Representation by David Gordon
- Date submitted
- 11 December 2018
- Submitted by
- Members of the public/businesses
I object most strongly to the proposals for the A303 at Stonehenge. A general outline of my submissions is as follows:
- Massive loss of amenity on the borders of the site. This includes:
The artificially generated 'peace' at the site is outweighed by the gross intrusion proposed at its arbitrary boundaries: grade-separated interchanges, lighting, and an exponential increase in noise with vehicle speeds rising from 50 to 70mph. This is like preserving a listed building, but allowing any kind of development at its boundaries, regardless of impact. The setting is a crucial part of the whole; otherwise this is 'gesture conservation'.
At the same time, a National monument and landmark would be rendered invisible to all, save those with half a day free, and paying £20 for the privilege - a gross reduction in 'cultural connection', for all but a very few.
- Damage to the wider archaeological site.
This includes the points made by UNESCO - that the proposals would damage the quality and integrity of the site; they could also end its World Heritage classification.
There is a wider issue: the recently discovered Blick Mead Mesolithic site is just ONE example reminding us how much, archaeologically, 'we don't know what we don't know' about the site. Every few months, new discoveries reveal more about both the immediate, known, site (a mix of small excavations, and re-evaluation of past finds using new technologies) and still more about the extended landscape setting: Stonehenge is the epicentre of a complex, and (thanks to the light agricultural footprint of the last 5,000 years) extraordinarily complete and well-preserved ceremonial landscape that spreads well beyond the designated site. Once this 'setting' is gone, it's gone. At present, it's still there.
- Defective process.
I clicked on 'Advice Note 8.2' above - and nearly gave up on making this submission. It is so jargon-laden - NOT written in any kind of inclusive language. The message to non-specialists is clear: 'this is very technical, and we know better than you. Best just go away.' So, 'Public Inquiry'?
But the defective process goes back further than this: perhaps to off-the cuff decisions early this decade by the Cameron Government to 'dual the A303' - without any consideration of multi-modal corridor studies, or the Government's commitment to the Road Traffic Reduction Act (which this proposal clearly undermines,) or any of the wider issues - about CO2 emissions, or the terminally sclerotic (and toxic) cities at the nodes of our arterial roads. However I suspect that these underlying defects are, 'inadmissible by the terms of the Inquiry'.
There are others that may not be inadmissible. As mentioned above, the c.2014 'Stakeholder Group' sessions I attended at County Hall, Taunton, showed the paucity of the HA's research. This panel was looking at all the proposed 'enlargements' of the A303 (the H.A.'s word 'improvements' is absurdly subjective). Questioning revealed that they had done no work on the spread of noise: they hadn't even calculated noise impacts on buildings more than 50 metres from the road, let alone on landscape. They also claimed not to know the increase in noise projection from a 20-25mph increase in speed... In fact, perhaps conveniently, they didn't seem to have considered noise at all (see 'Amenity', above). They had also, alarmingly, done no projections for the growth in 'induced' traffic.
Finally, the Stonehenge consultation has been distinguished by the lack of options presented: 'tunnel or tunnel?' Above-ground detours, one-way working, or 'smart' traffic management (e.g. by varying speed limits on the Eastern approach to the section, as used in motorways elsewhere in the U.K.) were never seriously considered; nor were the - seriously under-funded - parallel public transport options. Again I suspect an over-riding diktat from Westminster: but there surely has to come a point where due process must over-ride the generalised ambitions of some casual, hasty, and possibly ill-considered discussion at No.10 (or No.11). And I suggest that this is it.
David Gordon
David Gordon is a former soldier, Parliamentary researcher and Somerset County Councillor. He chaired the Blackdown Hills AONB Partnership for 6 years, the coalition of Local Authorities seeking to improve the Salisbury-Exeter railway line, and served 12 years on the Highways Committee, inter alia. A keen part-time archaeologist, he has recently been working on a possible site of Julius Caesar's first fortified camp in Britain.