Those That Walk Amongst Us

We predicted, some time ago, that the announcement that the Government wished to push ahead with improving the A303/A30/A358 corridor to the West Country would flush out every failed and ill-considered proposal that has ever seen the light of day over the last half century or so.  Sadly, but all too predictably, we have not been disappointed.

We've said, all along, that our goal is to dual the A303, bypass the beleaguered village of Winterbourne Stoke and improve the traffic situation on local roads, particularly those in and around Shrewton to our north.  However, in achieving our goal, our second aim is to ensure the best possible environment for the whole of the World Heritage Site; much of which lies within our Parish boundaries - almost certainly making us the most visited village in England, on a per capita basis, as English Heritage's Stonehenge Visitor's Centre lies within our boundaries. Also lying within our perimeter lies what is arguably the most important feature of the World Heritage Site - not Stonehenge, which is something of a "Jonny Come Lately", but the Longbarrow which pre-dates even the earliest phase of Stonehenge by half a millennium.

Actually, only the left hand side of the Longbarrow lies within the parish of Winterbourne Stoke, the right hand (south eastern) side lies in the parish of Wilsford Cum Lake.

You'd have thought that there would be a common view, locally, to enhance this landscape.  Not a bit of it, it seems.  Though to be fair, no-one has yet, in recent times, sought the views of the locals in any consistent way.   That said, there seem to be several favoured alternatives locally:

A - Any solution that gets rid of the traffic jams;
B - A tunnel of 2.9km;
C - An even longer tunnel;
D - Dualling along the existing route, but sinking it in a ditch;
E - Putting the road way to the north, across the southern edge of the Salisbury Plain training area - to the north of Larkhill;
F - Putting the road south of Amesbury on any one of half a dozen routes.

The first solution (A) is borne of desperation by those who live along the A303 - understandable, but it may not help preserve our heritage.  (B) and (C) achieve the aims of dualling the A303 and taking the road out of the World Heritage Site.  The longer the tunnel the better, in environmental and heritage terms, but it comes at a cost.  Perhaps the biggest advantage is that it would enable ALL vehicles, including most of the coaches used by English Heritage and the risible Land Train, to be excluded from the environment.  Of course, you would need to provide some mechanised transport for the disabled and elderly, but every other bugger could walk into the landscape from the Visitor's Centre, Larkhill, Amesbury, etc.  The route of the A303 could be returned to a green Bridleway throughout the WHS

(E) is an interesting option.  The Armed Forces would kick and scream, but even with the current re-basing exercise, it's hard to justify still needing as much space to exercise our much diminished Forces as we did at the height of WWI and WWII.  It would be an inexpensive route, with few landowners to deal with and would remove the A303 from the WHS.  Far too sensible an option to be considered.

(F) looks superficially promising, until you get stuck into the detail. There are way too many vested interests that would help kill it off.  It may have been a viable option 50 years ago when the idea of improving things was first mooted, but the world has moved on - unlike many of the proponents of this schemes.

Finally, we have option (D).  About the only positive thing that can be said about this option is that it is cheap and cheerful.  It does nothing to enhance the environment of the World Heritage site - and here it is important to stress one thing - whether or not the landscape around Stonehenge remains as a World Heritage site is immaterial to the argument of how the area is crossed.  It comes down to whether WE as a region, WE as a nation, want to leave something valuable to posterity - or simply want to bung in a cheap and nasty road and to hell with the consequences.   Those that are pushing for this option are doing so on the basis of simple cost (certainly not cost in the broader sense, or else they would soon realise how utterly indefensible their position is).

So, do they have a point when it comes to pounds shillings and pence?  Lets look at just a couple of hard facts.  Even the 2.9 km tunnel is going to cost at least £2billion.  Now that is a big number and I can't imagine what it would look like as a pile of fivers, but is it really excessive in the greater scheme of things?  Well let's compare it with something else equally controversial.

Now I could choose the cost of membership of the EU as the comparator, but the booklet of facts on staying in the EU, or leaving, dropped through the door the other day and when I opened this piece of Tory propaganda, I found all the facts were missing from my copy - and the same was true in every other copy I've looked at, so that isn't going to be overly helpful.   What else might be a good comparator?  Something else that is expensive and controversial - like the UK's Foreign Aid budget.

In 2013, the UK spent 0.7% of GDP, £11.4bn on foreign aid - money spent that does not benefit the UK directly and some would argue is often misspent, maladministered and way to much.  We can point the finger of blame at the Lib-Dems for pushing the 0.7% of GDP target in Parliament.  The Tories and Labour seem happy with the spend, through the Greens would like to increase it to 1% of GDP.  UKIP on the other hand, want to reduce the Foreign Aid budget to 0.2% of GDP and spend the rest within the UK.  In a time of austerity, it's hard to justify spending anything not of direct benefit to UK citizens, but I digress...

Back to a fact or two.   Back in 2014, we gave India £279 million in Foreign Aid and that was 40% down on 2011.   India has its own space program, it has a planned mission to Mars, and the whole program costs £500 million to run per year. So, in bald terms, the money we put into the Indian economy was equivalent to more than 50% of the cost of their entire space program or could have funded 7-8 missions to Mars. We may have been funding it entirely prior to 2011.

Now DfID will argue that the money was targeted on things the Indian's wouldn't have spent their own money on anyway, but the bottom line was that India had a choice on how to spend its money and chose a space program over health and education.   I'm sure a little digging would uncover even more egregious examples, but this one will do for the moment.

So, the 2.9 km Stonehenge tunnel option might cost £2bn at December 2014 prices, but over the 40 years (more like 50, but lets be conservative) that there has been talk of improving the A303, we've probably ploughed a demonstrably un-needed £11.6 billion into Indian Foreign Aid. During the same period, we've probably ploughed close to half a trillion pounds into Foreign Aid in total.

Well, there you have it.  A one-off spend of £2bn on a tunnel for Stonehenge is peanuts in the greater scheme of things and can easily be afforded by cutting the Foreign Aid budget from those countries, like India, that can well-afford to look after their own population's interests, but choose to ignore them.  Of course, digressing again, there are real emergencies and situations that call for Foreign Aid and I wouldn't want to stop that, but we need to spend more wisely.

We have those that walk amongst us who believe a £2 billion tunnel is an extravagance, whilst their political bed-fellows were responsible for the concept of blowing 0.7% of GDP on Foreign Aid without any clear demonstration of need.  I would beg you to treat these people gently; their sanity is surely in question.

Meeting the Minister - A Positive Step Forward

On Monday 3rd August 2015, Stonehenge Traffic Action Group, together with a raft of other stakeholders, were invited to attend a round-table briefing in Amesbury with Andrew Jones MP on the state of play regarding the A303/A30/A358 corridor upgrade plan.

Andrew, in addition to being the MP for Harrogate and Knaresborough, is a Parliamentary Under Secretary of State in the Department for Transport with the dubious honour of having the brief to deliver the road investment strategy.  He can't help being a Yorkshireman and from the "wrong" side of the Pennines.

The meeting didn't begin to auspiciously.  Before the Minister arrived, I was accosted by a member of Amesbury Council, who pompously announced that this meeting was very much focusing on Amesbury and the Amesbury end of any road improvements.  As I say, he was a member - of the council.

Thankfully, this wasn't the case, with the Minister making quite clear that he was discussing the entirety of the Countess Roundabout to Berwick Down section of the A303 scheme. 

The meeting demonstrated that most parties understand the vital need to improve the A303, that it is part of the larger corridor plan and to fail to deliver the Stonehenge section would mean the whole strategic plan would fail.  Failure, this time, seems not to be an option - but we've heard similar assurances in the past.

A consensus is building that something has to be done, which in a way is a major step forward.  Stakeholders, STAG included, are holding bilateral meetings with each other to ensure that there are no surprises and issues are dealt with early.  

What were the key points emerging from the meeting?  Well, although there has been much talk of tunnels, nothing is yet set in stone.  Highways England are looking at all the options previously considered, eliminating those that have little chance of success and focusing in on the best option.  They will submit this and all the other information as part of the Development Consent Order process, which replaces a Public Inquiry.  The re will be an examination of the facts and figures in public, but their is no adversarial element to the DCO process.  This process has already begun and should take 5 years to complete.  It clearly involves a heck of a lot of work and Highways England expressed a wish to engage with stakeholders throughout this process.

A lot of key issues were raised.  Perhaps the most important for all locally was what happens between now and when any project comes to fruition.  A lot of the discussion focused on the need to improve both the Countess and Longbarrow roundabouts - neither of which are allowing traffic flow during peak periods and the tailbacks encourage rat running.  The minister seemed to take that on board, though time will tell if they achieve anything.

As far as the Longbarrow to Berwick Down section went, they are focusing on the northern route (ie north of the current A303).  Those representing Winterbourne Stoke pointed out that we expected a lot more consideration being given to sound-proofing the section that ran across the Till valley to protect the village from road noise.  It was noted that the previous scheme involved raising the road on a causeway - bizarre given the history of the River Till - which was no longer acceptable.  It had been done to try and get rid of a lot of the spoil from the previously planned tunnel.  We raised the issue of the phosphatic chalk discovered along the possible tunnel route and the suggestion that disturbing it might release radon.  It was clear that both Andrew Jones and Highways England were well aware of this and they commented that appropriate ways of disposing of such material would need to be found.

The only question that Highways England didn't answer, in fact they were told NOT to answer it by Andrew Jones, was one we asked for information.  We asked how deep the tunnel might be, below ground level, at two points:  Stonehenge Bottom and at its closest predicted point to Stonehenge itself.  We indicated that at this early stage, we weren't after specifics; just a general indication of depth - were we talking a metre, 10 metres or 100 metres.   Given that Highways England have been talking about a tunnel 2.9km long - not 2 to 3 km but 2.9km, we do find it a little bit odd that they aren't prepared to give a similarly important estimate on depth at this stage.  At the end of the day, the depth of the excavation for the tunnel roof is going to be the measurement that is going to have to be defended the most in terms of the probability, or not, of damaging as yet undiscovered buried features.  Like the tunnel length, this sort of discussion is best started early, so at least the most specious arguments are rapidly surfaced and dismissed.

The only note of dissent came from Amesbury Abbey, in relation to how Highways England might change the Countess Roundabout as part of the overall scheme.  The suggestion was that the A303 would cross above the A345 at a raised level.  The objection here was that this would increase sound levels experienced by elderly residents of Amesbury Abbey.  A rational concern, but one which could surely be alleviated by careful screening and road surface selection?  Like many of the possible concerns, lets get them out in the open now, identify solutions and move on.  Throwing Teddy's in corners will get us nowhere fast.

We all know it isn't going to be easy; there are a lot of vested interests.  There are some for whom no compromise is acceptable and yet compromise we must have - the transport needs of the living and for generations yet to come have to be balanced with the need for preservation of things built by generations long dead, and quality of life has to be balanced with improved access to part of mankind's rich heritage.  It's a huge, huge ask, but we are prepared to play our part in building the consensus that is needed to make this work.

It rather begs the question, dear reader.  Are YOU?