A meeting of this sort, between a protest group and a public body - albeit a charitable one, could have been a recipe for acrimony and backward-looking hostility. As it was, both sides agreed at the outset that regardless of any historical concerns, we all needed to focus on the future - and that was the spirit in which we engaged. Although we didn't make any specific agreements, for that wasn't really the intention of the meeting, it did seem that there would be a lot of common ground as we move forward to attempt to find a solution to the seemingly intractable problem of the A303. The sort of thing I mean is a desire to minimise any impact on virgin countryside - including National Trust land, the World Heritage site and privately owned land. A desire to minimise the impact on local communities of any improvements to the A303 and a recognition that closure of the A344 had led to the predicted rat-running along the Packway in Larkhill to Shrewton and in other more far-flung communities.
We were particularly taken with the fact that the two National Trust representatives had taken the time to drive into Shrewton along part of the rat-run and had noted the narrowness of the road, the lack of pavements, the bends and the proximity of the school. They were also very pro-active in suggesting and discussing the sorts of improvements to sign-age and road structure that could improve the situation. These might only be short-term fixes, but ones that could easily prevent a fatality or serious injury until such time as the A303 is dualled - SH2 a reality.
Looking forward to the forthcoming feasibility study, it seems that the National Trust are willing to look at any and all options for routing the A303 past Stonehenge - to the north of the current route, to the south of it, or under it - recognising that tunnelling through unfavourable rock strata has improved enormously in the last 5 years.
I don't think either STAG or the NT were in favour of a conventional dual-carriageway along the current route of the A303 between Stonehenge Bottom and Longbarrow Roundabout - not least because of the problem caused by rubber-necking car drives taken photos of Stonehenge as they pass by; bad enough now in near stationary traffic, but a recipe for carnage if traffic speeds do increase again - it seems that getting the travelling public to move off their main route by 500m (the old visitor's centre) was acceptable, but asking them to go 1 to 2km off their route is too much!
So, these are clearly folks we can work with in the future - and look forward to doing so. Let's hope that some of the other stakeholders are prepared to be as forthcoming and open-minded. What is certain is that after all the reviews and public inquiries that have already taken place, there will be no perfect solution, acceptable to all and that can be constructed in an instant at minimal cost and disturbance. Compromises will have to be made - and likely by all parties.
Time will tell if the meeting in London today between the Minister and representatives of Wiltshire, Somerset and Devon Councillors will be entered into in the same spirit.
3 comments:
i am NOT holding MY breath in anticipation of a sensible solution to the last 30 years worth of hold ups .
The most undisturbing to existing A303 traffic while a new by pass is built is so simple it hurts just to think about it .
From the west end of the existing Amesbury by pass ,too the eastern end of the Wylie by pass is a southern VALLEY ,,it runs adjacent to the A303 and is the Shortest route to join both ends of the existing DUEL CARRIAGEWAY ,,that is where it should run TO THE SOUTH of Winterbourne Stoke ,away from houses and without making the A 303 jams any worse while it built,,but why cannot this be the route ? the new road is hardly wide enough to disturb to much of EH cherished land and they could Donate i FOC .
The traffic would NOT see the stones from this route ,thus more visitors would flock to the monument ,,,This is the only sensible route .
Hi Tony,
Over the years, I have seen proposals for many "obvious" and "sensible" routes - this being one of them. All of them have drawbacks or flaws and all have proven contentious to one or more of the stakeholders.
That said, there is no place for NIMBY-ism here and every one of those routes, including the one you propose, should be revisited as part of the feasibility study - and compared against each other to a common, pre-agreed requirement list.
To put things in perspective - over 50 routes have been proposed since 1991.
Post a Comment