Your browser is no longer supported

For the best possible experience using our website we recommend you upgrade to a newer version or another browser.

Your browser appears to have cookies disabled. For the best experience of this website, please enable cookies in your browser

We'll assume we have your consent to use cookies, for example so you won't need to log in each time you visit our site.
Learn more

Stonehenge tunnel financing uncertainty risks project’s viability

Stonehenge

Ongoing uncertainty about how Highways England will finance the tunnel close to Stonehenge is putting the project’s viability at risk, public spending watchdog the National Audit Office (NAO) claims.

In its report Improving the A303 between Amesbury and Berwick Down, the NAO concludes that “there are risks for Highways England and the Department [of Transport] to manage to ensure the project has a realistic chance of being value for money”.

In particular, the report states that funding uncertainty has already led to rising costs and delays to construction which could ultimately diminish the project’s viability.

The A303 Stonehenge tunnel was earmarked to be funded via the PF2 private financing model and so was not included in Highways England’s draft £25bn Road Investment Strategy 2 spending programme.

However, chancellor Philip Hammond announced a halt to PF2/ PFI funding in the Autumn Budget and has not yet tabled an alternative means of privately financing projects.

At the time Highways England chief executive Jim O’Sullivan told New Civil Engineer that a new funding mechanism was needed for the Stonehenge tunnel and the approach roads on the Lower Thames Crossing. 

The NAO concludes that Highways England must now “reconsider its priorities for the second Road Investment Strategy” putting other planned projects at risk, “or it will need additional funding from HM Treasury”.

Highways England has undertaken preliminary surveys and expects construction to begin in December 2021 with procurement starting later this summer, subject to ministerial approval. Anticipated range of cost of the project is £1.5bn to £2.4bn, with an opening date scheduled for 2026.

The NAO warned that rising costs would further reduce the project’s already low cost to benefit ratio.

“Because of the high cost of building a tunnel, the Amesbury to Berwick Down project, at £1.15 of quantified benefit for every £1 spent, has a significantly lower benefit–cost ratio than is usual in road schemes,” it adds. “Given our experience of cost increases on projects of this kind, this ratio could move to an even lower or negative value.

“It will be even more important therefore that the Department [of Transport] and Highways England ensure that the project meets its strategic and heritage objectives, and that Highways England manages the project well.” 

  • To get a full update on what is happening in the roads sector join us at New Civil Engineer’s Future of Roads conference on 3-4 July. New Civil Engineer subscribers are offered a 15% discount by using the code Roads15.

Like what you’ve read? To receive New Civil Engineer’s daily and weekly newsletters click here.

Readers' comments (2)

  • Philip Alexander

    Surprise surprise. Once again kicked into the long grass by deliberately coming up with a scheme which is quite simply too extravagant. No doubt the Greenies will be dancing around their totem pole but do they really think it's better to have a thoroughly congested and polluted A303 within 300m of the stones instead of a new road much further away in a cutting at a fraction of the cost of the tunnel? This whole fiasco since 2001 ( can it really be 18 years since I was involved in the first attempt to get a bypass built?) when a shorter tunnel was given the go ahead after a Public Inquiry is another example of government incompetence and duplicity. They have never wanted to build anything on that section but I've never fathomed the motive. Can anyone explain?

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Money well saved

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

Have your say

You must sign in to make a comment

Please remember that the submission of any material is governed by our Terms and Conditions and by submitting material you confirm your agreement to these Terms and Conditions. Please note comments made online may also be published in the print edition of New Civil Engineer. Links may be included in your comments but HTML is not permitted.