Representation by Tanya Wills
- Date submitted
- 10 January 2019
- Submitted by
- Members of the public/businesses
Stonehenge is an historical, archaeological, and spiritual site of international renown and importance. Major excavation in the proposed proximity to the site will risk damage to the site in ways that cannot be foretold before commencement of the work. Any comment to the contrary is conjecture, and best guess. The site, like Silbury Hill and and the surrounding areas close to the site are not yet fully investigated by academics including historians and archeologists, for reasons of their uncertainty regarding how much damage will be done by the process of investigation. As improved exploratory techniques become available with technological advance, ways of further investigation without damage to that which is being investigated, are becoming possible. It is known that the importance of the site spreads way beyond the immediacy of the site itself, and there is much to be discovered in the surrounding area. So how and why on earth would anyone give permission for our own heritage and knowledge of our history to be compromised by a road and tunnel to be run through it? There already exists a road, the A303, on which we all queue at various times, the most famous queue of all being the the one where traffic slows so that the occupants of the vehicles can take in the splendour of one of the most magnificent ancient historical sites on the planet. Who and why would anyone take away the opportunity to view this unique scene from our landscape? It seems incredible that our own highways agency and planners think it permissible to fly in the face of UNESCO, an internationally renowned and respected organisation, which has voiced its concerns and opposition to the current plans. Where are the alternative plans for a new road for us to consider, if a new road has to be considered at all? The current plans are being presented as a 'fait a compli' without any alternative being presented to the public. What is the driver behind the story that we 'need' a new road? The A303 is a major artery, and vehicles sometimes queue. The M25 is a major route, and vehicles sometimes queue. The expansion of the M25 because it is a major route, and flow needed to be eased, failed comprehensively, just like the highways agency and planners were told it would. The answer to road congestion is not to build new, or to expand roads. Road expansion and new roads attract more traffic, and the cycle becomes repetitive. There are alternative routes to the west country, just as there are alternative routes around London. They may be regarded as less convenient, but in reality they are no less convenient than sitting in a queue on a major road. As road expansion always results in the need for more expansion, the argument for a bigger road to facilitate traffic flow is is defunct. I would question who is insisting this plan is necessary and why? The plan is already known to be financially extortionate and hardly viable for that reason, so given that so little is being spent on national road maintenance across the board, and that the country is plagued by potholes and deteriorating road surfaces, the result of which is literally needlessly causing death and serious injury to road users, how can the expense to the Stonehenge new road plan be justified from the national road budget?