Home

SUMMARY OF MAIN EVIDENCE

Part 1. Objection to the Published Scheme for the On-line Route

Presented on behalf of
The Association of Council Taxpayers, South Wiltshire

by

J. A. M. ELLIS, MIExpE
Project Officer


  1. Introduction
    1. I am John Ellis, a Member of the Institute of Explosives Engineers and a retired Army Officer. A specialist in explosive technology and missile systems, I subsequently worked as a consultant in Bomb Security under the name of Explotech Security Ltd, operating both at home and internationally, until 1989.
  2. The Organisation
    1. The Association of Council Taxpayers, South Wiltshire, was originally the Salisbury Ratepayers Association (SRA), formed in 1969 to monitor rates. It later became the Council Taxpayers Association, (CTA) Salisbury District but to remove the apparent connection with the District Council, the title was reversed to its present name with the “South Wiltshire” suffix recently replacing “Salisbury District”, to make even clearer, its complete separation from the local authority it monitors.
    2. The Association is independent of any political party and has no other affiliations. The constitution sets out the organisation’s officers, membership, procedures, and at paragraph 2, its role:-
      “Its object is to scrutinise the policies and actions of Salisbury District Council and other public bodies from an independent standpoint and to promote the interests of local residents”
    3. The organisation has a current membership exceeding 450, the largest local non-political organisation representing the people of South Wiltshire. It is concentrated in the city of Salisbury, the towns of Amesbury and Wilton and neighbouring villages which, in the Stonehenge context, surround the World Heritage Site (WHS). The membership covers a wide spectrum of the community.
  3. Objection
    1. This Part 1 of the ACT Proof of Evidence explains its objections to the Published Scheme. Part 2 will describe a positive alternative to crossing the WHS with new roads, tunnels and cuttings, contrary to the objectives of the UNESCO World Heritage Convention WHC) signed by the government in 1984. The spirit of the Stonehenge Management Plan, Section 8, is also neglected.
    2. The many significant ways in which the Published Scheme fails the Government’s commitment to the WHC and its endorsed Management Plan is established by other more informed organisations. ACT would simply draw attention to the Management Plan, Section 8. Sustainable Landscape, Objectives 7 to 12. These Objectives call for enhancement, restoration and extension of the grassland landscape and the removal or screening of inappropriate structures. The latter is virtually impossible where villages, housing, farms, and military establishments, including an explosives storage area, exist. The ideal, without a road in sight, will be shown to be possible, advantageous and cost effective in the Part 2 Proof.
    3. The Published Scheme is focussed on the narrow A303 corridor through the WHS between Amesbury and Berwick Down to the west. It ignores the area down to Salisbury where traffic problems have existed for decades, back to the 1920’s at least, without coherent solutions. The bypassing of Salisbury is of prime importance, the relief of both the Wylye and Bourne Valleys, the latter a County responsibility beyond its resources, and the restoration of Amesbury to a peaceful and flourishing rural centre free from through-running trunk road traffic, all come close behind.
    4. The advantages of improving the A303 on-line can only be achieved by extensive excavation in an archaeologically sensitive and internationally protected area with high capital and operational costs. There will be traffic disruption during construction over many months, extending into periods of holiday peaks, which will affect alternatives along other roads to the added discomfort of many villagers. This same situation could occur at any time in the event of accidents in the tunnels and major road maintenance.
  4. The Proposed Tunnel
    1. The tunnel is an expensive, damaging and unnecessary expedient to hide traffic. At 2.1 km it needs an 1.5 km, deep cutting to hide road movement more cheaply but less effectively westwards to Long Barrow Crossroads. The cutting would separate the land on either side.
    2. A tunnel solution, too short to meet its objectives fully, forcing people underground for cosmetic reasons at some risk, is questionable, the more so when an effective alternative offering additional advantages is available.
    3. The only on-line solution for the Henge would be a tunnel some 4.5 km long under the full width of the WHS and priced at some 500M, which has already been refused by Ministers. Thus the only alternative to the desecration of the WHS is to bypass it. That is possible today, for a limited time but ruled out by a Highways Agency (HA) restricted to a corridor along the existing route.
    4. Under prevailing south westerly wind and poor visibility conditions, noise and headlight pollution will still be discernible in the core area of the Henge and be especially undesirable at Solstice celebrations.
    5. The Published Scheme drives a 2.1 km tunnel under the core area around the monument. Although bored to avoid surface destruction, a section at Stonehenge Bottom, will be so close to the surface that it would be as destructive as a cut-and-cover tunnel. There are also serious ground water problems in this area demanding special treatment for which no assurance of safety is offered. The descent below ground, especially at the west end, will be gradual and close to the surface producing a potential for damage to existing or undetected archaeology.
    6. Maintenance demands not associated with open roads, will require occasional traffic diversion at extra cost and discomfort. There will also be additional operating costs for lighting, CCTV surveillance, public address systems, probably fire suppression sprinkler systems and specially resourced, manned, control rooms.
    7. With traffic growth inexorably advancing, the time will come when the A303 will require a third lane in each direction. Extra lanes cannot be added in the planned tunnels. One contraflow tunnel would almost certainly not be acceptable. The question is how, where and at what cost would the problem be solved?
    8. Tunnel Safety. Accidents in tunnels may be no more likely than on an open road but the consequence of fire, smoke, fumes, hazardous spillage and inhibited access for emergency services, give cause for alarm. Fire inhibition systems and on site or nearby 24-hour, quick reaction, emergency cover will add to both capital and long term operating costs far beyond that for an open road. A decision not to include such cover on site must be justified. Police and minimal Fire Service cover for accidents in the tunnels is currently located on the far side of Amesbury. Attendance from the west is even further away from emergency service base locations, Salisbury predominantly. Speed of response to one or both ends of the tunnels need to be proved.
    9. Tunnel Emergency Scenarios. The consequences of accident and other emergency scenarios in tunnels demand thorough examination when the tunnel is of the length proposed at Stonehenge. Risk assessment would normally be expected to define minimum manpower and equipment needs and whether on or off site accommodation should be provided. Apart from tunnel control rooms, some to be unmanned times, little on site provision appears to exist. Full assessment and consequent additional service provision should occur before project approval and not as a costly afterthought. Evidence is needed to show that accommodation, alternative access routes, laybys, etc., are adequate in emergencies. The following scenarios propose some typical emergency incidents, in mid tunnel, which call for assurances in terms of emergency response and facilities:-
      1. Heavy Goods Vehicle Breakdown. Lacking a hard shoulder, one lane will be blocked. All traffic will slow until the tunnel is filled, scarcely moving with engines running. Heavy recovery vehicles are needed quickly to remove the immobilised vehicle. The recovery vehicle cannot turn in the tunnel and must reverse up to 1 km, either in or out.
      2. Multiple Vehicle Impacts. Buses and coaches are involved causing casualties and evacuees in a totally blocked tunnel. Multiple ambulance attendance and evacuee transport would be necessary together with fire service and recovery teams, from one or both ends of the tunnel. Medical aid could come from the other tunnel partially blocking it.
      3. Vehicle Accident With Fire, Smoke and/or Hazardous Fumes. With all emergency services involved, access for each would need practised planning, communication and co-ordinating action. The pros and cons of Fire sprinkler systems should be considered. The conditions at 4.j.i. above, with compete tunnel blockage, would apply but, if mass abandonment of vehicles was necessary a fleet of buses, served from the second tunnel, would probably be needed. The recovery of abandoned needs planning.
      4. Explosion/Terrorist Attack. This condition must be the greatest risk. Probability is unpredictable but it must be a possibility. Innocuously loaded vehicles are not routinely checked but could be massively destructive, the more so confined in a tunnel. To all the other emergency teams, armed personnel might be required although bombs concealed in vehicles need not include a terrorist presence. In this case, any form of deterrence would affect traffic flows and cause backing up trailing out from the tunnel portals.
  5. Other Locations
    1. Amesbury. The present line of the A303 cuts through the boundary of the town separating a significant area of housing at Countess Road and several large villages from the shopping centre. The planned flyover will sustain this separation and induce a significant volume of Stonehenge visitor traffic circulating at the Countess Roundabout going both to and from the proposed Countess East Visitor Centre. That extra traffic will conflict with local transit between the villages of Larkhill, Durrington and Bulford going to Salisbury and shopping in Amesbury. It will be unrelieved by the link road through the Butterfield Down residential area. Businesses in the town assert that relatively little benefit derives from A303 through traffic.
    2. Countess Roundabout Flyover. Although removing through traffic, it will raise vehicles to rooftop height increasing noise and gaseous pollution on the prevailing wind to housing at nearby Countess Road. Assurances, lacking at the present, are needed to guarantee pedestrian safety from the circulating visitor traffic going to and from ill-sited English Heritage Visitor Centre (VC)
    3. Visitor Centre Implications. The adoption of the Published Scheme would offer virtually no other site for the suitable for the VC. Alternatives removing all roads from the WHS would have little if any effect on the VC function. ACT believes that the Countess East site is too far (2 miles) from the monument, too close to a residential area and detrimental to local traffic. A road-free core area could bring a much better location for the Visitor centre with a visible, closer and more easily accessed monument and, with through trunk road traffic removed, a considerably reduced vehicle conflict
    4. Winterbourne Stoke Bypass. The provision of a northern bypass of the village is indisputable but to take the route across the open Till valley on an embankment and a long viaduct challenges the river’s environmental protection. A southern line through closer, suitably landscaped but less widely visible country, would be preferable.
    5. Stonehenge Road/New King Barrows Ridge. Stonehenge Road is to be closed above the eastern portal but access is to be provided to the four cottages on the Ridge and to the intended byway for prohibited tunnel users and emergency service vehicles. Because the crest of the Ridge offers an excellent view and is within reasonable walking distance of Stonehenge, facilities should be provided for vehicles, of limited size, to reach the Byway entrance and drop off or pick up visitors and walkers, turn round and leave or return without parking. This would fulfil the requirement to allow people to roam freely amongst the Stones at no cost. Such an arrangement would give reasonable access, for local residents especially, and promote local tourist services from the town. (A plan of the area involved is included at page 12.)*
    6. Western Access Junction. Westerly access only is provided for Winterbourne Stoke at this junction which would promote rat-running by local people and a gradually increasing number of others. This is unnecessary with nearby access to the A303 at the Long Barrow junction. The Bridleway, Berwick St James 3, and essential access to fields must remain, with an underpass if necessary.
  6. An Alternative Route
    1. ACT has produced a proposal for an alternative scheme which will remove all roads from the WHS. The scheme, titled the “ACT Stonehenge A303 Realignment Plan”, takes the only feasible line for such a Stonehenge bypass. It diverts the A303 south from Beacon Hill east of Amesbury towards Salisbury where it crosses the Avon Valley to run north on high ground and thence to cross the River Till above which it rejoins the dualled A303 west of Winterbourne Stoke, which is then bypassed. The scheme has been thoroughly evaluated by the Highways Agency over some seven months and the report was issued on 22nd January, 2004.
    2. The report is now being critically examined by ACT prior to issuing a Proof of Evidence on the scheme, including the rebuttal of any contentious elements in the evaluation report. In essence the route enables the government to meet its international commitments for the future of the WHS but also offers solutions to several serious local traffic problems, not least a bypass for the medieval city of Salisbury, and relief for the Wylye and Bourne Valleys too.
  7. Conclusions
    1. The published plan fails to meet the terms of the national and international obligations for the protection, improvement and extension of the landscape setting of Stonehenge. The high capital and continuing operating costs, without advantages for surrounding communities, is excessive. The area suffers long recognised traffic problems which affect the residents, tourism and business, but the plan gives much to A303 travellers while local problems persist for lack of funds. The solution is cosmetic, inadequate and helps trunk road movement until traffic growth brings its short-sighted solutions to a chaotic halt. There are technical problems which may yet bring significant increased cost.