HL Deb 05 July 1999 vol 603 cc64-6WA
Lord Kennet

asked Her Majesty's Government:

Further to the Written Answer by the Lord Whitty on 22 June (WA 72), whether the Highways Agency used an assessment method for the proposed A.303 improvement scheme at Stonehenge which includes heritage value or sustainability among its criteria. [HL3290]

Lord Whitty

Yes. The Highways Agency used the New Approach to Appraisal announced in the report on the Roads Review,A New Deal for Trunk Roads in England. The criteria used were developed in consultation with the Government's statutory advisers, including English Heritage.

Lord Kennet

asked Her Majesty's Government:

What figure for the heritage value of the Stonehenge World Heritage Site the Highways Agency used in their choice of a preferred route for the A.303 through the Stonehenge World Heritage Site and how this compares with the figures proposed to the Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology document, Tunnel Vision—the Future Role of Tunnels in Transport Infrastructure, and in the Centre for Social and Economic Research on the Global Environment study commissioned by English Heritage. [HL3291]

Lord Whitty

The POST report considered various methods of assessment of heritage value, including monetary methods. The department does not recommend a monetary approach to valuing heritage. The approach developed in the New Approach to Appraisal, which was used to assess this scheme, is broadly based on the concept of Environmental Capital, which involves making an objective and systematic record of the qualities and features of an area. The assessment score given to the heritage impact at Stonehenge, using the new appraisal method, was a large positive benefit.

Lord Kennet

asked Her Majesty's Government:

What figure the Highways Agency used for the negative value (a) of the disruption that would be caused during the cutting and covering of a two-mile tunnel in the Stonehenge World Heritage Site to would-be visitors and others, and (b) of the permanent damage that this cutting and covering would cause to the World Heritage Site (including the permanent scar across the chalk landscape); and whom they consulted in developing their own figures. [HL3292]

Lord Whitty

The cost of disruption to would-be visitors and others of building a 2 km tunnel will depend on the precise method of construction used. That will be developed during the detailed design process in consultation with English Heritage and others. Particular care will be taken with landscape and ecological issues so as to avoid permanent scarring across the chalk landscape, and to carrying out restoration in a sensitive way. We are in discussion and will continue to work with English Heritage, the National Trust, English Nature and the Countryside Commission to achieve this.

Lord Kennet

asked Her Majesty's Government:

Whether the Highways Agency has published the cost-benefit analyses of the alternative routes for the A.303; and what bodies or individuals it consulted over the quality of the figures and estimates that it used and of the long term effects on road traffic. [HL3293]

Lord Whitty

Yes. A number of analyses have been carried out over the years and these have been made available to the public. The one carried out in 1998 for the Roads Review was included in the Assessment Summary Tables published during the recent Public Consultation. Consultees included: English Heritage, the National Trust, the Environment Agency, English Nature, County and District Councils and many others.

Lord Kennet

asked Her Majesty's Government:

Whether the Highways Agency has judged that the bored tunnel endorsed in 1994 by English Heritage and the National Trust as "the only feasible … route … which meets the essential requirements of this [Stonehenge] World Heritage Site" would provide no significant environmental benefits beyond those provided by the two-kilometre cut-and-cover tunnel: and, if so, on what grounds they based this judgement. [HL3294]

Lord Whitty

At an estimated £300 million, the cost of the bored tunnel was neither economic nor affordable and that is why it was not taken forward. It had few additional environmental benefits over the cut and cover tunnel and these were not considered to justify the additional costs. The cut-and-cover proposal is supported by, among others, English Heritage, English Nature and the National Trust and by the overwhelming majority of people who responded to the recent public consultation.