Representation by Helen Taylor
- Date submitted
- 10 January 2019
- Submitted by
- Members of the public/businesses
I object to the A303 Stonehenge scheme going ahead because: 1) There will be permanent damage to a World Heritage Site and UNESCO Advisers (who know what they are talking about) say it should not go ahead in its present form. 2) There are serious concerns about irreparable damage to the Blick Mead Mesolithic Site. 3) There is a lack of alternative options considered in this application which would not damage this precious area. They exist but have been excluded merely on the basis of cost. This is a priceless national monument that belongs to every citizen in this country. If some people want this "improvement" then they must be prepared to pay the price required to absolutely protect its integrity. 4) The view from the road would be lost and this will mean that only people who can afford to pay will ever be able to see it in future. It belongs to us all, not the moneyed few. 5) Rare bird species will be disturbed (stone curlew and great bustard) and their extinction may be made more likely and hastened. 6) There will be an increase in noise from more and faster traffic, destroying the precious peace and ambience of this ancient site of our pre-history. 7) Perhaps most important, this is completely unnecessary. It is the application of a 20th century solution to a 21st century problem. Traffic volumes have to decrease dramatically and we will shortly be forced to reconsider our addiction to single occupancy cars if our world is to survive ecological disaster. By the time this scheme is completed, it will be unnecessary because traffic volumes will have had to dramatically decrease. Future generations will never forgive us for the wanton and unnecessary destruction of this infinitely precious site. We should be embracing a new future that does not require this road scheme, not encouraging the short-termism and lack of imagination that this scheme represents. As planners and guardians of our future, the Planning Inspectorate must reject this scheme for the unsound reasoning behind it and the vandalism that is being contemplated.