A303 Stonehenge E
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
3 A303 Stonehenge e m Amesbury to Berwick Down u l o Report on Public Consultation V Appendix B September 2017 Responses from: Amesbury Town Council Avebury Parish Council Chitterne Parish Council Cranborne Chase Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty Durnford Parish Council Durrington Town Council Environment Agency Historic England Laverstock and Ford Parish Council Ministry of Defence (MOD) Natural England North Wessex Downs Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty Shrewton Parish Council The Parish of Berwick St James Tisbury Parish Council Wiltshire Council Wiltshire Police Winterbourne Stoke Parish Council Woodford Parish Council Amesbury Town Council From: Wendy Bown <[email protected]> Sent: 10 February 2017 14:44 To: A303Stonehenge Cc: 'Trader'; [email protected]; 'Adam Pilon' Subject: Consultation A303 Stonehenge: Amesbury to Berwick Down Please accept this as a contribution to the consultation: Statement from Amesbury Town Council on the Consultation: A303 Stonehenge Amesbury to Berwick Down At the Town Council meeting on 7th February 2017 a split vote – 8 votes to 7 – accepted the statement below: Amesbury Town Council considered the details of the consultation: A303 Stonehenge Amesbury to Berwick Down and strongly agrees to the solution of dualling the A303, including a bypass at Winterbourne Stoke and improvements to the existing junctions between the A303 and the intersecting A345 and A360. With consideration to Amesbury as a hub for surrounding villages, its residents, businesses and visitors, and with consideration of its heritage, the Town Council would state that: Serious consideration must be given to maintaining a full junction capacity at Countess Roundabout. There must be access onto and off the A303 at the roundabout, to enable traffic to continue to access and leave the town. The Town Council agrees the importance of retaining the Solstice Park junction, and it should not be altered. The Town Council has also concluded that the lack of a full A345/A303 junction capacity at Countess Roundabout would have a negative impact on the residential areas of London Road, Porton Road and Countess Road. The Town Council requests further investigation into the mitigation of noise distribution from the possible flyover (with a possibility of lowering or tunnelling) and insists that attention be paid to the preservation of the historic sites of Blick Mead and Vespasians Camp, and Grade 2 listed buildings and businesses at Countess Roundabout, particularly when calculating the land required for the creation of slip roads. Many thanks. Best wishes Wendy Bown Town Clerk Amesbury Town Council 1 Avebury Parish Council Response ID ANON-BABJ-X6PM-T Submitted to A303 Stonehenge Submitted on 2017-03-01 12:00:26 Introduction Name Name: Andrew Williamson Postcode Postcode: SN8 1RF Email Email address: [email protected] Postal address Address: Ashdown, High Street, Avebury, Wilts SN8 1RF Are you responding on behalf of an organisation? Yes If yes, which organisation?: Avebury Parish Council A303 Stonehenge - the proposed option 1. To what extent do you agree with our proposed option? Strongly disagree Please provide any comments to support your answer for question 1: Please see Avebury Parish Council's letter and response paper dated and posted 1 March 2017. For the avoidance of doubt, the Parish Council's response is: Avebury Parish Council Response to consultation on proposed A303 Expressway between Amesbury and Berwick Down. Avebury Parish Council is grateful to Highways England for attending its meeting on 7 February 2017 to give a presentation on the proposed A303 Expressway scheme. The Parish Council wishes to respond to the consultation, and to propose that an alternative scheme is explored. Avebury Parish lies entirely within the Avebury half of the Stonehenge, Avebury and Associated Sites World Heritage Site (WHS). The Parish Council represents the interests of local residents, employers and employees. The Council is also very aware of the importance of the WHS nationally and internationally to the 250,000 to 300,000 visitors, archaeologists, school children, faith groups, artists and many others who come to the Avebury half of the WHS each year. The integrity of the WHS is fundamental to the economic, social and cultural life of the community. It is very important internationally and is also a significant component of the economic and cultural life of Wiltshire and the nation. The Parish Council notes many of the positive and negative impacts of the proposed Expressway for the Stonehenge area. The Parish Council has endorsed the WHS Management Plan 2015 and is concerned that the primary aim of protecting the Site is observed, as set out in the Plan’s introduction. The Plan states that ‘It is essential that all change is carefully planned and that competing uses are reconciled without compromising the overriding commitment to protect the Site and maintain its OUV’ (para 1.1.7). Damage caused by the proposed A303 scheme could however result in negative impacts on the Avebury half of the WHS if: 1. UNESCO were to delist the WHS, or add it to its List of World Heritage Sites in Danger 2. a precedent is set whereby further damaging schemes in future could be built in either half of the WHS. More specifically, the Parish Council is concerned that: 1. the construction of portals at each end of the proposed tunnel together with about 1.5km of dual carriageway at surface level in the western part of the Site at Stonehenge will adversely affect a number of archaeological features and their settings. Highways England’s Technical Appraisal Report states at paragraph 18.3.39 that ‘Options D061 and D062 would result in a range of slight to very large adverse impacts on more than 60 scheduled monuments’. 2. the western portal together with roads and junctions inside and outside the WHS will: a. impact on the settings of monuments b. interfere with interrelationships between monuments c. damage or compromise more specific features, including winter solstice alignments and the unique long barrow group above the dry valley system close to the proposed western portal. 3. the Technical Appraisal Report does not include a chapter on archaeological assessment. While it includes chapters on economic, social, and other assessments, it only briefly mentions the historic environment in Chapter 18. Archaeology is fundamental to preserving WHS status and the Parish Council is very concerned at the omission of a specific chapter on the subject. The Parish Council urges that: 1. monuments, their settings and interrelationships including astronomical alignments be protected and adverse impacts on them be much reduced 2. all ICOMOS / UNESCO recommendations be included in the final design so that ICOMOS / UNESCO agreement is obtained 3. Route Option F010 is built instead of a tunnel option. The Parish Council is aware that some monuments in the WHS are 4,500 years old and believes that a test should be applied – that it should be likely that the scheme should still be seen to be an acceptable intervention in 4,500 years’ time. An alternative scheme We understand that Highways England has not explored an alternative, asymmetric, scheme that would avoid creating the proposed dual carriageway of about 1.5km, and twin portals, in the western part of the Site. But all the archaeology on the line of the proposed surface level dual carriageway would remain protected and intact, and all the costs of building this section of dual carriageway would be saved, if: 1. about 1.5km, or more, of the existing A303 running eastwards from the western boundary of the WHS was reused/recycled by converting it from a single lane highway in each direction to a one-direction pair of lanes (for say eastbound traffic) that then entered a single portal for a tunnel of 2.9km, or less, that emerged just east of The Avenue 2. a 4.5km tunnel (for say westbound traffic) was bored from just east of The Avenue to emerge at a single portal just to the west of the WHS 3. human ingenuity and experience overseas was applied to solving issues of ventilation, safety, deliverability etc. The cost of boring a single, longer tunnel might be higher, but would be largely or totally offset by a combination of: 1. a 100% saving in the cost of constructing a new, 1.5km surface-level dual carriageway 2. any savings from building a shorter (eastbound) tunnel of less than 2.9km 3. a much reduced extra-over cost of boring a longer 4.5km tunnel, given that tunnelling equipment would already be commissioned and on site 4. raising private or philanthropic money to meet some extra costs, given the strength of the WHS brand. This alternative scheme could help to protect the archaeology of the Site, meet ICOMOS and UNESCO’s requirements and ensure the acceptability of the scheme in 4,500 years’ time. 1 March 2017 Key features of the proposed option 2. To what extent do you agree with our proposed locationof the eastern portal? Don’t know Please provide any comments to support your answer for question 2: Insufficient archaeological information has been provided for the Parish Council to form an opinion. Please see Avebury Parish Council's letter and response paper dated 1 March 2017. 3. To what extent do you agree with our proposed locationof the western portal? Strongly disagree Please provide any comments to support your answer for question 3: Please see Avebury Parish Council's letter and response paper dated 1 March 2017. 4. Of the two possible routes for the Winterbourne Stoke bypass which do you consider is the best route? Not Answered Please provide any comments to support your answer for Question 4: Please see Avebury Parish Council's letter and response paper dated 1 March 2017.