Representation by Fiona Cregan
- Date submitted
- 11 January 2019
- Submitted by
- Members of the public/businesses
Dear Sir / Madam
With regard to the current proposition for the tunnel under Stonehenge, on the A303, I would like to raise my objections to this proposal, echoing the concern raised by ICOMOS-UK World Heritage Committee chair Peter Marsden, as this proposal I feel is driven more by financial and commercial concerns only, rather than by carefully assessing all of the alternatives, gathered in a consultative exercise, considering the world heritage status of the site.
In reference to this, not only is Stonehenge a world heritage site that preserves pre-history, but furthermore, it is a living and sacred site to the Druidic community today.
At the same time, in order to travel to work, I drive past Stonehenge twice weekly, and am caught up in queues of traffic on most occasions, and so I can well understand the frustrations of other drivers caught in the same situation.
In order to find a solution, my perspective is that these two considerations should be taken alongside the local, and national considerations (including the financial constraints), and a set of ‘success criteria’ drawn up. This might take the form of the minimum tolerances from each group - this can then provide a set of boundaries into which the solution must fit to address all parties, and to land at a ‘win-win’ solution. I can understand that this may seem time-consuming or even ‘impossible to achieve’, however, it is a real-world approach that I have used successfully in various organisations.
Into the ‘pot’ of possible solutions, I would like to add the possibility of a by-pass, from some distance away (possibly up to 15-20 miles diversion), as a possibly more appropriate solution. I have seen this work well in other parts of the country in order to preserve historical sites and towns, as it enables the existing route for people wishing to actually visit those locations, whilst allowing for a more appropriate dual or triple carriage way for those needing to travel for work or commercial purposes.
At this juncture, and as an organisational change specialist, I would request that further assessment of alternative solutions is carried out, in conjunction with interested parties representing the various interests, as I have no doubt whatsoever that there is indeed a solution that can be found that is ‘win-win’ for all parties - in my experience, it simply involves objective facilitation, listening, noting all tolerances, idea generation sessions, and focusing on the ‘art of the possible’.
Yours faithfully Fiona Cregan