Skip Navigation | HOME | UK Indymedia | Editorial Guidelines | Mission Statement | About Us | Contact | Help | Support Us

West Country Features | UK Features | West Country Newswire | UK Newswire |

Campaigners welcome government rethink on Stonehenge tunnel

Chris Woodford | 20.07.2005 14:26

Anti-road campaigners welcome news that the controversial Stonehenge tunnel scheme is going to be cancelled following a huge cost increase.

Campaigners welcome government rethink on Stonehenge tunnel

NEWS RELEASE: WEDNESDAY 20 JULY 2005: FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

The Save Stonehenge! [1] campaign group has congratulated Transport Minister Dr Stephen Ladyman on his decision to rethink a controversial road tunnel proposed for Stonehenge, after an announcement today that the estimated cost has soared to over 470 million pounds [2].

Although the government has long conceded that the road makes no economic sense [3], supporters such as English Heritage and the Highways Agency have claimed the road is justified because it would "improve" Stonehenge for visitors. But opponents, including Save Stonehenge! have always dismissed that idea as a half-truth.

The Highways Agency, the government body charged with building the road, attempted to justify the scheme by renaming it the A303 Stonehenge Improvement: "Removal of busy roads and other 20th century clutter from sight of Stonehenge has long been a government objective".[4].

But that is no reason for filling the World Heritage Site with wider, busier roads and 21st-century clutter instead, according to the opponents.

Save Stonehenge! has consistently argued that the plan is a thinly disguised, old-fashioned road-widening scheme and part of a much bigger project to construct a huge new Euro-route from London to Exeter. While the group accepts that the road could bring some benefits to the world-famous stone circle, they argue that it would be incredibly destructive of the World Heritage Site as a whole - the 6500 acres (2600 ha) around and including the well-known monument, largely owned by the National Trust, which also objected to the plan.

At a three-month public inquiry held in spring 2004 [5], opponents, including the influential Stonehenge Alliance of environmental, transport, and archaeological groups [6], attacked the scheme on all fronts. Leading transport expert and government advisor Professor Phil Goodwin attacked weaknesses in the economic case. Tunnel or no tunnel, archaeologists and landscape experts pointed out that the new highway would have resulted in over two miles of brand-new dual carriageway being bulldozed through the World Heritage Site, effectively cutting it in two. A further six miles of four-lane road would have been constructed at ground level or in cuttings through the surrounding landscape. A gigantic interchange, just outside the western boundary of the World Heritage Site at Longbarrow Crossroads, would have destroyed important archaeological remains, while a new flyover and visitor centre at Countess, to the east, would have blighted the homes of many local residents. River experts highlighted the possibility of damage to the internationally important Avon river system and the intimate landscape of the River Till. And for what benefit? Noise experts proved that, even with a tunnel, traffic would still have been audible at Stonehenge. The opponents argued that such a catalog of environmental disaster could, in no way, be described as an environmental "improvement" [7].

According to Chris Woodford of Save Stonehenge!:

"This scheme has become a white elephant - a half-billion-pound monster that would stampede through one of the world's best-loved landscapes, wreaking havoc and destruction - and must be scrapped immediately."

"Putting a motorway through the Stonehenge World Heritage Site is like drawing a moustache on the Mona Lisa or drilling a bolt through the neck of the Venus de Milo. This was always a quick and dirty motorway scheme pretending to be an archaeological improvement. It was Jeremy Clarkson dressed up as Tony Robinson. It would have scarred one of the world's most important landscapes for all eternity."

"We welcome the announcement of a review. We've seen too much blinkered bulldozing from governments in the past. What we must do at Stonehenge is not the quickest thing or even the cheapest thing -- but the right thing. It doesn't matter if it takes 5 years, 50 years, or 500 years to sort out Stonehenge. This sacred site has been there five thousand years and we should not be remembered as the generation who screwed it up."

Contacts

For more information, please see our press page at  http://www.savestonehenge.org.uk/press.html

Notes to editors

1. Save Stonehenge! was established in March 1999 to fight plans to upgrade the A303 road to a dual carriageway through the Stonehenge World Heritage Site.
2. Latest cost estimate revealed by Roads Minister Dr Stephen Ladyman in Department for Transport Press Release, 20 July 2005, GNN ref 118417P.
3. In 1998, the Halcrow engineering group advised the government that the Stonehenge road was of only "marginal economic benefit" when it was forecast to cost only £125 million. That point was also conceded at the public inquiry held in spring 2004 when the Highways Agency's Stonehenge manager, Chris Jones, agreed that a road with such a poor economic justification would not normally be considered for construction: "With these sorts of economics, it would not be in the [government roads] programme". (Stonehenge public inquiry transcripts, Day 17 p55 line 18.)
4. Quote from A303 Stonehenge Improvement: Explanation of the Scheme and Non-Technical Summary of the Environmental Statement, June 2003.
5. The public inquiry was held in Salisbury from 17 February 2004 until 11 May 2004.
6. The Stonehenge Alliance is chaired by Lord Kennet and comprises The Council for the Protection of Rural England, Friends of the Earth, RESCUE: The British Archaeological Trust, Ancient Sacred Landscapes Network, Transport 2000, and Pagan Federation UK.
7. There is a summary of the public inquiry case at  http://www.savestonehenge.org.uk/allianceclosingstatement.html
8. This press release can also be downloaded from our website at  http://www.savestonehenge.org.uk/ssnr200705.html

Chris Woodford
- e-mail: info@savestonehenge.org.uk
- Homepage: http://www.savestonehenge.org.uk

Download this article in pdf format >>

Email this article to someone >>

Submit an addition or make a quick comment on this article >>

Comments

Hide the following comment

Stonehenge - scrap road building say Road Block

22.07.2005 08:19

Road Block today welcomed the rejection of the road tunnel at Stonehenge, but urged the government to stop 'fence-sitting' and scrap all plans for road building in the World Heritage Site around Stonehenge. The tunnel has only been put under review on cost grounds, but the Inspector and the government accept that a road should be built. This demonstrates the government remains committed to destructive road building, only it doesn't have the money to pay for it. The government today announced a review of the options, as the costs of the tunnel scheme had escalated to £470 million (1).

Rebecca Lush of Road Block said:

"This scheme should be rejected as it would increase traffic, and devastate the Stonehenge World Heritage Site, not simply because it costs too much. This shows the government is more concerned with money, than tackling traffic growth and CO2 emissions, and environmental protection. Any new road scheme would encourage more traffic into the South West, an area characterised by its beauty and tranquillity. All road building plans on the A303 should be scrapped".

"There are now over 200 planned road schemes that the government should be scrapping. Road building generates more traffic, when every effort should be made to halt the climate change impact of road transport, and protect the environment. The government still sees road building as a 'solution' to traffic problems, despite all the evidence that it only generates more traffic, and diverts cash away from the sustainable alternatives"

Almost every road scheme sees massive cost escalation (2).

Notes to Editors

(1) The DfT press release can be seen here
 http://www.dft.gov.uk/pns/DisplayPN.cgi?pn_id=2005_0081

(2) Road schemes almost always see huge cost increases after being approved. Sometimes by as much as 170%. See  http://transport2000.org.uk/news/maintainNewsArticles.asp?NewsArticleID=175

Road Block
PO Box 164, TOTNES, TQ9 5WX
020 7729 6973
07854 693067
 office@roadblock.org.uk
www.roadblock.org.uk

Road Block
mail e-mail: office@roadblock.org.uk
- Homepage: http://www.roadblock.org.uk


Publish

Publish your news

Do you need help with publishing?

Kollektives

Birmingham
Cambridge
Liverpool
London
Oxford
Sheffield
South Coast
Wales
World

Other UK IMCs
Bristol/South West
London
Northern Indymedia
Scotland

Server Appeal

West Country Topics

Analysis
Animal Liberation
Anti-militarism
Anti-racism
Bio-technology
Climate Chaos
Culture
Ecology
Education
Free Spaces
Gender
Globalisation
Health
Indymedia
Migration
Repression
Social Struggles
Technology
Workers' Movements
Zapatista

West Country Actions 2007

West Country Actions 2006

April 2006 No Borders Days of Action
Art and Activism Caravan 2006
Climate Camp 2006
French CPE uprising 2006
G8 Russia 2006
Lebanon War 2006
March 18 Anti War Protest
Mayday 2006
Oaxaca Uprising
Refugee Week 2006
Rossport Solidarity
Transnational Day of Action Against Migration Controls
WSF 2006

West Country Actions 2005

DSEi 2005
G8 2005
WTO Hong Kong 2005

West Country Actions 2004

European Social Forum
FBI Server Seizure
May Day 2004
Venezuela

West Country Actions 2003

Bush 2003
DSEi 2003
Evian G8
May Day 2003
No War F15
Saloniki Prisoner Support
Thessaloniki EU
WSIS 2003

Languages

english

IMCs


www.indymedia.org

Projects
print
radio
satellite tv
video

Africa

Europe
antwerpen
armenia
athens
austria
barcelona
belarus
belgium
belgrade
brussels
bulgaria
calabria
croatia
cyprus
emilia-romagna
estrecho / madiaq
galiza
germany
grenoble
hungary
ireland
istanbul
italy
la plana
liege
liguria
lille
linksunten
lombardia
madrid
malta
marseille
nantes
napoli
netherlands
northern england
nottingham imc
paris/île-de-france
patras
piemonte
poland
portugal
roma
romania
russia
sardegna
scotland
sverige
switzerland
torun
toscana
ukraine
united kingdom
valencia

Latin America
argentina
bolivia
chiapas
chile
chile sur
cmi brasil
cmi sucre
colombia
ecuador
mexico
peru
puerto rico
qollasuyu
rosario
santiago
tijuana
uruguay
valparaiso
venezuela

Oceania
aotearoa
brisbane
burma
darwin
jakarta
manila
melbourne
perth
qc
sydney

South Asia
india


United States
arizona
arkansas
asheville
atlanta
Austin
binghamton
boston
buffalo
chicago
cleveland
colorado
columbus
dc
hawaii
houston
hudson mohawk
kansas city
la
madison
maine
miami
michigan
milwaukee
minneapolis/st. paul
new hampshire
new jersey
new mexico
new orleans
north carolina
north texas
nyc
oklahoma
philadelphia
pittsburgh
portland
richmond
rochester
rogue valley
saint louis
san diego
san francisco
san francisco bay area
santa barbara
santa cruz, ca
sarasota
seattle
tampa bay
united states
urbana-champaign
vermont
western mass
worcester

West Asia
Armenia
Beirut
Israel
Palestine

Topics
biotech

Process
fbi/legal updates
mailing lists
process & imc docs
tech