Congratulations to the South Downs National Park Authority for a crystal-clear objection to the M3 Junction 9 scheme (Chronicle, June 22).  Not just that it objects to the scheme as it stands, but that it sees no possibility of ‘mitigation’ or other cant compromises that would make it acceptable.  In standing up for the principles on which it was created, it starkly contrasts with the usual trimming behaviour of the national statutory agencies of supposed protection (Natural England, Historic England, Environment Agency etc.) when faced with big government development projects.

Hampshire County Council, of course, is the major local lobbyist for this scheme, entirely consistently with its signing up to all the major road development in the South East Transport Strategy.  It has been clear for a long time that its declaration of a Climate Emergency was only ever meant in an Orwellian sense, in the way that the Ministry of Truth only dealt in lies.

What has disappointed has been the position of the City Council.  After a public statement, made at election hustings, that the council would oppose the M3 capacity increase, it has since stated that the overarching principle of the scheme is ‘acceptable’.  It is true that it expresses concern about its climate consequences, but concern is not objection.

How the council can be the supporter of the principle of a scheme which blows away all possibility of it meeting its Climate Emergency Action Plan, is beyond understanding.  The reason cited is that somehow the Movement Strategy demands it.  This strategy has already manifestly failed to achieve any of its original objectives and has actually morphed back into old-fashioned highways engineers’ predict-and-provide for traffic (and carbon) growth.  As Macbeth’s Porter would have it:

 

Faith, here's an equivocator, that could swear in both the scales against either scale.

 

We know the SDNPA stands clearly on one principle.  Where does the City Council stand?

  


 

Chris Gillham,

Upper High Street,

Winchester