SALISBURY, United Kingdom – The Wild Hunt has reported previously on a number of developments relating to the proposed Stonehenge tunnel (formally known as the A303 Amesbury to Berwick Down project) in 2022 and the situation has moved on somewhat in recent weeks, with the membership of the National Trust set to vote on the matter.
Map showing A303 – Image credit: OpenStreetMap contributors – CC BY 2.0,
Grant Shapps, the former Transport Secretary, approved the proposed £1.7bn 3.2km tunnel/12.8km dual carriageway for the A303 in 2020 (Note: since there seems to have been some confusion over this in the past, the tunnel would more or less follow the current route of the existing main road – it would not go directly under the henge itself. The whole site is roughly seven and a half times as big as Central Park in New York City which is 843 acres or 1.3 square miles). However, planning permission for the tunnel on environmental grounds was overturned in July 2021. Shapps stated that he was ‘re-determining’ his decision and consulting National Highways for additional carbon detail.
In January of this year, National Highways confirmed that, as well as a revised environmental impact report, it had submitted a new submission relating to the scheme, which observers thought might include a longer tunnel (this would probably mean that the two portals to the tunnel fall beyond the western boundary of the site). However, one of our contacts, who has seen the plans, told The Wild Hunt shortly afterward that the alternatives had essentially been rejected and the original tunnel plans were pretty much as they stood. This is borne out by objections made earlier this year to the plans, in which respondents stated that the revisions had not:
- made any changes to the Scheme to take the 2021 World Heritage Committee Decision into account, despite acknowledging that the Secretary of State found the Scheme’s impact on the proposed western cutting area would be “significantly adverse”
- only looked at hard engineering solutions for safeguarding and enhancing the World Heritage Site but has not explored alternatives such as measures to reduce road traffic and road emissions, and improve access to the South West
- fully assessed alternative routes less damaging to the World Heritage Site e.g., a southern bypass route would be cheaper even if there might be some problems with it, while a longer tunnel would reduce the impact on the World Heritage Site
- updated the scheme construction costs
- updated the carbon assessment and costs
You can see the full range of responses can be found on the U.K. National Infrastructure Planning website.
Shapps is no longer Transport Secretary, having been replaced by Mark Harper as part of the general upheavals in the U.K. government. Stonehenge Alliance, who are opposed to the tunnel and point out that it goes against the advice of UNESCO’s World Heritage Committee, say that the new Transport Secretary has 3 choices: approve the scheme, reject the scheme, or revise the scheme (this would need a new application).
Map released in March 2022 – Image credit: Highways England
The English Heritage Trust (EHT), Historic England, the National Trust, and Stonehenge Alliance have made their case again for an alternative route, suggesting that a longer tunnel would be preferable.
UNESCO has asked those route modifications should be considered before the project is greenlit. They have said that although the suggested tunnel and the re-routing of the current A303 would have a “positive impact” on the site overall, the problem lies in the proposed cuttings at either end of the tunnel which, the UNESCO report says, would “adversely and irreversibly impact” the site’s integrity.
EHT says that UNESCO has “made an explicit recommendation to extend the tunnel at the western end.”
UNESCO also reports that in their view the proposed western portal is likely to have “an unacceptable and inappropriate adverse impact on the setting of the Winterbourne Stoke Barrow Group and the physical and visual integrity of the WHS [World Heritage Site] and the scheme should not proceed without substantial amendment to avoid this impact” to the “fullest extent that is reasonably practicable.”
EHT, however, like the National Trust, does support the idea of a tunnel of some kind and says that it should still go ahead due to the benefits to the site, even if the tunnel extension proves impossible. They do stress that these benefits would be “slightly” beneficial, rather than “moderately” beneficial, which would be their analysis if the tunnel is extended.
EHT added: “This scheme has been – and continues to be – scrutinised by UNESCO, Historic England, Wiltshire Council, EHT, National Trust, numerous archaeologists, and the scheme’s own independent Scientific Committee. It is because of this involvement that the scheme has undergone significant improvements. EHT will continue to work together with National Highways and all the parties concerned to find the best possible solution for Stonehenge and the protection of the outstanding universal value of the WHS on behalf of everyone both local, national and international who wishes to visit and learn about this global prehistoric icon.”
Historic England also highlighted the issues with the western approach to the tunnel, saying that, “The [UNESCO] report expresses concerns about the western end of the scheme, including the location of the tunnel portal and the length of associated dual carriageway in open cutting. We note that in relation to these concerns National Highways in their response state that ‘the provisions contained within the draft DCO, which include consultation and collaboration with heritage bodies on design matters, allow for refinement of the DCO scheme to ensure that opportunities identified with potential to minimise adverse impacts or maximise beneficial impacts on the WHS are acted upon’. Historic England will work with them to this end.”
The National Trust also said it would support “any possible further investigation into [the tunnel extension] options, including the government and the Applicant working with all parties to consider whether and how any elements of these alternatives, of benefit to the World Heritage Site, could be brought forward in the detailed design of the scheme, should consent be granted.” The Trust has recently voted against an amendment that sought to persuade them to alter their stance and oppose the tunnel.
Meanwhile, the Stonehenge Alliance said: “We note that the [UNESCO] Mission refers to and agrees with the World Heritage Committee’s (WHC) recommendation that the scheme should not proceed in its current form. The 2021 decision of the WHC is referred to, in which it is implicit, should the scheme go ahead without fundamental amendment, the WHS might be placed on the List of World Heritage in Danger.”
The Stonehenge Alliance added that if alternatives, for example, a tunnel beneath the entire length of the WHS, are not feasible, “the tunnel should be extended at least to the western WHS boundary… National Highways points out that it has now provided information on tunnel extension alternatives (on which there has been no substantive public scrutiny). Our previous submissions have addressed the inadequacy of the information provided by National Highways. This includes the refusal to acknowledge that the scheme will cause major, permanent and irreversible harm to the WHS (as found by the secretary of state) and also the refusal to re-consider surface routes outside of the WHS in light of the Examining Authority’s report and the secretary of state’s decision.”
National Highways say that the additional benefits of the tunnel extension would be outweighed by the costs.
Stonehenge viewed from highway (2020) – Image credit: Basspildstelle – CC BY-SA 4.0
It’s worth noting that John Glen, who is the MP for Salisbury, the constituency which includes Stonehenge, has been made Chief Secretary to the Treasury in the recent cabinet reshuffle, a post that is second only to Chancellor of the Exchequer. Glen is in favour of the tunnel, commenting in 2020 that, “Once completed, visitors to Stonehenge will be able to enjoy visiting our world-famous stones against a backdrop unspoilt by traffic on the A303. Major projects like this always generate controversy but I’m optimistic it will deliver something of which we can all be proud.”
Despite final approval still being pending, contractors have now been signed up. The Salisbury Journal reported in early October that “a £60m contract has been awarded to Costain and Mott MacDonald for technical and construction management and to ensure timescales are maintained. National Highways has also signed a contract with MORE joint venture, including FCC Construction, WeBuild and BeMo Tunnelling to deliver a tunnel and main construction work at a cost of £1.25bn.”
National Highways’ director, Derek Parody, notes that “the main works contract will only become live once the secretary of state has concluded the planning process. The announcement in no way pre-empts any decision, and once that is finalised, and should the development consent order be granted, having these contractors in place puts us in the strongest possible position to deliver this transformational scheme and deliver the benefits we know it can.”
However, the National Audit Office (NAO) – a public spending watchdog – says that National Highways, who are government-owned, will not be able to deliver a great many projects on budget, and the Stonehenge tunnel is one of these. They have told the press that it will cost “an estimated £3.3 billion more than planned to complete projects due to take place in the second road investment strategy (RIS2) between April 2020 and March 2025.” Furthermore, those projects due during the five years after this are projected to cost £6 billion above estimates.
The Stonehenge project was originally due to cost £1.7 billion but projected costs – if the tunnel actually goes ahead – are now closer to £2.4 billion. National Highways and the Department of Transport will now be obliged, according to the NAO, to “make difficult decisions in prioritising road enhancements projects.”
The reasons for the overspending are varied, ranging from the court case for the A303 project, to COVID to current rates of inflation, which are pushing prices up across the board. But the NAO says that National Highways could have done more to manage the risk and has recommended that the organisation work closely with the Treasury in order to address the increasing cost of its projects portfolio.
Readers who have been following this issue may remember that there has been talk of UNESCO removing World Heritage status from the site. National Highways have published a response to a letter from the Secretary of State seeking responses to a UNESCO World Heritage Centre/ICOMOS report after an advisory Mission to Stonehenge in April.
Basically, UNESCO makes 22 recommendations. National Highways say that they are either complying with this or concur with them, with two major exceptions: the siting of the Western portal, and the tunnel’s length. There also seem to be indications in the report that World Heritage status could not be removed if it goes ahead; UNESCO has also acknowledged that there are topographical reasons why a longer tunnel would be more difficult (a longer tunnel would have to go deeper, basically).
The Stonehenge tunnel is a complex issue and involves multiple authorities and groups, both for and against the project in various forms. The Wild Hunt will continue to update readers as developments unfold.
The Wild Hunt is not responsible for links to external content.
To join a conversation on this post:
Visit our The Wild Hunt subreddit! Point your favorite browser to https://www.reddit.com/r/The_Wild_Hunt_News/, then click “JOIN”. Make sure to click the bell, too, to be notified of new articles posted to our subreddit.