M3 Motorway - Trust Annual Report 1987
By the time this Report is in the hands of members the 1985 Inquiry will have re-opened at the Guildhall under a new Inspector. The fact that this is the second session of the third Winchester Section Inquiry (previous ones were held in 1971 and 1976/77) is due, not to the obstruction of conservationists but to the fact that the Departments of the Environment and Transport have attempted to foist on to Winchester a series of unacceptable proposals, each of which would be immensely damaging to the environment.
Sixteen years of immensely expensive argument has demonstrated that the Winchester "corridor" is such a complex and rich aggregation of archaeological heritage, fine landscape and ecological significance, that no simple, cheap solution is possible. Winchester is as much an environmental imperative as the Thames, the Humber or Severn Estuaries are geographical imperatives, and if special engineering solutions are appropriate to the latter, so it must be for the former.
For the first time it is reasonable to hope that a solution which would be acceptable to almost everyone may be achieved. A tunnel scheme has been mentioned frequently in the past, but until recently it was almost invariably dismissed as an impracticable and hopelessly expensive pipe dream. However, evidence is accumulating that both the cost and the construction time of the tunnel option are less than had been previously estimated, and whilst, undoubtedly, the tunnel will be more expensive than other alternatives, there is growing public and official support for the view that the extra cost is more than justified and that the nation cannot afford the damage to a historic city or to an area of outstanding beauty that other alternatives would inflict.
As members will know from the last Newsletter, the Winchester M3 Joint Action Group (JAG) was reactivated in June this year, and its policy is to call for a pair of tunnels.
A preliminary report, commissioned originally by individuals, has provided evidence that the estimated cost (£89.122 million at August 1984 price levels) and construction time (6 years) submitted by the Department of Transport at the 1985 Inquiry can be reduced substantially. JAG will use this evidence at the re-opened Inquiry and has commissioned the Consulting Engineers to advise on the optimum route for a tunnel (their preliminary report assumed that it would follow the Department's cutting route through Twyford Down).
JAG has launched an appeal for the substantial funds which will be necessary, and for public support. Winchester Preservation Trust is solidly behind JAG in all these initiatives. We are playing an active part in JAG, we are represented on all its Committees, we have contributed £1,000 to its fund and we have appealed to our members in the last Newsletter for support.
At the time of writing two other encouraging developments have taken place.
The Joint Action Group held a meeting in August with the Department of Transport, attended also by the Department's consulting engineers, Mott, Hay and Anderson. The Department has agreed to conduct fuller studies into the tunnel option prior to the re-opening of the Inquiry.
Also in August, Winchester City Council announced that it was commissioning a feasibility study on the tunnel by a firm of engineers and was allocating up to £10,000 for this purpose. Whilst it seems a pity that studies at technical level (which must largely cover the same ground) cannot be combined rather than conducted separately, the initiative by Winchester City Council is, of course, extremely welcome and we believe highly significant. The fact that the City Council is putting its hand in its pocket to this extent is clear evidence that the tunnel option is a serious one.
The re-opened Inquiry is being held, we understand, largely to hear evidence by two organisations which did not give evidence at the 1985 Inquiry: English Heritage and the Countryside Commission. Whilst, as events are turning out, it may prove providential that the Inquiry has been re-opened, it is regrettable that the Countryside Commission will be favouring a route to the west of St. Catherine's Hill following the existing By-pass. This, the Trust remains convinced, is the worst of all possible options.
If objectors entrench themselves on the battle lines of the By-pass route or the cutting route, the result will be quite unpredictable, some part of the Winchester area will be ruined and only the Department of Transport can win. The tunnel is acceptable, justifiable and achievable, but it must be supported!.