehistoric ritual landscapes in the world. Please register my representation, which is one of objection to the proposed scheme."
Sion Elis Williams
"This scheme is completely flawed. If it goes ahead it will jeopardise the World Heritage Site (WHS) designation of Stonehenge WHS. It also has a number of negative environmental impacts, and my objection is primarily based on the certainty that this scheme will induce additional traffic and therefore fail to deliver on its aims while exacerbating already-unacceptable air pollution and climate change impacts of the existing roads in the area. To compound this the Institute for Government's Whitehall Monitor 2018 clearly demonstrates that the project is too risky to go ahead without public funding and that this would be extremely poor value for money: "Four projects were given a red rating in 2017 (nuclear core production at MoD, the A303 tunnel and M20 lorry park at DfT, selling government-owned shares at BEIS), and one project – relating to IT improvements at the Home Office – was reset with a new business case after being rated red in 2016.”"
Society of Antiquaries of London
"We have previously responded to Highways England's consultations on the proposals for improving the A303 past Stonehenge. Several of our concerns about the impact of the scheme on the archaeological landscape appear to have been met. It is welcome that the tunnel now respects the line of the cursus at the eastern end and that it now quite closely follows the line of the existing A303. The adoption of a cutting at the western end of the new tunnel means that the traffic will be shielded from view within almost all of the World Heritage Site (WHS), the sightlines for the solstice will be unimpeded and the tunnel mouth is no longer so close to the Normanton/Bell barrows. However, many of details of how the scheme will be delivered require a great deal more thought, if the archaeological landscape is to be appropriately protected. The 'outstanding universal value' of the Stonehenge WHS is cited as follows - 'The disposition, physical remains and settings of the key Neolithic and Bronze Age funerary, ceremonial and other monuments and sites of the period....together form a landscape without parallel'. It is also clear that the settings of this landscape extend beyond the boundaries of the WHS. With this context in mind, our concerns about the proposed scheme are threefold - - that the design of the overall scheme minimises and mitigates potential damage to the archaeological remains; - that all necessary archaeological survey and and evaluation of the areas likely to be affected by the scheme are completed before the public examination of the scheme takes place; and - that, dependent on the Secretary of State's decision, further archaeological work arising from the survey and evaluation is carried out in any areas of significance which may be damaged by the scheme. In particular, we have specific concerns about - - potential damage to the complex of archaeological sites surrounding the A303/360 junction and the proposed western cutting (the case for the sinking of the A303 into a cutting west of the western portal ramp needs to be considered more fully); - potential damage to archaeological remains in the area of the Winterbourne Stoke bypass to Longbarrow junction, arising from the contractors' site compounds and the treatment and disposal of the 'spoil' from the tunnellings; - potential negative impact on the important monuments located above the tunnel itself, arising from any movements in the subsoils during the tunnelling operations; - potential damage to archaeological remains in the wide corridor defined for the central section of the scheme, as a result of the infrastructure associated with construction works (haul roads, compounds and spoil heaps); - the potential impact on archaeological deposits of the proposed new link road at the eastern end of the scheme immediately north of a group of scheduled barrows. This substance of this summary representation is consistent with points we have previously raised in our responses to Highways England. "
Sonia Miller
"I am very against your proposal for many reasons Further pollution in an area which is of outstanding historical heritage and interest! Interfering with lay lines surrounding the henge and unnecessary!! "
Sophie Latter
"Unbelievable that such an ancient site of importance to our ancestors thousands of years ago and linking our history through to who we are today, the people of Britain, that we can put the land and ancient site at such risk. Stonehenge holds such importance not only for us, but people the world over and it should be respected. Anything that may potentially cause damage to it and spoil the surrounding area should not be allowed to happen. "
Steph Bell
" I object due to the following reasons, permanent damage to the World Heritage Site, its archaeology and setting. UNESCO's advisers say the scheme should not go ahead in its present form. Concerns about damage to Blick Mead Mesolithic site and its setting. Lack of alternative options that would not damage the World Heritage Site in the consultation. Loss of view from the road and need to pya to see the Stones. Disturbance of rare bird species (Stone Curlew and Great Bustard). increased noise from more and faster traffic."
Steve Hill
"Improve the route to the M5 as a large amount of traffic is going north via the A358 this will reduce the majority of the haulage traffic from the south coast ports."
Steve Thomas
"I am very concerned that the planning proposal will restrict public access and enjoyment of this important UNESCO heritage site. Also concerns me greatly that the roadworks could damage millennia-old archaeology that we have yet to discover and still don’t or can’t understand. Pollution from vehicles could damage the ancient monument and proximity of traffic could destroy the monument for future generations. Free access to view the site as well as the various religious and spiritual groups who revere the site must be protected. It should not be used as a plaything to generate income. "
Stuart John Wilford
"I'm against the road is it will destroy our most ancient and historic world heritage site. I feel the proposed road is a deliberate act to try and remove the last pieces of our indigenous heritage and religion. "
Sue Marcus
"Stonehenge is irreplaceable. The proposal will definitely adversely affect the World Heritage site, it’s archaeology, landscape and it’s setting in perpetuity. UNESCO has stated its objections to the plans and due regard must be given to it’s views. The plan will increase noise and pollution. "
Sue O'Sullivan
"I believe that Stonehenge and the surrounding areas, the whole world heritage site is totally unique and very special. It should be cherished and treated with the utmost caution and respect. Not just the stones themselves but all the surrounding area. We have a duty to ourselves and to future generations to look after this INCREDIBLE place. UNESCO has advised against the current plan, and it puts the Heritage Site status under threat, as well as the unique wildlife of the area "
Sue Shepherd-Cross
"I wish to support the Stone Aliances objections to this application."
Susan Cullip
"I amvery concerned about the destruction of a most important archaelogical site. I understand that UNESCO are against the proposed plan too. Also I am very against the loss of the view from the road, I have enjoyed that view since I was a little girl travelling between London and Wells. It is iconic in itself and to cut people off from that is a crime!"
Susan Graney
"As a local resident who also works as a tour guide at Stonehenge, I am concerned of the implications on local residents of the proposed Stonehenge Tunnel and I also worry about the disturbance of the archaelogically significant remains within the proposed tunnel area. I feel an alternative and less costly solution should be sought."
Susan Marshall
"It will ruin Stonehenge and change the sight u see from the road plus’s the damage that could happen to stonehenge"
Susan Sutton
"The environment, wildlife and heritage are all important to my life. I believe these plans will damage all of these. Endangered wildlife in the area will be even more at risk. The World Heritage sight will be damaged and blighted as views of this wonder will disappear (I grew up being able to see the stones and walk amongst them). This all needs a serious re-think."
Tanya Wills
"Stonehenge is an historical, archaeological, and spiritual site of international renown and importance. Major excavation in the proposed proximity to the site will risk damage to the site in ways that cannot be foretold before commencement of the work. Any comment to the contrary is conjecture, and best guess. The site, like Silbury Hill and and the surrounding areas close to the site are not yet fully investigated by academics including historians and archeologists, for reasons of their uncertainty regarding how much damage will be done by the process of investigation. As improved exploratory techniques become available with technological advance, ways of further investigation without damage to that which is being investigated, are becoming possible. It is known that the importance of the site spreads way beyond the immediacy of the site itself, and there is much to be discovered in the surrounding area. So how and why on earth would anyone give permission for our own heritage and knowledge of our history to be compromised by a road and tunnel to be run through it? There already exists a road, the A303, on which we all queue at various times, the most famous queue of all being the the one where traffic slows so that the occupants of the vehicles can take in the splendour of one of the most magnificent ancient historical sites on the planet. Who and why would anyone take away the opportunity to view this unique scene from our landscape? It seems incredible that our own highways agency and planners think it permissible to fly in the face of UNESCO, an internationally renowned and respected organisation, which has voiced its concerns and opposition to the current plans. Where are the alternative plans for a new road for us to consider, if a new road has to be considered at all? The current plans are being presented as a 'fait a compli' without any alternative being presented to the public. What is the driver behind the story that we 'need' a new road? The A303 is a major artery, and vehicles sometimes queue. The M25 is a major route, and vehicles sometimes queue. The expansion of the M25 because it is a major route, and flow needed to be eased, failed comprehensively, just like the highways agency and planners were told it would. The answer to road congestion is not to build new, or to expand roads. Road expansion and new roads attract more traffic, and the cycle becomes repetitive. There are alternative routes to the west country, just as there are alternative routes around London. They may be regarded as less convenient, but in reality they are no less convenient than sitting in a queue on a major road. As road expansion always results in the need for more expansion, the argument for a bigger road to facilitate traffic flow is is defunct. I would question who is insisting this plan is necessary and why? The plan is already known to be financially extortionate and hardly viable for that reason, so given that so little is being spent on national road maintenance across the board, and that the country is plagued by potholes and deteriorating road surfaces, the result of which is literally needlessly causing death and serious injury to road users, how can the expense to the Stonehenge new road plan be justified from the national road budget? "
Terry Sessford
"I wish to object to the proposed A303 'expressway' in the vicinity of Stonehenge, primarily on the grounds of: - Damage to the Stonehenge UNESCO World Heritage Site, its archaeology and surrounding countryside. - Further urbanisation and industrialisation of the irreplaceable and precious landscape that is unique to Salisbury Plain. - Damage to local flora and fauna (including rare bird species) and the loss of tranquillity due to increased pollution and noise from more road traffic travelling at faster speeds. "
Thames Crossing Action Group
"As an action group opposed to the proposed Lower Thames Crossing we have learn about many other destructive Highways England schemes including this one. We have serious concerns over the way that HE are not listening to locals and experts regarding this scheme and the damage it has and will do to the area, especially the historic site. Including the damage to Blick Mead Mesolithic site and its setting. The irreparable damage to Stonehenge (and the entire WHS) and surrounding area. We are greatly concerned that yet again there was a lack of alternatives from HE, and that the damage the scheme will do to the site and area has not properly been taken into account. We question whether this scheme is about taking away the opportunity for people to view Stonehenge as they drive by and force the need to pay to view. The scheme will damage habitats and environments for locals and wildlife and encourage faster noisier traffic. The total lack of concern from HE regarding all the evidence to show that this scheme is wrong and will destroy such historic and world recognised site/areas is despicable and needs addressing. We object to this scheme wholeheartedly."
Susan Rogers (Hon Secretary) on behalf of The Avebury Society
"The Avebury Society, founded as a civic society in 1994, with interests in the Avebury part of the World Heritage Site (WHS), now has c.60 members. A series of inappropriate Avebury planning proposals in the 1990s brought enhanced significance to the WHS designation. This led to our participation in an Avebury Local Plan and successive WHS management plans. We are represented on the Avebury WHS Steering Committee. We have the following objections. 1. Little consideration has been given to Avebury in relation to the A303 Stonehenge scheme which has major implications for the whole WHS. What happens to one part of the WHS sets a precedent for the other, in terms of planning safeguards and tourism including, at Avebury, potential influx of more visitors, along with problems with parking, facilities and erosion. Comprehensive studies to consider these effects should have been a pre-requisite of the scheme. 2. A c.3km tunnel was announced from the start and other viable options were not consulted upon, whereas a conference of all interested parties in 1995 agreed that a 4.5km tunnel could be an appropriate solution. 3. Promotion of the scheme involved misleading statements, e.g., that it would “protect” and “help conserve and enhance” the WHS. 4. Public consultation took place in South Wiltshire with only two exhibitions/presentations in the Avebury area at the request of the Parish Council. Our positive suggestions produced no changes. The scheme, for a WHS, should have been more widely consulted upon. Even so, it appears those responding to consultations have largely objected (78% in the first round) and their concerns have been ignored. 5. Highways England has ignored the advice of UNESCO’s World Heritage Centre and ICOMOS specialists to honour the UK’s World Heritage Convention commitments, as well as their advice, and that of the World Heritage Committee, to explore options not damaging to the WHS and its OUV. 6. The scheme does not respect local or national planning policy and guidance; nor relevant European Directives and Conventions. The World Heritage Convention and the relevant WHS Management Plan vision, together with their safeguarding of the WHS have been ignored. 7. Impact Assessment conclusions do not acknowledge the substantial harm of physical and visual impacts of the scheme on the WHS as a whole, its OUV, and its setting. This is a continuing failure, despite more recent understanding of OUV. 8. We question the statement that the existing A303 damages the OUV of the WHS; and consider that the loss of the much appreciated ‘free view’ from the road would be a seriously adverse outcome of the scheme. 9. The A303 scheme in construction and operation would be so damaging to the WHS that the designation might be withdrawn and the years of planning and involvement of all concerned parties in the Site’s protection would have been wasted, with adverse impacts on both parts of the WHS. 10. The proposals for Stonehenge are most likely to be detrimental to Avebury. "
The Historic Buildings and Monuments Commission for England
"Introduction Historic England is the government’s statutory adviser on all matters relating to the historic environment, including world heritage. It is our duty under the provisions of the National Heritage Act 1983 (as amended) to secure the preservation and enhancement of the historic environment. There is also, in this case, the requirement in Article 4 of the 1972 Convention Concerning the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage to protect, conserve, present and transmit the values of the Stonehenge, Avebury and Associated Sites World Heritage Site (WHS). Our objective therefore is to ensure that the historic environment generally and, in particular, the WHS element is fully taken into account in the determination of this DCO. The proposal raises a wide range of issues affecting heritage assets, including monuments scheduled under the provisions of the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Areas Act 1979 (as amended) and structures listed under the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 along the length of the route, including the section that passes through the Stonehenge component of the WHS. Accordingly we consider that it would be very beneficial if the Examination Panel included a person with expertise in heritage matters, particularly World Heritage Sites and archaeology. Current Position The existing A303 trunk road has a substantial adverse impact on the Outstanding Universal Value (OUV) of the WHS and we accept the need to improve the road between Amesbury and Berwick Down. We have engaged with Highways England and other stakeholders to encourage a scheme which delivers benefits to the historic environment while avoiding and minimising adverse impacts. This applies particularly to the Stonehenge component of the WHS and the many other designated heritage assets, together with their settings, within and adjacent to the development limits. We support the aspirations of the road scheme proposed in the DCO and believe that it offers the potential to deliver a beneficial outcome for the historic environment and to sustain and enhance the OUV of the WHS, by putting much of the current surface road into a bored tunnel and allowing archaeological features currently separated by the A303 to be appreciated as part of a reunited landscape. However if this potential is to be realised in practice we believe it is essential for a number of matters to be addressed satisfactorily and we set these out below. Outstanding Matters We note that PINs issued a S51 letter requesting various documents to be submitted and the Applicant has now responded. Although relationships between these documents have been clarified, we are concerned that a number of items, which we consider to be of key importance to the examination of the DCO, are not yet available. We believe that the following documents should be made available in advance of examination in order to inform the detailed consideration of the DCO: • the Detailed Archaeological Mitigation Strategy (DAMS); • an Overarching Written Scheme of Investigation to accompany the DAMS; • a Preliminary Outline Environmental Management Plan for preliminary works including archaeological mitigation. The Applicant’s response to the S51 advice indicated that the REAC table 3.2a of the OEMP provided specific measures to apply to works. However this contains insufficient detail given the very high sensitivity of the proposal. • completed archaeological evaluation reports for the scheme. These are essential to a proper understanding of the archaeological impacts of the scheme and of the basis on which the DAMS has been drawn up. We consider the applicant has not yet produced the necessary detail on some elements of the scheme which have the potential to affect adversely the OUV of the WHS. In particular there is an absence of detailed proposals for: • design and visual representations for key elements of infrastructure within the WHS, including the western tunnel portal and its extension, the eastern tunnel portal, the articulation and form of open cutting retaining walls and the design, construction, form and appearance of Green Bridge 4; • proposed Non-Motorised User (NMU) routes, their articulation and form, and how they relate to sections of the A303 and A360 made redundant by the scheme; the removal of road infrastructure that will be made redundant by the scheme and the proposed reinstatement of land within the former highway boundary beyond that required for new NMU routes. There is also uncertainty about the relationship between the byways proposed by the scheme and the implications of the recent Experimental Traffic Regulation Order; • lighting, signage, fencing, drainage, balance ponds, landscaping including tree planting in and adjacent to the WHS; and • construction-period temporary infrastructure and reinstatement of affected land post-construction We are also concerned about a lack of clarity and consideration of some aspects of the scheme and the resultant impacts that these could have including: • tunnel limits of deviation: the location of the proposed western portal has been carefully considered – yet there is a proposed limit of deviation of up to 200m westwards, which is a significant variation in relation to the local topography. • potential restriction of future archaeological research within the affected part of the WHS (e.g. above the tunnel route). This would be contrary to the provisions of the Stonehenge WHS Management Plan, reflecting obligations accepted by the UK Government in ratifying the World Heritage Convention. Restrictions on future archaeological research could have an adverse impact upon the OUV of the WHS. • appropriateness of some of the provisions of the draft DCO (in light of the scheme traversing the WHS) to secure the protection of the historic environment and to ensure that there are mechanisms to implement and deliver the mitigation, benefits and legacy provisions and aspirations of the scheme. • adequacy of measures for consultation and engagement of Historic England in the Discharge of Requirements – in light of the impact on the WHS and archaeology. There are also a number of points of detail within the documents submitted which raise issues of accuracy, clarity and consistency which should be resolved either in the written representations, statement of common ground or via the Applicant submitting an errata report as appropriate. We would also note that the DCO encompasses compulsory purchase provisions which will have a bearing on Historic England landownership. The English Heritage Trust will be leading the response to this aspect. Conclusion For the reasons outlined above, Historic England wishes to register its interest in the examination of the A303 Amesbury to Berwick Down Road Improvement. "
The Stonehenge Alliance
"The Stonehenge Alliance is a group of five national NGOs: Ancient Sacred Landscape Network, Campaign for Better Transport, Campaign to Protect Rural England, Friends of the Earth and Rescue: The British Archaeological Trust. 1. We submit that any approval of the A303 Stonehenge scheme would breach/be contrary to the following: • The Planning Act 2008 • The World Heritage Convention and advice given by the UNESCO’s World Heritage Committee and international specialists • Relevant national planning policy and guidance • Local Plan policy for the World Heritage Site (WHS) • The WHS Management Plan • The Environmental Impact Assessment Directive (85/337/EEC) • The Habitats Directive (Council Directive 92/43/EEC) and The Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017 (Habitats Regulations) in respect of the Salisbury Plain SPA and River Avon SAC • The Bern Convention on the Conservation of European Wildlife and Habitats • The Birds Directive (2009/147/EC) in respect of Annex I species • The Aarhus Convention, in respect of genuine public participation in environmental decision-making • The European Convention on the protection of the Archaeological Heritage • The European Landscape Convention • The SEA Directive (European Directive 2001/42/EC) and The Environmental Assessment of Plans and Programmes Regulations 2004 (Statutory Instrument 2004, no. 1633) on the environmental impacts of the planned A303/A358 corridor improvements programme alone and in combination 2. In respect of the above, and in addition, we have concerns and/or objections on the following: • severe and irreversible damage to the WHS, its archaeology, landscape and setting • loss of archaeological evidence • threat to World Heritage designation • insufficient understanding of the archaeological landscape and its potential meaning to those who developed it over time • insufficient protection of the WHS landscape for future generations to enjoy • inadequate heritage impact assessment (omits full assessment of impacts on WHS and its OUV) • loss of the view of Stonehenge from the A303 • insufficient consideration of value and susceptibility of internationally acclaimed landscape to adverse impacts as required under GLVIA3 • significant locations and visitor-receptors ignored in viewpoints considered, e.g., the A303 • LVIA misrepresents landscape and visual effects and omits adequate mention of adverse impacts in summaries • problems of groundwater flow and contamination resulting from tunnel construction leading to adverse impacts on water quality and the integrity of the SAC • potential damage in tunnel construction to archaeology and the WHS landscape • threats to Annex I Stone curlews and Great Bustards from construction and operation of the scheme • noise and tranquillity • inadequate consultation, including insufficient data for informed responses • misleading publicity/advertising in scheme consultation and promotion • weight of public opinion disregarded in responses to consultation • inadequate length of time for the planning process including the registration period • information still lacking on ground characterisation and groundwater data from boreholes and associated geotechnical work carried out for Highways England during 2018. • information lacking on archaeological evaluation • need for the scheme is not compelling • no economic case for the scheme on transport grounds • weak economic case for the scheme overall • inadequate range of options assessed • implausible calculation of monetised heritage benefit • impacts of tunnel closures • climate change "
Theresa Waterhouse
" Stonehenge is unique - as we all know, and its designation as a World Heritage Site shows that the utmost care needs to be taken with this site, it is vital that proper consultation takes place before any scheme is undertaken. We need to think about future generations, traffic solutions may be found which would mean fewer private cars and trucks on the road, so nothing should be done which will damage the site for a short term solution to current traffic problems. "
Thomas Bachrach
"The proposed works at Stonehenge are dangerous to the archaeological integrity of the world heritage site. As a historian, I feel I have the duty to stand up for this piece of English heritage. There needs to be more time to work over alternatives to the tunnel. "
Thomas T. Gough
" Stonehenge and the surrounding area is probably the most important region of prehistoric monuments in the UK and perhaps in the world. It stands to reason that, in the region there remain, many as yet, undiscovered artifacts, burial chambers, etc. It is essential that every effort is made to prevent any unintended damage to any of these or to the existing known monuments. The present plans do not provide this assurance "
Tim Mullett
"As an archaeology graduate, while I understand the desire and perhaps necessity to create an improved route for traffic on the A303 in the environs of Stonehenge, I am convinced that the current plans and arguments of Highway England for a dual carriageway and tunnel to bypass Stonehenge should be rejected. The damage and disruption to this irreplaceable ancient, historic and unique World Heritage site and setting would be enormous. Indeed UNESCO itself has advised that these plans should not go ahead which should raise an immediate red flag. We are custodians of one of the most important archaeological sites in the world, still little understood and a focal point for the increasing spiritual movement worldwide. Any plans to divert traffic should place this importance at the top of its priority list, far above economics, speed etc. History will look back and judge very poorly plans carried out based on expediency and political interest as a priority. Far from delivering a solution which improves the site, current plans are focused primarily on traffic issues and risk significant permanent damage to the World Heritage Site, its archaeology and setting and indeed may increase road noise for visitors to Stonehenge. There are also concerns about damage to Blick Mead Mesolithic site and its setting. Within the consultation there is an almost total lack of alternative options presented that would not damage the World Heritage Site. Why is this? Is the process being deliberately skewed? At it stands there is a fine view of the site from the current roadway, meaning no payment is needed to see this extraordinary site. Driving past this site in my youth inspired me to study Archaeology and scientific history. Yet under current proposals all would have to pay simply for a glimpse of the stones, denying millions access to an important part of their heritage. I also understand that there may be disturbance of rare bird species (eg Stone Curlews and Great Bustards) who nest in the area. "
Tina Johnston
"No to the road at Stonehenge world heritage site "
Tom Owen
"The proposals do not adequately protect the landscape, the archeology, or the experience of a monument of national and global importance."
Tony Wingrove
"The destruction of neolithic sites. The destruction of ancient archilogical sites along the path of the proposed road. The closure of ancient rights of way. "
Tracy Lee
"I am registering to become an Interested Party to take part in the Examination of the above application for development consent which has been submitted to the Planning Inspectorate. My reasons for this are driven by my concerns regarding the potential permanent damage to the World Heritage Site, its archaeology and setting. Where UNESCO's advisers say the scheme should not go ahead in its present form due to concerns about damage to Blick Mead Mesolithic site and its setting and my opinion that there has been insufficient investigation into alternative options that would not damage the World Heritage Site in the consultation. I am also significantly concerned regarding the disturbance of rare bird species, specifically the recently re-introduced Great Bustard. Indeed I feel it is very short-sighted to overlook the significant amount of work that has been undertaken to re-introduce this particular species successfully in our country. "
Trail Riders Fellowship
"The Trail Riders Fellowship (“TRF”) responded to the consultation on 23 April 2018, and to the supplementary consultation on 13 August 2018. TRF objects to the application for the following reasons. * For recreational vehicular users, the scheme extinguishes the historic connection between Byways Amesbury 11 and Amesbury 12, turning Byway 11 into a dead-end; * While an alternative link was originally proposed (and supported by TRF) that has been removed from the scheme for which consent is sought; * TRF members and others have used Byways 11 and 12 as a valuable part of the local network of byways open to all traffic (BOATs) and unsealed unclassified public roads for many years; * Highways England has not explained how the extinguishment of vehicular rights without providing an alternative right of way complies with s.136(1) of the Planning Act 2008; * In any event, the justification for removing the link is flawed and/or based on inadequate analysis; and * Separately, the proposed byway on the at-grade line of the A303 should be available for small-capacity two-wheeled vehicles. TRF is a national membership organisation, incorporated and limited by guarantee. Its objects are to preserve the full status of vehicular roads and green lanes and the rights of motorcyclists and others to use them as a legitimate part of the access network in the countryside. It wishes to present evidence to the examination on the above points and to take part in issue specific hearings no traffic and rights of way impacts. Having regard to the desired word limit, these representations are deliberately short. However, it is important to emphasise a few points. First, on two recent occasions planning inspectors following extensive inquiries have recommended that Byways 11 and 12, as linked by the existing A303, serve an important amenity function for motorised users. In 2005, an inspector rejected the then Highways Agency’s proposal to leave Byway 11 as a dead-end stating that “cannot … represent a reasonably convenient alternative provision”. In 2011, a separate inspector rejected Wiltshire Council’s proposal to prohibit vehicular traffic on Byways 11 and 12 due to the loss of amenity and increased safety risk. Those conclusions hold good and have been ignored by Highways England. Secondly, Highways England in its Consultation Report does not address s.136(1), which prevents the extinguishment of public rights of way (“PROWs”) without providing an alternative, unless the provision of an alternative is “not required”. TRF explained the effect of this provision in its April 2018 response. Nor does Highways England explain how its proposals for Byways 11 and 12 are compatible with para.5.184 of the relevant NPS. Thirdly, the purported justification for removing the link is in any event unfounded. There is no reason to consider that the provision of a link (as opposed to the existing use of the A303) would have an adverse impact on archaeological, landscape or nature conservation interests. To the extent that there may be impacts (which is not accepted), it does not appear that Highways England has given any consideration to avoiding or mitigating those impacts. Finally, we note that Highways England states that “[c]hanging the status of existing BOATs is beyond the scope of this scheme and is a matter for Wiltshire Council as the local highway authority”. However, the DCO does change the status of existing PROWs by stopping up the link between Byways 11 and 12. It may be noted that in TRF v Wiltshire Council [2018] EWHC 3600 (Admin) the High Court quashed the Council’s traffic order on Byways 11 and 12. The Secretary of State should be cautious about proceeding with proposals that prejudice and/or cut across other statutory mechanisms."
Trevad Griffin
"I firmly object to any major development around this important historical monument of world wide status and it would be a disaster to unearth land for roads any where near this site which has many underground artifacts also. It is totally unecessary to do so as there are far better soltions to a bit of road congestion that can be remedied without spoiling this scared site which has withstood so much development already and enough is enough. No more large roads should be developed in this small Island let alone near this signifcent site "
Trevor Grant
"As a regular user of this road, I am totally opposed to the tunnel. The cost would be an outrageous waste and could be much better spent on other needy projects in the area. The traffic chaos during construction doesn’t bear thinking about. A dual carriageway would be quicker, easier and cheaper. It would mean compulsory purchasing of a slice of the field on one side. The argument about upsetting barrows is ridiculous ( ref the HS2 !! They are not worried about knocking anything down there ) whether or not you build a road or dig a tunnel you MAY upset them and can’t they be moved and re-dedicated. Yours concerned, Trevor Grant "
Valerie Wright
"I am very concerned about the proposed dual carriageway expressway past Stonehenge. This would potentially damage the World Heritage Site and the archaeological findings below Stone Henge. The landscape too will be damaged. This is a World Heritage Site and UNESCO have already stated that this scheme should not proceed. There are other issues such as the rare birds in the area which could be impacted. The other potential issue is the noise and vehicle emissions. There are other alternatives that could be implemented. Highways England seem intent on destroying our heritage and land. This is also an issue with, for example, the A358 where they have not considered damage to Ancient Woodland and animals, not to mention people’s livelihoods! Highways England need to be challenged on this before our wonderful country and heritage are consigned, literally, to the past! "
Vanessa Rigg
"I strongly OBJECT to this application. I agree with the Council for British Archaeology when they say : "... they will cause considerable damage to the surviving archaeological remains within the WHS & to the setting of key monuments within the landscape.""
Vanita Eden
"I have always loved the Stonehenge site since my schooldays. It is at the core of my appreciation of heritage and that has value for me. I have visited a handful of times and been witness to the restriction of visitors to the site i the late 20th century. I am now studying a Masters degree in archaeology and heritage management is a field that I find fascinating. Please allow me to take part in your consultation for the common good. Also it may help me to understand the complexities for my career development. Thanks."
Vicky Chapman
"I believe Stonehenge to be of significant international cultural, religious and spiritual value, not to mention its value to British history, which is unparalleled in the U.K. There is no other site like it, and for thousands of years it has been a focus point for British people seeking a connection with their ancestral land. It is completely devastating, not to mention negligent of the highest degree, for Highways England to even entertain the idea of destroying this landscape further by developing a new road scheme which cuts right through the designated World Heritage Site, and its surrounding area - an area full of ancient archeological artifacts and clues which, if destroyed by the suggested scheme (which will happen if the scheme goes ahead, and in fact is already happening) can never be recovered because they will lose the immense significance they have by existing in the landscape right now. There is also a threat to wildlife as the scheme threatens the natural habitat of the rare Stone Curlew and Great Bustard species, as well as the prospect of noise pollution and the loss of the view of Stonehenge and the surrounding area from the road. It would be a national and international disaster for this current scheme to go ahead, and would show complete disrespect to and disregard of those people to whom the site has unparalleled cultural, archeological, religious and spiritual significance: namely, the British people and their ancestors, and the people of the world. I hope with all my heart that it will be reconsidered as there is only destruction and loss ahead if it is not stopped. "
Vincent Haigh
"I wish to object to the proposed A303 Stonehenge Expressway in the strongest possible terms. UNESCO have described this World Heritage Site as a 'landscape without parallel' and its international advisers have expressed opposition to the scheme in its present incarnation. Whilst there are several reasons why the scheme should not go ahead, UNESCO's condemnation of it alone, in my view, is sufficient justification for it to be cancelled. In short, the eternal value of the Stonehenge site transcends any 21st century part-time traffic congestion problems and under no circumstances should it be 'trashed' in the quest for a short-term fix."
Wayne Hepworth
"I am against the project, and would make arguments against commencement on the following grounds: * Permanent damage to the World Heritage Site, its archaeology and setting. * UNESCO's advisers say the scheme should not go ahead in its present form. * Lack of addressment on the concerns about damage to Blick Mead Mesolithic site and its setting. * Lack of alternative options that would not damage the World Heritage Site in the consultation. * Loss of view from the road and need to pya to see the Stones. * Disturbance of rare bird species (Stone Curlew and Great Bustard). * Increased noise / vibration (and associated damage) from more and faster traffic."
Wendy Birse
"My concern is for the integrity and conservation of Stonehenge and the surrounding archaeological heritage. Irreversible damage will be done by the excavation and construction and incalculable future harm through increased traffic and pollution. A wee bit of short term convenience for relatively few people is not worth the permanent diminution of a sacred historic site and construction whose function, value and significance is not even fully understood. "
Wendy Davis
"Irreparable damage to the World Heritage Site, its archaeology and setting, described by UNESCO as a ‘landscape without parallel’. UNESCO’s international advisers say the scheme should NOT go ahead in its present form. Concerns about damage to Blick Mead Mesolithic site and its setting Lack of alternative options in consultation that would not damage the World Heritage Site Loss of the view from the road and need to pay to see the Stones in future. The stones are public property they have guided travelers for millennia and it remains our right to view these stones as we travel along the one remaining public road that affords the view. One road, to Devizes, has already been removed. Disturbance of rare bird species (Stone Curlew and Great Bustard)"
Wessex Regionalist - The Party for Wessex
"1. There are significant archaeological sites still being discovered including in the very areas HE intend to cut huge holes e.g. Blicks Mead, That this site has only recently been discovered clearly points to yet more to be found in the Stonehenge landscape. The destruction of large area by this scheme will kill off any chance for future discoveries to be made. 2. The site is a World Heritage Site. Cutting huge holes into part of a WHS cannot be seen as "preserving" it for future generations. 3. This is the most important prehistoric monument and landscape in Britain. It is understood that the experts on this site - including leading Stonehenge archaeologist [Redacted]- have raised objections to the scheme - all of which has been ignored. 4. The UN advisers on World Heritage Sites have pleaded for alternative options to be considered. Why is the UK government ignore UNESCO? 5. This scheme applies old technology without considering the probable impact of new technology on future transport systems e.g. driverless cars 6. This tunnel scheme will not solve the problems of the A303. Many other schemes for sections of the A303 that also must be completed before there can be any real impact on traffic flows. Many of these have not yet been funded so may never happen; any one of them remaining incomplete will negate any planned improvements - it will just move the supposed congestion further along the road. 7. The cost is now already higher than the alternative of re-routing the road to the south. The nation cannot waste this sort of money. 8. The actual traffic delay recorded by Dept of Transports own data there is "insufficient data" (source: Licence Bureau road use statistics 2016 pdf). 9, There will be major impact on local residents and farmers who will have years of noise, dirt and diversions to put up with and many types of vehicles will be banned from using the A303 tunnel. 10. The impact of the large holes being cut and the construction work will damage the environment including a nature re3serve and a listed park. 11. You are planning to create a wonderful target for terrorist acts. Tunnels are easier to block and harder to clear than open roads. 12. The planned land bridges also make great suicide sites. To stop this barriers will be needed adding further harm to the landscape. 13. This scheme is for the benefit of long distance travellers not for the benefit of locals and there is little or no compensation for them. 14. The consultation thus far has been restricted to only be able to comment on the Highways Agency's preferred scheme. There should and must be an open consultation on the supposed problem and all possible solutions. 15. Why has nothing or little been published on the response to the initial round of consultation. What were the conclusions of that exercise?"
Will Knocker
"UNESCO have objected to the new road, which will encroach upon a World Heritage Site. This is one of Britain's most iconic Historical Sites. Nature in all it's abundance on the site (thing Great Bustard & Spotted Stone Curlew) should not be disturbed by 'development' The Stonehenge Site should be left in peace (without 'DEVELOPMENT') Forever … Thank You "
William Henry
"Please do not dig a tunnel underneath Stonehenge. Thank you."
Zoe Smith
"I would like to express my objection to the scheme as outlined below. I am concerned about damage to the World Heritage Site and Blick Mead Mesolithic site, their archaeology and setting. This could lead to the disturbance of rare bird species (Stone Curlew and Great Bustard). UNESCO's advisers say the scheme should not go ahead in its present form. "
Zohreh Adle
"This work is not needed at all- we have enough mototlrways and the roads around Stonehenge are fine as is. I drive through frequently and never have any problems. Money wasted, and potentially an ancient site will suffer for the sake of saving mins on a journey. In todays world there are much more important things to be spending money on such as homelessness, schools, NHS....REALLY...ANOTHER road???? Shameful. There is also the risk to wildlife (birds in particular), as well as more noise and pollution. Will ruin views and quite frankley be an eyesore. We have enough ways to get around these days - money should be putt into better public transport to reduce the amount of drivers - much more environmentally friendly."
A36/A350 Corridor Alliance
"Founded in 1993 the A36/A350 Corridor Alliance (ACA) is an umbrella group of organisations campaigning against damaging road schemes on a broad corridor of roughly NW alignment from the South Coast (Southampton-Poole) to the M4 (Bristol and south Wales to Chippenham). It has so far campaigned successfully against several elements of the A36 corridor which seemed to form part of a purpose of establishing a superhighway route from West Wellow in Hampshire, through various schemes at Salisbury and along the Wylye Valley in Wiltshire and as far as Tormarton on the A4 north of Bath. When the superhighway emphasis switched to the A350 corridor we have campaigned, unsuccessfully at Semington in west Wiltshire, but persuading the Inquiry into the eastern bypass at Westbury to recommend against the scheme. Now all the lessons of the 1990s and the SACTRA report seem to be forgotten and UK commitment to action on climate change is something apparently to be ignored, there is a new enthusiasm for massive road expansion. There are new pressures to resurrect old schemes for strategic highways from the M4 to the south coast, principally aligned along the A350 corridor, though new (old) road schemes along the A36 are also back in fashion. The A303 crosses our corridor near Warminster. ACA was involved in the Inquiry into the previous Stonehenge tunnel scheme for the obvious reason that its traffic-generating effects would spill into our corridor. That is still very much the case. We object to the scheme on this basis, but also on the basis of it being a waste of public money. It relies on highly suspect economic analysis, even in the already nonsensical terms of transport appraisal methodology. We also object on the basis that it contributes significantly to increased carbon emission at a time when the UK should be taking urgent measures in the opposite direction. "
Adam Scott
"I am not able to support the proposals as they will cause considerable damage to both the surviving archaeological remains within the WHS and the setting of key monuments within the landscape. This damage is too much and the gain too limited to justify the action, which would be vandalism of the most terrible extent, such as that committed by political opponents of historical record around the world. That is bad company indeed and so I urge you to reject the proposals for the scheme."
Adam Spring
"The area around Stonehenge is a unique, irreplaceable landscape. Dramatic changes to this landscape could have a detrimental effect on the site's ecology, its archaeological value, its tranquillity and its unique geology."
Adam Stevenson
"The site of Stonehenge is much larger than the site of the standing stones. So much of its processional route had already been destroyed by modern farming and other methods. It is an essential site for the archeology and understanding of the people of this island and particularly in reference to the Blick Mead Mesolithic site. As it stands, the route past Stonehenge allows it to be seen for free and to bypass this would be a detriment to anyone who doesn't wish to pay to see it. The proposed expressway is needless and destructive and the government's infrastructure budget would be best spent on other projects that are less harmfull."
Adam Webb
"I am deeply concerned about the potential damage to this iconic World Heritage Site, including its archaeology and setting. UNESCO have described the World Heritage property Stonehenge, Avebury and Associated Sites as "internationally important for its complexes of outstanding prehistoric monuments" and "a unique embodiment of our collective heritage.". I understand that UNESCO’s international advisers have stated that the scheme should not go ahead in its present form, and I trust their judgement greatly and do not think they would engage in NIMBYism. There are also concerns about the possibility of damage to the Blick Mead Mesolithic site and its setting Furthermore, there was a lack of alternative options in the consultation which would NOT damage the World Heritage Site, which seems to me to be a grave oversight considering its recognition by people the world over as an iconic British landmark and a piece of unique shared history. On this subject, I and millions of other people who have visited the stones have done so for free but I understand this plan will result in a charge being introduced to visit them, and that it will no longer be possible to see them from the road. For decades people driving along the A303 have been able to see this iconic site and I think it is as important as being able to see the Palace of Westminster or Buckingham Palace from afar. Finally, I understand there will be an environment impact, including the disturbance of rare bird species, including the Stone Curlew and Great Bustard. For all the reasons I urge you to consider the detrimental impact of this development in the strongest terms. Thank you for reading my concerns."
Adam Webber
"My representation is that I am a layperson unconnected geographically to the area, but who disagrees with the proposals in the strongest terms."
Adam Woods
"The flyover over the countess roundabout will be unsightly, cause noise pollution to the residents of Amesbury and put Blickmead at further risk"
Adrian Couper
"I have to object to this idea: Stonehenge is a World Heritage site of phenomenal archaeological importance, this scheme will likely cause damage. It may restrict or prevent visiting and may thus also deprive local businesses of revenue. It will doubtless also have a significant ecological impact."
Aimee Davey
"The stones are connected to the land, the land needs to stay connected to the earth which means directly beneath the stones, so nothing must be taken away from the ground underneath the stones, nor near them as there is important archaeological remains in the ground which needs to stay undisturbed. "
Alasdair Cameron
"It is my understanding from learned historians, archaeologists and UNESCO that this proposal risks irreparable damage to England’s most important Neolithic site. And for what? We need to reduce our reliance on cars. We need fewer cars and roads, not more, and we certainly should not sacrifice our most precious heritage. These proposals should be rejected. Best wishes, Alasdair Cameron"
Alastair Gunn
"I object to the damage which will be inflicted on the WHS. I object to disturbance of rare and declining bird species. I object to the alteration in visual access to the stones"
Alex Crowe
"The site - and area around it - is of global importance and should be protected and not damaged. Consultation with the public has been inadequate. Traffic issues have been grossly exaggerated. Spending money on roads when we are a few years from the end of road traffic it is wrong on every level. This is, perhaps, the most important site in the country. To go ahead with the scheme shames us all."
Alex Rose
"The benefits of the site in terms of tourism, national and international ethos, aesthetic appeal, archaeological and historical importance, continuing cultural significance, heritage, and personal/spiritual rights and reasonings of many of those who visit it regularly and upon solstices and other mass celebrations vastly outweigh the benefits that the road would bring. We still barely understand the era from an archaeological perspective and cutting a significant part out of it would also vastly hinder our ability to diagnose much of the era through this site of pivotal archaeological interest. We do not, in my opinion, want to be the culture that, for little reason, tears down and destroys important artefacts and sites of our land - pardon the crude comparison, but that is literally what ISIS do, this is not what our country and our people stand for and as our government I feel you should respect that and democratically stand fro what the people of your land want/deserve - and not what is of minor economic benefit on a level above the people. Thank you for your time."
Alex Traves
"The proposed plans will ensure the unnecessary and careless destruction of one of Britain's most significant archaeological sites, and much of the material there has yet to be properly excavated and analysed. It has already been reported that ancient material has been illegally destroyed through this process, and this is only a taste of things to come. It is unthinkable that it could be considered that we should irreparably damage Britain's most significant World Heritage site for something as useless as a tunnel. These plans are short sighted, incredibly unpopular, and show a dangerous lack of regard for Britain's history. If these plans go ahead, future generations will condemn us for it."
Alexander Iain Siantonas
"I object to the likely damage to an archaeological site of immense significance, against which many experts from UNESCO down have warned. "
Alexander van Tuyll
"Losing the view of this icon from the road would be a great shame. It has always a highlight to see. UNESCO advise against the scheme in its current form, due to irreparable damage to the archaeology of this unique place. Measure twice (or more - it's Stonehenge, after all), cut once. Once it's gone, it's gone. "
Ali Ansari
"Damage to a world heritage site and disruption to archaeological remains."
Alice Gem
"I have concerns about the possible impact that these plans may have on the countryside."
Alison jones
"To build a tunnel directly under Stonehenge contravenes the special qualities of this ancient site. It is an energetic site of national importance with unique qualities which should be retained exactly as they are"
Amanda Barnett
"Hiding Stonehenge with a tunnel is not an exceptable reason to spend this obscene amount of money on it. Such a small project that does not need this amount of money spent on it to widen the road, It is unnecessary and irresponsible! we need this highways money to resurface and improve the existing roads in our country ;remarking white lines would help prevent a lot of accidents, and cats eyes on roads, and rebuild our railways "
Amanda Devaney
"I think the plan is an grave mistake as it will make irreparable damage to wildlife and the ancient Monoliths there. UNESCO have not approved this and there has been no consideration for the ruination of a world heritage site. Alternate plans must be made to avoid this serious error which will have long lasting, irreversible negative impact."
Amanda Marshall
"This is not only a proposal of destruction with possible catastrophic consequences for our heritage and future generations it is also an unbelievable waste of public money and resources. There is already a bypass we call it the M4 ....I would suggest a possible lorry /weight restriction on the A303 making a large portion of the heavy traffic use the motor way !!!! It is shocking As well as totally ridiculous that we as a nation are even contemplating this stupid idea ... the damage to our landscape would be irreversible and would be a total shame on our generation."
Amanda Murdoch
"That a tunnel under Stonehenge is a big mistake. We have no long term knowledge of how this wpuld affect this site and it is far too important a site to risk in this way."
Amelia ap ELLIS
"As a local who grew up around Stonehenge, I wish to register my objection to this scheme. It will inevitably cause irreparable damage to the World Heritage Site - it goes against the advice of UNESCO, and risks losing the status of World Heritage Site. I am very concerned about the potential damage to Blick Mead - one of our most important archaeological sites, especially considering it has already been damaged by Highways England. My biggest concern is that it will create a situation where English Heritage have a monopoly on the view - if the tunnel is built it will become nearly impossible to view Stonehenge without paying an exorbitant entrance fee. I believe this to be wholly unfair, and as a Druid I believe I should be able to view my temple from a distance without having to pay. The tunnel is being proposed as a solution to traffic congestion, but Highways England's own figures show the tunnel will attract 20% more traffic. I don't believe enough work has been done to explore alternatives that would alleviate the problem."
Amesbury Museum and Heritage Trust
"Submission by Amesbury Museum and Heritage Trust I write in my capacity as chairman of the board of trustees of the Amesbury Museum and Heritage Trust, a charity whose objects include “the preservation of building or sites of historical or architectural importance”. The charitable trust operates within the landscape in which Stonehenge and the World Heritage Site sits, and within the strict guidance and rules of the Charity Commission. The Trust wishes to register its interest in this application and wishes to attend any hearing and put its case at every opportunity. The Trust has a number of concerns about information relayed to the public within the consultation periods. The Trust has concerns about the management of the schedule planned for public meetings with UNESCO and ICOMOS representatives. The Trust has concerns about the scheme, in that any application to alter the landscape, build on, or utilise the land gifted to facilitate such major infrastructure scheme must be with the public consent and in the public interest in accordance with restricted covenant’s made in the gift of Stonehenge (referring the conveyance of the sale of the land to the Chubb’s in 1915). The Trust considers that an alternative solution to the proposed tunnel exists, being a southern bypass and that this has not been offered as an alternative at consultation. The Trust remains very concerned about the adverse impact the tunnel portals and infrastructure will have on the archaeologically rich landscape. The Trust has concerns about Highways England’s surveys at Blick Mead and land at the western end of the World Heritage Site . The Trust has concerns in relation to the Habitats Directive. The Trust is concerned that the scheme infringes the spirit in which Stonehenge was gifted to the nation by the Chubb family in 1918. The Trust believes that having been stipulated in the conditions imposed by Cecil and Mary Chubb in their Deed of Gift to the nation 26 October 1918 that: 1. First that the public shall have free access to the premises hereby conveyed and Every part thereof on the payment of such reasonable sum per head not exceeding one shilling for each visit and subject to such conditions as the Commissioners of Works in the exercise and execution of their statutory powers and duties may from time to time impose 2. Secondly that the premises shall so far as possible maintained in their present condition 3. Thirdly that no building or erection other than a pay box similar to the Pay Box now standing on the premises shall be erected on any part of the premises within four hundred yards of The Milestone marked “Amesbury 2” on the northern frontage of the premises There is clearly an intent and expectation by the Chubb’s that the then existing public’s free view of the monument from the main road would be maintained in that present condition. The above points will be developed further in written submissions. "
Amy Cheetham
"Stonehenge is an internationally known tourist and World Heritage Site. The proposed tunnel would likely damage it, which could in turn cause tourist numbers to drop. This would also be bad for the economy."
Andrew Day
"I am concerned about the following points: It goes against UENESCO advice. It will damage neighbouring sites of historical interest. The consultation did not include less-damaging options. Further commercialisation of the site. Disruption to rare bird species. More invasive traffic sounds. "
Andrew Hall
"This scheme will destroy an archeological site of global importance forever. Already exploratory drilling has destroyed unique fossil footprints. It is easy enough to go round Stonehenge when it’s busy. This is a poor use of public money and will cause irreversible damage. "
Andrew Mallett
"the only feasible on-line route [for the A303] which meets the essential requirements of this World Heritage Site, is a long bored tunnel" I object completely the current and plans."
Andrew Miller
"Quite simply, the desiccation of a national monument is a disgrace. Relieving pressure on the A303 at the expense of thousands of years of history cannot be justified."
Andrew Perkins
"I believe construction of subterranean roads will severely damage the historic site and surrounding area of Stonehenge. There will be disruption to the local area. There is no true justification for this that I can see. The site has been surrounded by surface roads for thousands of years, as is nearly every other historic site in the world in one form or another. Surface roads have always been the natural method of land transport for mankind, and it is very unnatural to stick a tunnel like this in the middle of the countryside, near a historical site. Traffic problems (if there are any) on the A303 should be an entirely separate issue, and not used as an excuse for wholesale modification of a unique asset for Britain."
Andrew Rhind-Tutt
"Dear Sirs, I am the founding chairman of the Amesbury Museum and Heritage Trust, President of Salisbury Chamber of Commerce, and former Mayor of Amesbury. I am also a highways engineer, with senior level experience in road and lighting maintenance. I was elected regional chairman of the Institution of Lighting Engineers 2003-2004 and from 2001-2006 was appointed the senior operations director for the largest street lighting maintenance contract in England. I have served on many planning committees, dealing with large and complicated applications and as a property developer I am a fully qualified, NHBC approved construction engineer which has enabled me to look at planning applications in more than one dimension. My objections to the A303 Stonehenge tunnel proposals include the following: Misleading Consultation – The public were not given the opportunity to choose an alternative to the tunnel, despite a suitable route being offered and were provided with misleading information at the consultation events. Negative / adverse visual impact. The huge portal entrances and masses of additional concrete and tarmac cutting through archaeology at both ends of the World Heritage Site will have a considerable negative visual impact. Detrimental effect of the proposed development on the character of the local area Negative effects on amenity (neighbours and community) due to: • Noise(at Winterbourne Stoke and Amesbury adjacent to the proposed flyover) • Disturbance to the wider community with heavy traffic flows through the Woodford valley and the villages north of the A303 due to the proposed diversionary routes each occasion the tunnel is closed. • Loss of privacy at Amesbury Abbey nursing home and adjacent properties • Nuisance –the nature of the design will adversely impact on the wider locale and wildlife both during construction (significantly) and when complete. Design issues The proposed irreversible construction of a huge (100 year lifespan only) concrete tunnel through a chalk land aquifer will have a detrimental effect on the water table at Amesbury putting at risk the organic archive currently preserved at Blick Mead and affect the River Avon which provides the wet foundations of Salisbury Cathedral. The design lacks detail showing how the water flow will be managed at the end of life of the tunnel. Highway safety – A 3km tunnel on a road which witnesses regular vehicle fires (six of which occurred within five miles of the monument within six months in 2018), with the added risk of terrorism in view of the proximity of the country’s most famous prehistoric monument and a host of other significant scheduled monuments. The makes the scheme a high risk safety concern. Effect of the development on the setting of scheduled monuments at Stonehenge, on the World Heritage Site, the Parkland setting of Amesbury Abbey nursing home, and on Amesbury Abbey as a listed building. Amesbury Abbey, is the home of Blick Mead, Vespasian’s Camp and the resting place of Queen Eleanor of Provence, Queen Elizabeth II’s 20 x grandmother. These points will be developed further in written submissions."
Andrew Roy SAUNDERS
"The damage caused by this proposal to a world heritage site is wholly unacceptable and can never be undone."
Andrew Stone
"The proposed motorway through the site of Stonehenge would destroy irreparably both the visual experience of the site and the irreplaceable archaeological materials yet undiscovered in its path. "
Andrew Varley
"This road as it is currently planned will cause irreparable damage to a site of both national and international importance. The Western portal is too close to the ancient burial mounds and the eastern is much too close to the established 'Blickmead' Archaeological site I also believe there are substantial issues with light pollution to the west and water tables to the east, and that if you really must intrude into this area that a significantly longer bored tunnel entering and exiting outside of the designated World Heritage Site is more preferable. Aside from the actual ill-conceived plans under consideration, you are of course aware that the archaeological and sociological impact of Stonehenge is immense, one of Britain's top tourist attractions and a unique landscape which may be altered or destroyed by these works. Stonehenge is not just the stones themselves but the entire surrounding landscape which must remain undisturbed as it has a wealth of prehistoric archaeological significance. As we are still figuring out the mysteries of this area, cutting a swathe through the middle of it would hinder or completely destroy our efforts to understand such a unique and precious site and would be a loss to worldwide understanding of neolithic culture. Aside from this, the site is also of ritualistic, spiritual and religious importance to many thousands of people of pre-Judeo-Christian faiths across the world and disturbing the landscape would be a desecration of a revered and sacred site. "
Angela Carr
"i feel all sacred sites should be protected not developed. "
Angela Shaw
"I frequently travel down the A303 to work in Wiltshire. I am particularly concerned about irreparable damage to the WHS, its archaeology and setting, described by UNESCO as a ‘landscape without parallel’, especially damage to Blick Mead Mesolithic site and its setting. I think a tunnel will cause considerable damage to the overall site and the loss of view of Stonehenge would be very sad."
Anne Delaney
"I am writing to register my views on the incredibly short term view on behalf of the current plans. When you review the weight of evidence for what you are going to destroy in the name of preservation, it’s laughable. Please reconsider this incredibly short term and insular viewpoint"
Anne Patterson
"I am opposed to the proposals relating to the A303. The Stonehenge landscape is of international importance. The proposals would cause irreparable damage to the archaeology of this landscape. As a practicing druid this site is sacred to me and many others in Britain and around the world, the proposals are detrimental to the site and the setting of the site. They are also detrimental to wildlife in the area including rare bird species such as Stone Curlew and Great Bustard. "
Anne Somers
"Stonehenge is an ancient deeply spiritual site which must never be disturbed by mankind.To desecrate it in any manner is reprehensible,a violation against Nature It must not be disturbed by human hands,a far greater power guards and protects it .It conveys a priceless message to all humanity ,that for the short time we are present on earth we are all its custodians . To act in any other manner is a betrayal of our role here Please do not disturb Stonehenge, Nature must have the final say and only Nature to its ultimate fate"
Annette Brown
"I object to the proposed road plans and tunnel for the following reasons:- 1. The plans are against the UNESCO's advise who state an alternative route be found 2. Damage has already been caused by Highways England cores at Blick Mead to a unique Mesolithic laid platform and the aurochs hoof prints discovered there. Further works would cause further damage due to altering the water table. 3. Habitats of rare birds in the area such as the Stone Curlew will be disturbed. 4. The OUV of Stonehenge is in danger from the alignment of the tunnel entrances and exits and associated lighting which has not so far been addresses 5. There will be increased disruption to the landscape from increased traffic, tunnel closures and large vehicles with no access through the tunnel. 6. The 'prime' USP of the plans to 'open up the landscape and rejoin the north and southern side of the existing A303' is unrealistic as the the land outside of the NT area is privately owned - therefor not accessible and fencing will have to exist on the tunnel entrance and the permissive paths. 7. The view of Stonehenge will be hidden for future generations and may impact on cultural interest in historic sites. 8. Alternative routes around Salisbury exists and would benefit this area hugely. 9. The supposed bottleneck would just move further west to the Blackdown Hills so any perceived benefit for travellers to the west will be negated further on the route. 10. The latest motor cars available are quieter, environmentally greener and the future prototypes of self drive cars will avoid these slow moving lanes. "
Annie Hurn
"I believe this land should be left in as natural state as possible with as little development nearby as possible leaving the land around and under the site left untouched. This is a World Heritage Site and as such should be respected and treated as such. Rather than having land siphoned off at regular intervals. "
Annie Wood
"I am very concerned about the proposal for the following reasons:- - This is a UNESCO site described as a 'landscape without parallel' and I'm concerned that there will be damage to this World Heritage Site, to its archaeology and its surroundings. The landscape will be detrimentally altered by the proposed new road. - The increase in traffic noise by vehicles travelling at greater speeds past the site is unacceptable and will cause damage and disturbance. - I'm very concerned about potential damage to the Blick Mead Mesolithic Site and its surroundings; (the advice given by UNESCO's International advisors say that this proposal should not go ahead in its current form - their important advice is being ignored). I'm concerned that there is a lack of options/alternatives in the consultation that would help prevent damage to this important WHS. I'm concerned that rare bird species such as the Great Bustard and the Stone Curlew will be detrimentally disturbed. Annie Wood"
Ant Hood
"This application for development, if approved, will destroy archaeological evidence from a time in pre-history that the whole world would benefit from knowing. Just because we don't yet fuly understand the site is the very reason not to destroy it. This is the ancient world that we do not know and wish we did. A future species who inhabit this planet may be confused by their ancient wonder, London. Imagine if they just dug a tunnel beneath it for more convenient traffic management, what they would destroy. By the way, UNESCO are not happy about this."
Anthony Hodson-Curran
"I believe the tunnel and attendant works /structures will cause significant and lasting damage to the archaeology and the landscape in which it is located. This is recognised by UNESCO and a wide range of expert commentators."
Anthony Rowland
"This site is a sacred burial site and I believe that this should not be dug up, tunnelled or interfered with in any way.Please honour that which is sacred. I believe Stonehenge is a sacred Burial site and should not be interfered with in any way . Please honour this Sacred Monument. "
Antoinette Everts
"I believe the new infrastructure will be detrimental to our heritage which is already being eaten up by big corporations. The problem seems to be people slowing down in this area I don't understand why the land needs to be destroyed because of this. There are other ways to drive maybe some large signs with alternatives and pointing out the reasons for traffic jams here would be at least an option to see how that changes the jams. People who want to see the stones (unless the reasoning is you have to pay to see) can keep going and others can choose an alternative route. "
Ashton Stansfield
" I worry about the Irreparable damage to the WHS, its archaeology and setting, described by UNESCO as a ‘landscape without parallel’ "
Barbara Slaska
"Please can I strongly object to the proposed Stonehenge A303 Stonehenge tunnel etc for the following reasons: It will seriously damage Blick Mead (BM). The current excavations are smaller than the size of a tennis court yet they have already revealed so much rare and vital information. Particularly about the puzzle as to how humans got from being hunter-gatherers to the culture of people who built the wider Stonehenge landscape, with its causeway enclosures, mysterious cursuses, and the enigmatic Coneybury Anomaly etc. It is obvious that BM (which has been consistently damp for thousands of years) will dry out and this will significantly reduce the opportunities for carbon dating. As well as the damage to BM, at the western portal there will be physical and aesthetic damage to the area around the Normanton Down Barrows cemetery group. I agree with [Redacted] and [Redacted](both on the A303 Scientific Committee) that these are unique in world terms and should be preserved by you not allowing the tunnel. UNESCO say that if the tunnel goes ahead as it is, then the overall WHS will be irreparably damaged and they will take away WHS status. This would be very damaging to the reputation of the UK and set a dangerous precedent for other countries to damage their WHS sites. The tunnel will mean that people won’t have the much-appreciated view of Stonehenge as they drive past. For example the ex National Trust Chairman [Redacted] said last year: "Most people who enjoy the stones do so from vehicles on the A303. The stones look magnificent from this distance. They have no need of close inspection. They can be appreciated at a glimpse, without need of visitor centres, car parks, coaches and multimillion-pound tunnels. Why should the overwhelming majority of those who enjoy Stonehenge be deprived of this pleasure at vast public expense to satisfy a profession and a quango?" (He means some archaeologists and English Heritage). On the winter Solstice sunset, the historically important view from the Heel Stone through the centre of the stone circle, will still be spoilt by headlights of vehicles shining into it. The rare Great Bustards and Stone Curlews, which are very susceptible to disturbance, will be displaced and probably won’t be able to relocate anywhere. They cannot speak for themselves, so I am pleading with you to speak for them. Finally, the tunnel is not value for money. The cost-benefit ratio is extremely bad. There are alternative routes that cost much less and won’t irreparably damage the precious World Heritage Site. The main beneficiaries of the tunnel are English Heritage and National Trust as they will have a selfish financial monopoly of Stonehenge and yet won’t be paying any of the £1.6 billion. Most road projects (particularly with tunnels) go over their budget so this one is likely to be even worse value for money. For all the above reasons, please don’t let this tunnel go ahead (as it is). "
Barrie Hargrove
"I object to this application on the basis that: 1. There is insufficient there were not be lasting and irreversible damage to an historically unique site. One that is indisputably World Heritage and located in our country. Even UNESCO an organisation I hold in esteem have expressed their concerns. 2. In addition, I am a great supporter of bird conversation and the presence of two rare species are put at risk by this project. "
Becky Allen
"I wish to express my interest against a dual carriageway across the World Heritage site, therefore causing massive damage to the site, its archaeology and setting as well as to any nearby habitats of already rare bird species (Stone Curlew and Great Bustard). Further to this, UNESCO's advisers say the scheme should not go ahead in its present form. Amendments must be made to allow the absolute least amount of damage to the site itself. One could also add that there may also be damage caused to the to Blick Mead Mesolithic site and its setting. Why must a dual carriageway be built? Is the question of maintenance, money, tourism? The real reason for such an expansion must be questioned before the plans are finalised. "
Ben Barker
"I do not believe the proposed tunnel will be to the longterm benefit if Stonhenge and the surrounding archaeology. Damage at the blick mead site is already apparent even at this early stage of developnent, this odviously does not bode well for rest of the site if cinstruction is to go ahead. The planned tunneel will do nothing byt ravage an ancient religous site which is still very much in use to thus day. Stonehenge and the surrounding area is of utmost importance to many differant groups and unterferance would be nothing short of a natiaonal tragedy. Not to mention upset to rare breeds of bird that find their home there. We (this generation) are cystodians of the land. Ut iur duty to protect not destroy."
Benjamin Davy
"Stonehenge is a sacred site and should be protected from Irreparable damage to its archaeology and setting, described by UNESCO as a ‘landscape without parallel’. UNESCO’s international advisers say the scheme should not go ahead in its present form. I also share concerns about damage to Blick Mead Mesolithic site and its setting. I believe people should be able to view stonehenge from the road freely and should also be able to access the Stones freely at both Summer and Winter Solstices. I fear that the construction/destruction works would disturb rare bird species and have a huge impact on local wildlife."
Benson Dowler
"“I OBJECT to this DCO Planning Application." REASONS FOR OBJECTION Viability / Judicial Review. The Treasury, National Infrastructure Commission, Office of Road & Rail and National Audit Office warn that the project is already over budget. Widespread opposition indicates a high risk of judicial review. Disability Discrimination. Disabled access to the WHS continues to be threatened if the tunnel is approved. Failed balancing exercises by Wiltshire Council resulted in excluding disabled via an ETRO quashed by Justice Swift on 21st December 2018; WHS Stakeholder Management WHSSM will now apply again for a Permanent WHS TRO despite Judge Behrens’ ruling in 2009 and reinforced by the 2011 Public Inquiry Decision by Alan Boyland BEng (Hons). Stonehenge community. The effect of the tunnel would be devastating on the community of general public, pilgrims, travellers, Druid Orders etc who celebrate regularly the Solstices, Equinoxes, solar, lunar and seasonal ceremonies on the WHS. Grassing the A303, planned reduction of BOATs to restricted byways/footpaths, render impossible the ‘since time immemorial’ gatherings. Equitable access would be lost to those who gather there sharing ancient knowledge, crafts, honouring Ancestors, holding ceremonies and ADO’s observational research. They are creating Intangible Cultural Heritage in the WHS Avebury & Stonehenge’s HOLY Places of Outstanding Universal Value; the importance of being able to continue these practices are described and recognised by UNESCO. Lack of transparency. The Developer’s own costings indicate the rejected southern route would be more cost effective. The Developer failed to provide overwhelming data against a southern route thus preventing the public from formulating effective counter arguments. Threat of loss of WHS status & monument damage. Highways England and the WHSSM continue to ignore strong warnings from UNESCO, ICOMOS, eminent groups of academics and archaeologists citing irreparable damage to the WHS, its archaeology and setting. A contractor incident of grave concern has already occurred to the unique Mesolithic site of Blick Mead. Threats to Wildlife and Habitats. Disturbance of rare bird species (Stone Curlew and Great Bustard) and habitat loss will increase once the A303 is grassed over. Any tree, plant or shrub that does not fit a Neolithic landscape has already been removed, drastically reducing bird cover. Pollution and noise health risks. The tunnel, designed short in order to avoid ventilation costs, will increase noise pollution. Inadequate and unclear data hinders public assessment of Developer’s estimates. Public Amenity - loss of free view of unique monument. The iconic drive on the A303 to view suddenly this breath-taking, sacred monument will be prevented and the free-to-all view of the Stones will be tragically lost forever."
Berwick Down Ltd
"A303 Amesbury to Berwick Down Improvement Scheme DCO Relevant Representation Acting on behalf of Berwick Down Ltd (BDL) I wish to register as an Interested Party in respect of the above application for Development Consent by Highways England. BDL own the freehold interest in the holding known as Berwick Down. As managing agent for BDL I have over the past two years, taken part in the consultation process organised by Highways England (HE) which has included attendance at several consultation events and through direct discussions with the project team at HE. BDL have also provided consent to enable preliminary survey works to be undertaken on their holding. Whilst discussions with the project team at HE have been productive and amiable, my clients still have a number of concerns about the scheme, which as yet, remain unanswered. These concerns are summarised as follows:- Public Rights of Way Concern is raised that due to the extent of the improvements to the rights of way network and the creation of new ways as part of this scheme, this will lead to an intensification of illegal or improper public access to our clients’ land. HE have yet to provide sufficient detail or reassurances that public access will be restricted to only the designated ways. Public Rights of Way and Private means of access. Insufficient detail has been provided as to the specification for the new ways and private means of access, particularly with regards to fencing, gates and the make-up of the road/track surfaces. Furthermore, the ongoing liability of the repair and maintenance of both the running surface and associated fences and gates has not been provided. We are advised that Wiltshire Council will be responsible for the ongoing maintenance of the PRoW but no assurances have been provided that they will have sufficient resources to meet this additional liability. Location of Green Bridge No. 1 The position of the Green Bridge No. 1 has been determined in order to protect a bat feeding route. At present, our clients access their land north of the A303 from their holding south of the A303 via Byway BSJA3. Under the new scheme this will not be possible as the new road will be duelled along its length thereby preventing farm traffic from crossing the road. As a result, Farm traffic with be required to take a detour of some 2 miles over Green Bridge No. 1, in order to access land north/south of the road. We therefore strongly request that consideration be given to relocate the bridge further west in order to minimise the potential impact of the scheme on the farm business. Groundwater Concern is raised regarding the potential for the aquifer to be contaminated and for there to be a significant impact on supply levels both during and after the construction phase. This would have far reaching consequences on both the agricultural businesses on the Estate as well as the private water supplies to numerous residential dwellings in the area. Assurances are therefore required that should supplies be affected either during or following completion of the construction works, then the nominated undertaker will provide sufficient alternative supplies in an expedient manner. Traffic Management Concern is raised that insufficient consideration has been given to traffic management during the construction phase, particularly in relation to the potential use of the minor roads and the network of public rights of way in the area as convenient ‘rat runs’ to avoid the inevitable delays around the construction site. Assurances are therefore required that action will be taken to prevent such activity. Layby at Scotland Lodge Insufficient detail has been provided as to how this layby will be dealt with following completion of the works so as to prevent it being used as a dumping ground by fly tippers or for other improper uses. De-trunked A303 In the interest of road safety, we request that the speed limit on the de-trunked A303 from Winterbourne Stoke running east/west to the newly formed road junction at Longbarrow, be limited to 40mph. In conclusion, my clients raise no objection in principal to the development, provided that their legitimate interest and those of the local community are not impeded in any way. "
Berwick St James Community Interest Group
"Our group supports the current HE plans which are to be examined by the inspectorate. We wish to be able to attend preliminary meetings or hearings that may be of particular interest to us so we can demonstrate our support for the plans, especially in the areas which are beneficial to our village community and valley. We wish to focus on preserving the environment adjacent to the western section of new A303 and in particular the areas of SSSI and SAC where the road crosses the Till Valley. We also have continued interest in keeping the disruption of the area to a minimum during construction and in the various legacies the project will leave at the end of construction."
Beverley McGuinness
"I object to the destruction of the Stonehenge area, it should be held as a precious monument to our ancient cultural heritage and therfore left undisturbed in order to be appreciated by coming generations. "
Biddesden House Farm Partnership
"Acting on behalf of Biddesden House Farm Partnership (BHFP) I wish to register as an Interested Party in respect of the above application for Development Consent by Highways England. BHFP own the freehold interest in the holding known as the Druids Lodge Estate. As managing agent for BHFP I have over the past two years, taken part in the consultation process organised by Highways England (HE) which has included attendance at several consultation events and through direct discussions with the project team at HE. BHFP have also provided consent to enable preliminary survey works to be undertaken across the Estate. Whilst discussions with the project team at HE have been productive and amiable, my clients still have a number of concerns about the scheme, which as yet, remain unanswered. These concerns are summarised as follows:- Public Rights of Way Concern is raised that due to the extent of the improvements to the rights of way network and the creation of new ways as part of this scheme, this will lead to an intensification of illegal or improper public access to our clients’ land. HE have yet to provide sufficient detail or reassurances that public access will be restricted to only the designated ways. Public Rights of Way cont. Objection to the position of the new restricted byway running north/south from Longbarrow roundabout to connect to BSJA11 is submitted. In its current form the new PRoW will result in the formation of a small triangular field west of the new byway which, due to its shape, will be impractical to farm commercially. We therefore request that consideration be given to diverting the new way so that it runs south of the new A303 to the newly formed junction and then in a south easterly direction to run parallel with the realigned A360. Public Rights of Way and Private means of access. Insufficient detail has been provided as to the specification for the new ways and private means of access, particularly with regards to fencing, gates and the make-up of the road/track surfaces. Furthermore, the ongoing liability of the repair and maintenance of both the running surface and associated fences and gates has not been provided. We are advised that Wiltshire Council will be responsible for the ongoing maintenance of the PRoW but no assurances have been provided that they will have sufficient resources to meet this additional liability. Groundwater Concern is raised regarding the potential for the aquifer to be contaminated and for there to be a significant impact on supply levels both during and after the construction phase. This would have far reaching consequences on both the agricultural businesses on the Estate as well as the private water supplies to numerous residential dwellings in the area. Assurances are therefore required that should supplies be affected either during or following completion of the construction works, then the nominated undertaker will provide sufficient alternative supplies in an expedient manner. Traffic Management Concern is raised that insufficient consideration has been given to traffic management during the construction phase, particularly in relation to the potential use of the minor roads and the network of public rights of way in the area as convenient ‘rat runs’ to avoid the inevitable delays around the construction site. Assurances are therefore required that action will be taken to prevent such activity. Layby at Scotland Lodge Insufficient detail has been provided as to how this layby will be dealt with following completion of the works so as to prevent it being used as a dumping ground by fly tippers or for other improper uses. De-trunked A303 In the interest of road safety, we request that the speed limit on the de-trunked A303 from Winterbourne Stoke running east/west to the newly formed road junction at Longbarrow, be limited to 40mph. In conclusion, my clients raise no objection in principal to the development, provided that their legitimate interest and those of the local community are not impeded in any way. "
Bob Doyle
"1. If the project goes ahead it will result in permanent damage to this World Heritage Site, its archaeology and setting including damage to Blick Mead Mesolithic site and its setting, therefore breaking our link to a prehistory sophisticated enough to build a 'monument' that is known to have connected all corners of this island and quite possibly beyond. 2. UNESCO's advisers say the scheme should not go ahead in its present form. 3. There is a lack of alternative options that would not damage the World Heritage Site in the consultation. 4. There seems to by a cynical undertone to the project restricting the view of the stones effectively forcing people to pay-to-see. 5.It is well known that new fast roads both increase traffic volumes with increased noise from more and faster traffic. 6. The disturbance to rare bird species; The Stone Curlew and the Great Bustard. "
Bob Trubshaw
"My representation will (yet again - why have the great number of previous representations been ignored!!!!!!) draw attention to the irreparable damage the proposed tunnel ***and its approaches** will cause to a World Heritage Site. The archaeological investigations and concurrent archaeological research programmes have clearly established that this is a complex prehistoric landscape filling - and extending beyond - the defined WHS. While a longer tunnel is far from ideal it is the ***minimum*** needed to allow this unique landscape to preserved for future generations."
Bodhi Bear
"Its wrong to be digging up ancient burial sites, there's a lot to learn from Stonehenge still, there are still many undiscovered relics, burials, sites and facts still to learn. Its Britain's richest heritage, our ancient connection with the land, Britain's very identity, a site where the ground is the closest connection to our forefathers of not too ancient times past in this land, we all call home. Its the heart and soul of our country and there is earth power that flows there which if excavated there could be unbalanced."
Bradley Phipps
"I object to the proposed scheme on the grounds that it UNESCO deems that the tunnel in its current proposed form is 'Not adequate to protect the authenticity, integrity and Outstanding Universal Value (OUV) of the property.' I also believe that concerns about damage to Blick Mead have not been sufficiently allayed, presenting a potentially devastating risk to this site of incredibly important historical value."
Brian Webb
"I believe the scheme is not necessary in its present form. Putting the dual carriageway in a cutting would take the view of traffic away from the stones and it would save a great deal of cost. It would be much quicker to complete, with far less disruption to traffic and local economy. It would allow money to be spent on dualling more or all of the A303 down to the west country which would benefit the economy greatly in the south west."
Brian Willis
"Stonehenge is part of the heritage of these islands. It is as near to Sacred Ground as can be found in Britain. The work already carried out has, it seems, already caused damage underground and further work will only contribute further to the (literal) undermining of this vital historical, scientific and spiritual site. And for what? So that more people can be moved pointlessly from point A to point B in quicker time, causing more damage to the environment? This project must be stopped as soon as possible. It is an exercise of greed, folly and disrespect, to history, to the present, and to the future of Britain, which will lose one of its greatest, most eternally vital, treasure. "
Carole Tyrrell
"The irreparable damage to Stonehenge and the site in general - it's bad enough having a main road sited near it The impression it gives to visitors that this isn't a site treated with any reverence. The possible damage to Stonehenge and the surrounding sites. The increased noise as if it wasn't bad enough already. Threats to local wildlife. "
Caroline Boileau
"I am horrified by the proposal to cut through land which is of the greatest archaeological and historical importance in order to shave off a few minutes from journeys by car. Stonehenge and its landscape must be preserved for future generations to explore, not desecrated in order to improve, marginally, this generation’s experience of car and lorry transport. "
Caroline Hole
"I object to the proposed developments due to the permanent and irreversible damage that will happen to the World Heritage Site, its archaeology and setting. The entire area is an area of extreme archaeological importance, not just the stone circle but the whole surrounding area including the Blick Mead mesolithic site and surrounding area, and I do not believe this should be destroyed. Even UNESCO's advisers say the scheme should not go ahead in its present form. In addition there are various rare bird species which would be disturbed if the plans go ahead, including the Stone Curlew and the Great Bustard. I understand that there maybe needs to be some change to roads in the area but is there not an alternative option which does not damage the World Heritage Site? In the consultation it doesn't seem as though alternative options that would not damage the World Heritage Site in the consultation have really been considered. Please, there must be an alternative way that does not damage the site."
Caroline Roberts
"The planned engineering works would scar the Stonehenge landscape for ever. There would be extensive tunnel cuttings into the chalk for four lanes of tarmac, and massive highway interchanges through sensitive archaeological areas and there would be a colossal flyover into the World Heritage Site. It's unique. You have one chance to save it. "
Caroline Smith
"The main points I am concerened about: Tunnelling or other building work under or around the site will destroy a unique archealogical heritage. Any 'improvement' to roads has always had the opposite effect of increasing car traffic and congestion - not relieving it. Environmental pollution during and after construction cannot be justified given the environmental problems we face. Public transport links to the whole area should be looked in to."
Catherine Butler
"I am writing to register my strong objection to the proposed tunnel at Stonehenge. The proposed tunnel would be highly damaging to the unique and historic landscape around Stonehenge and sites of prehistoric activity will be lost for ever if this goes ahead. I cannot see that this will alleviate the traffic problems on this stretch of the A303, surely a dual carriageway, sensitively routed, would be a far less damaging option, not to mention less costly."
Catherine Noyce
"I am opposed to the loss of a precious cultural asset, the classic view of the stones, at the hands of the very bodies entrusted with its protection. The distant prospect of the stones from the very spot Turner stood has thrilled countless millions of people, British and overseas, children and adults, for millennia. Its loss, using the patently forced and un-needed excuse that it would unify the landscape, is a bitter reminder of the mis-quoted quotation: “It became necessary to destroy the town to save it.” I am deeply concerned that precious archaeological matter will be lost forever."
Charles Peyton
"The proposed road development will - as UNESCO has pointed out - endanger one of the most important landscapes of its kind anywhere in the world, potentially destroying invaluable archaeology. It will also spoil the view of Stonehenge from the road, making it necessary for anyone who wants to see it to pay for the privilege. But it should not be a privilege - it should remain an important, integral part of a unique landscape, as, it must be assumed, the people who constructed it intended it to be. In a real sense, it will be far less comprehensible as a monument if it the landscape around it is disfigured in the way the proposals suggest. The Blick Mead mesolithic site will be severely damaged, in a desecration that our great-grandchildren will find crass and incomprehensible. I'm also concerned about the threat to local bird species - the great bustard and the stone curlew, and increased noise from traffic in the area. It's imperative that other proposals, which don't inflict so much damage in all of these respects, be developed instead place of this crude and culturally clueless proposal."
Charlie Horten-Middleton
"I am strongly opposed to the proposed measures. Stonehenge is one of the most incredible locations and historical monuments and this jeopardises it needlessly and would be a national embarrassment."
Chris Hawkes
"I am very unhappy at the plans for The tunnel at Stonehenge. The destruction of a globally important ancient landscape for what will be temporary easing of traffic seems to be very short sighted."
Chris Martin
"I am concerned about damage to the stone henge site, its archaeology and setting. I read that UNESCO’s advisers say the scheme should not go ahead and do not trust this government to protect it. There are no Alternative options in consultation that would not damage the site Shocked that we will no longer be able to view the site from the road and will need to pay to see the Stones in future Increased noise from faster traffic"
Chris Pickard
"I believe the tunnel and associated construction works will have a massive detrimental effect on the archaeology of the area and must be stopped at all costs"
Christine Clark
"I feel the Western portal is too close to the ancient burial mounds and the Eastern too close to 'Blickmead' Archaeological site, and that there are issues with light pollution to the west and water tables to the East, and that a longer bored tunnel entering and exiting outside of the World Heritage Site would be preferable."
Christine Eborall
"In my view the proposals for the A303 will cause irreparable damage to Stonehenge which is an ancient site with World Heritage Site status. This and the views of UNESCO should be taken seriously as they are custodians of the world's heritage sites and should not be overruled merely because of a little local, short-term difficulty like traffic congestion. I am particularly concerned that archaeology as yet unknown will the destroyed. It is also, in my view, wrong that this ancient site should be threatened by what is arguably already old technology. Cars are likely to be on their way out during the next 50 years or so and better transport technology will replace them. It is imperative that a longer term view is taken. "