Representation by Walter Stephen Macnally
- Date submitted
- 8 January 2019
- Submitted by
- Members of the public/businesses
I have been and continue to be a regular traveller on the A 303.
I believe the short tunnel option as covered in the application is not the best solution to the A303 traffic bottle neck. I believe the longer tunnel option is the best all round solution, in line with UNESCO advice and therebye ensuring the continued WHS status and protection of the known and unknown archeological environment. UNESCO advice specifically rejects the current short tunnel solution and the untold damage that will be caused to the area by such a project.
I also believe that the retention of the old A 303 (Possibly reconfigured as a "Scenic Route" or converted to a free public car parking) would preserve the existing infrastructure for the continued benefit of the general public who for millenea have enjoyed the free views and ambiance of this National/Global treasure. The view obtained from the existing road as the central monument crests above the horizon is truely magnificent and all efforts should be made to preserve this for the general travelling public who wish to see it. In addition, retaining the old A 303 as a "scenic route" would also provide extra emergency routing of traffic during tunnel closures. A good example of the chaos caused during tunnel closures can be seen from the Hindhead tunnel experiences where the old A 3 was unecessarily shut, despite local protest. The proposed alternate route through Larkhill alone will not be sufficient during tunnel closures.
Retaining the old A 303 would also reduce the overall cost of the project as many of the peripheral engineering works would not then be necessary. Specically, the in filling of the existing A303 infrastructure, building of new private access ( where existing access from A303 already exists) and the reworking of numerous byeways. All of these activites are not core to the tunnel itself but are driven by an assumed need to remove all traces of MPV access around the monument itself (EH, WC and NT desires) whilst removing all possibility of general public free viewing, even from a distance, of the core monument.
Back filling the old A 303 increases costs whilst adding nothing to the archaeology nor increasing the cultural value of the WHS. Public MPV access along the old A 303 would if maintained, save the project money and continue providing the highly valued public views. Obviously there would be greatly reduced traffic as the vast majority of HGV , emergency and commercial travellers would use the tunnel option. However, by retaining this route more or less as is, even if unidirectional, would retain the existing amenity for the general public whilst reducing the cost . As a bonus, during tunnel closures this route could be bought into use to relieve the inevitable costly traffic disruption and blockages caused when the tunnel is shut. This would provide a "Scenic route" for those travellers who would like to break their journey and view the stones
The overall proposed treatment of the existing byways (AMES 12 and AMES 10) reduces existing public amenity and highly valued existing infrastructure. Evidently, the interests and commercial asperations of EH and their nearby Stonehenge tourist attraction are promoted in extreme in this application. Ultimately this application will remove any form of free public access by MPV to this remote site. Any MPV access will be under EH control and car parking arrangements. No longer will the public be able to view the stones without paying. This surely cannot be just or fair.
Consider modification of planned private access at end of Stonehenge road to provide retention of existing MPV access rights and alteration of existing hard standings (A 303 carriageway) to provide free parking facilitating safe and easy access for walkers to bridleway AMES 10
Modification of existing Longbarrow roundabout to provide parking with retention of existing A360, amendments to A360 treatment to facilitate MPV access to proposed parking area connected to continued MPV access to existing A 303 as part of the "Scenic Route". Continued MPV access to byeway AMES12 form existing A 303
I am also am dismayed by the attempts to deter those whom see this site as a religious centre and undertake pilgrimages only to be denied access by authorites with obvious commercial, not spiritual, interests. This scheme as it stands further supports such a policy and should be reviewed to see where it can be altered to promote religious attendance as indeed this is where the origins of the site lay.
The above are only some of my concerns over this application. The essence of my objection lays not with the construction of a tunnel per se (Long option not the current short one) providing the archeology is protected at all times, but with the associated peripheral works which as detailed remove all the existing free public MPV access to the area. This is wrong.
People have travelled to and past this location for thousands of years. Removing all free MPV access is uneccesary and will deny the public a free view of one of the most iconic of national treasures. To retain MPV access as outlined above will I believe save money and go towards the promotion of the long tunnel option.