Representation by Chris Todd
- Date submitted
- 10 December 2018
- Submitted by
- Members of the public/businesses
I would like to object to the scheme as it will cause huge damage to the Stonehenge World Heritage Site (WHS) and its archaeology from around a mile of expanded new road (dual carriageway and slip roads) and tunnel portals, along with associated noise and lighting. What is of great concern is that Highways England has repeatedly ignored the concerns of UNESCO on both the scheme impacts and process. The scheme will also increase carbon emissions, which while in themselves might not seem to have the potential to break the 5 year carbon budgets, are likely to contribute to the Government having trouble meeting its legal requirements as cumulatively with all the other road building schemes and with Government freezing fuel duty, transport emissions are off track. The Committee for Climate Change has stated that the Government needs to act to do more on transport to meet the targets and that electrification of the vehicle fleet won't be enough. I would also like to object to the fact that the road will increase road traffic along this corridor and place further pressure and impacts on other important assets and that this whole corridor is being proposed for upgrade without a Strategic Environmental Assessment having been done. Carrying out this process properly would allow the public to see what are the best ways of tackling issues of connectivity to the South West and whether road building was the best way of achieving this. This also links to concerns about the consultation process where alternatives were never really an option for the public to consider as they were effectively presented with a fait accompli. I also don't believe that the road provides value for money and that the survey or valuation carried out about the value of removing the road from part of the WHS is potentially flawed. Without this valuation, the cost benefit ratio which is already very poor, for a road that already has a weak traffic case for being built, effectively becomes negative. Therefore, there is a strong case for refusing this road as it does not conform to the National Policy Statement on National Networks on at least value for money and the Government's international obligations to safeguard a WHS.