Between a rock and a hard place
Stonehenge is one of the greatest archaeological sites in the world
Stonehenge is one of the greatest archaeological sites in the world. Tucked away in the Wiltshire countryside, no one quite knows who erected the stones or why, though there was probably some religious meaning.
For decades the site has been the subject of a controversy over the road that runs near it. The A303 may sound like a minor road and it is indeed a single carriageway in each direction, but it is the main way of getting to the Devon and Cornwall other than a motorway which takes a somewhat long route. As a result there have long been plans to improve the road but widening it would be out of the question because it would take land away from the Stonehenge site and, worse, mean that a busy fast road rang along this famous monument. So when the Conservative government drew up a scheme to ameliorate the situation, it decided on a a lengthy tunnel under the site, costing a cool £1.4bn. The fact that this risked undermining, quite literally, the site was ignored.
Protesters were appalled and mounted a huge campaign to stop the project, arguing that it would inflict damage on a world famous site. Initially, it seemed they had lost out as the development consent order, the key permission to build a scheme, had been given the go ahead by the government. However, the election of the Labour government in July 2024 on a platform committed to scrapping the scheme saved the day, but it has taken until now for the development consent order to be revoked. Campaigners are understandably delighted, even though the problem of the traffic congestion around the site, an almost permanent feature of hot summers, has not been resolved.
The most telling piece of information to emerge, however, is the fact that £179m has been spent on drawing up plans for the road, despite the fact that not a single clod of earth has been turned over.
This is insane and an illustration of the fundamental paralysis of the governance process of this country. How can it cost so much merely to draw up and design a scheme that is not rocket science, but a simple tunnel under a relatively easy piece of land? Who are these consultants, advisers, lawyers, engineers and the like getting all this money for simply providing blueprints.
There are other examples. The equally controversial scheme to build the Lower Thames Crossing, about which I have previously written about and argued that it should be scrapped, has already cost a billion pounds, even though work has not started and final permission has still not been obtained. Equally, we all know about the completely out of control HS2.
Other countries seem to be able to get infrastructure built at a reasonable cost but the processes in the UL mitigate against that. In particular, the Treasury, seemingly to save money but really to try to stop anything being done, requires ridiculously detailed business cases before any project can be given the go ahead. But there is more to it than that. The rundown of in house expertise in government, a process that has being going on for half a century, means there is no expertise to assess and manage projects. Everything is outsourced to companies which have a vested interest in making things expensive since they earn a percentage of the cost of projects.
When Labour was first elected, jt seemed that there might be some attempt to rein back on the cost of projects to get more done, a key stated aim of the government. Yet there is little sign of this as schemes get mired in the fog of bureaucracy and a seemingly deliberate Treasury policy of ensuring nothing happens.
The sunk cost is enormous, as you say, but it does seem likely that, following approval, the project was moved into detailed design and procurement, which are much more expensive. The long history of this controversial project doubtless also carries costs stretching back decades as successive governments wrestled with objections and revised proposals. The heritage issues require a sensitive solution, hence the objections, but taking France’s high speed rail lines and road schemes as nearby examples, the French government seems to take a much more command and control approach. This is partly cultural, but also reflects demographic differences. Worldometer suggests that England (not the UK where the effect is diluted) is at least 3.5 times more densely populated than France.
I Thanks for throwing light on that £179m. But t's very likely that work on building the tunnel and associated dual carriageway leading to and from it, well within the wider world heritage site, would be well underway by now, and probably too well advanced for Labour to axe it, even in July 2024, had it not been for Stonehenge Alliance’s campaign.
The Alliance successfully used the UK courts to delay and eventually help scupper the works.
In 2021 the High Court quashed the initial 2020 approval. When the government then re-approved the plan in July 2023, the Alliance launched a second judicial review. Although the High Court dismissed this challenge in February 2024, the Alliance appealed against the decision, keeping the project in legal limbo, Rachel Reeves was then able to cancel a scheme that hadn't even started, that £179m notwithstanding.