Representation by Margaret Willmot
- Date submitted
- 2 January 2019
- Submitted by
- Members of the public/businesses
It must be questioned whether this scheme represents a good use of Government money for transport, noting that the initial BCR (0.23 or 0.21 depending on funding options) would make the scheme exceedingly poor Value for Money. The adjusted BCR (1.14 or 1.08, again depending on funding options) relies heavily on sizeable ‘cultural heritage impacts’ – in particular an alleged ‘willingness to pay’ from the general population in excess of £1.2 billion (see Volume 7.7.5, para 5.2.25). This does not seem to fit with the large numbers of objections in respect of damage to the archaeology and setting of the World Heritage Site, and to the Blick Mead Mesolithic site and its setting.
Alternatives, including non-road building options, and road schemes which avoid damaging the World Heritage site should be given further consideration.
The increase in motorised traffic, and the increase in greenhouse gas emissions which would result from this additional traffic, are in conflict with Government policy to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. More thought also needs to be given to how a costly proposed road scheme such as this, which results in increased traffic, fits with Government’s vision of future needs and the desire to improve people’s living environment by reducing traffic and congestion.