To what depths are these people prepared to sink?!
https://stonehengealliance.org.uk/national-trust-members-resolution-about-the-a303-at-stonehenge/
Creating a devious campaign, giving the reader the impression, that when they follow a link, they have reached the National Trust's page, when in fact, it takes one to Stonehenge Alliance's own page with the detail to vote for a motion to persuade the National Trust to change their stance on the A303 Project and giving the impression that this is the National Trust's stance ðŸ˜
National Trust Member’s resolution about the A303 at Stonehenge
Members’ resolution about the A303 at Stonehenge
We ask members, please, to cast their own votes and ask the National Trust to reconsider its support for the Government’s scheme for dualling the A303 across the Stonehenge World Heritage Site (WHS), including short twin-bore tunnels, in view of the Examining Authority’s recommendation, the High Court Judgment, UNESCO’s threat of WHS de-listing, and the urgent need to address the climate emergency; and to press instead for a sustainable solution to A303 traffic congestion that would cause no further damage to the WHS.
Proposers’ supporting statement.....muddying the waters more like!!
"The Trust’s position on the road scheme appears irrational under growing national and international opprobrium. Some 220,000 signatories worldwide are petitioning against a project involving two major junction interchanges and, within the WHS, deep tunnel approach cuttings removing 7–10 hectares of a WHS designated for its prehistoric archaeology. The Trust argues unrealistically that correct design and mitigation could minimise adverse impacts, saying the A303 severs and blights the WHS and the tunnel would make it easier to explore. But most of the WHS south of the A303 is privately-owned and inaccessible; and the 2020 Examining Authority’s report, recommending scheme refusal, found (Section 5.7):"
‘Whilst the present road intrusion would be removed, … the aesthetic and spiritual damage would be profound and irreversible.’
‘… the effects of the Proposed Development on WHS OUV [Outstanding Universal Value] and the historic environment as a whole would be significantly adverse. Irreversible harm would occur, affecting the criteria for which the Stonehenge, Avebury and Associated [Sites] World Heritage Site was inscribed on the World Heritage List.’
‘… the Proposed Development would …inhibit access to the spirit and feeling of the WHS.’
‘… harm to the overall assembly of monuments, sites, and landscape through major excavations and civil engineering works, of a scale not seen before at Stonehenge. Whilst the existing roads could be removed at any time, should a satisfactory scheme be put forward, leaving little permanent effect on the cultural heritage of the Stonehenge landscape, the effects of the proposed [Longbarrow] junction would be irreversible.’
All of that last bit is suspect because...they've chosen the bits from the Examiner's report, they want you to read! The land they say is "privately owned" is owned by the National Trust and managed by others! The privately owned land they refer to is.....outside the WHS!
This is what the National Trust actually say on their web site:
Stonehenge A303 Road Improvement Scheme
"The Stonehenge Landscape is one of the most important prehistoric landscapes in Europe.
We care for over 2,100 acres (800 hectares) of the World Heritage Site and we take our responsibility to protect it very seriously.
The current surface A303 cuts through the heart of the World Heritage Site, harming the setting of many of the 400 sites and monuments scattered across the landscape and preventing people from exploring two thirds of this incredible place.
The benefits of a tunnel
We welcome the Government’s plan to invest in a two mile long tunnel, removing a large part of the existing surface A303 that damages the Stonehenge Landscape.
If designed and delivered with the utmost care, it will finally reunite this prehistoric landscape, protecting the special qualities of the World Heritage Site, reconnecting habitats and helping people to discover and enjoy more of the landscape.
Working with our partners
We continue to believe in the long-term benefits of the proposed road scheme for people, history and wildlife and we are working closely with our partners to help inform and challenge Highways England to deliver a scheme that protects the special qualities of the Stonehenge World Heritage Site and finally addresses the major harm the existing A303 does to this extraordinary place."
Here too, is where Stonehenge Alliance continue to muddy the waters:
SHA tear to pieces, a letter to the new Transport Secretary Anne-Marie Trevelyan MP.... sent from our MP John Glen along with Wiltshire Cabinet Member for Transport Dr Mark McClelland, where their interpretation of the letter is at best subject to misinterpretation and at worst misrepresentation....taking 3 points for their own consideration!
The letter is here:
"Salisbury MP, John Glen MP and Wiltshire Council’s Cabinet Member for Transport Cllr Dr Mark McClelland [Note 1] recently wrote to the new Transport Secretary, Anne-Marie Trevelyan (see below). They raised UNESCO’s Advisory Mission’s report on the proposed A303 Stonehenge road project and asked the Minister to support National Highways’ scheme, arguing incorrectly that it would result in:"
“sensitively mitigating risks” to the World Heritage Site (WHS)
“the very best solution for reducing journey times”, and
“removing the ugly scar of the current surface road”
So more misinformation from SHA who go on to say:
"The letter seriously misunderstands the High Court judgment, the Examiners’ conclusions, the former Transport Secretary’s views of the scheme and UNESCO’s position. [NOTE 2] We address the three assertions:"
“mitigating risks” to the World Heritage Site: "The High Court judgment quashed the DCO in part because the Transport Secretary, recognizing the damaging impacts of the scheme, had not given proper consideration to alternatives. A principal finding of the Advisory Mission is that the scheme would have an adverse impact on. the WHS They advise that a southern bypass should be further explored, but at the very least the tunnel should be extended to the western WHS boundary. They also expressed concerns about the potential impact on the Mesolithic Site of Blick Mead. The World Heritage Committee last year warned that without scheme amendment, it would consider placing the WHS on its list of World Heritage in Danger."
“the very best solution for reducing journey times” "At a scheme cost of at least £2.5bn, the time savings from London to the South West along the A303/A358 corridor would be in the order of eight minutes overall. This calculation depends on the completion of all eight A303 schemes proposed by the Department for Transport. Yet only three of those schemes have been funded to date. Implementation of the Stonehenge tunnel scheme would simply shunt congestion further down the road. National Highways’ response fails to address the critical economic point made by the National Audit Office in 2019 that “the benefits of the Stonehenge section will not be realised until all eight schemes have been completed.”.....8 minutes?! how did they work that one out?
The “significant advantages” for local communities at peak times do not require or warrant a damaging tunnel scheme. No one is objecting to a bypass for Winterbourne Stoke, and Wiltshire Council should be strongly managing traffic through the local villages of Shrewton and Larkhill in any case. Such schemes could have been implemented many years ago. A local resident wrote to us recently “we do not have the right to destroy the land and its artefacts when we could easily divert traffic in much more compassionate ways.”
“removing the ugly scar of the present road“ "The scar of the present road would remain in the landscape, in part as a byway. In addition there would be about 2km of open dual carriageway within the WHS plus tunnel portals. Just outside, affecting the setting the WHS, ugly new junctions would scar the landscape and damage archaeology. The independent specialist Examiners (who are a lined with SHA) pointed out that “the current proposal for a cutting would introduce a greater physical change to the Stonehenge landscape than has occurred in its 6,000 years as a place of widely acknowledged human significance. Moreover, the change would be permanent and irreversible.” Furthermore, they said that the scheme “would give the [western] cutting greater visibility to users of the byway, with the likelihood of views directly into the cutting and into the entrance to the tunnel.” The former Transport Secretary accepted that the impacts on the WHS would be significantly adverse."
We (SHA) conclude that…
"On these grounds alone the scheme should be abandoned. Should the Transport Secretary wish to proceed, the scheme should be thoroughly reviewed and subject of another formal public Examination so that all of the new information submitted by National Highways and others since 2020 can be properly scrutinized." This would of course result in further consultation, deliberation not to mention the cost there of and putting the project back yet a further decade!
"NOTE 1: Dr Mark McClelland works part time for John Glen Mp as his Chief of Staff....and is Wiltshire Council’s Cabinet member for Transport".
NOTE 2: Reference: Planning Inspectorate links to project overview://stonehengealliance.org.uk/mp-letter-will-seriously-mislead-transport-secretary/
1 comment:
As an exercise in obfuscation, SHA (aka SSWHS) have taken the concept of egregriousness to a new level; I can't quite work out whether to describe it as a pinnacle, but more likely nadir. Clearly the objective is to get the Motion which they also describe as a Resolution... supported by such numbers of National Trust Members that they get it carried. To compound the felony, they seem to believe that NON National Trust Members could legitimately vote for the motion; all these people would be doing would be to add their ill-informed opinions on National Trust's current position to what is evidently SHA's suspect platform, which is chock-a-block full of inaccuracies, and mis-information. This deplorable tactic, which seeks to effectively malign National Trust, should be roundly condemned. Space prevents me from itemising all the fallacies in WHA's pronouncements. Bah Humbug!
Post a Comment