Daily Mirror (Northern Ireland)
Road to ruin
“If we build here, then what’s the point in having National Parks?”
SUPPORTERS of a scheme to drive a bypass through one of Britain’s National Parks have been accused of running a dirty tricks campaign, including using fake social media accounts.
Campaigners against the bypass say that a dangerous precedent will be set if the bulldozers are let loose on Binsted Woods.
The row centres on plans for a four-mile dual carriageway for the A27 around Arundel in West Sussex.
No one is disputing that the historic town is a traffic bottleneck, but the proposed bypass route has caused dismay because it would cut through part of the South Downs National Park.
The plan, backed by Highways England, is on hold after protestors won the right to a judicial review.
One vocal supporter of the bypass is someone using the name Heather L Pearson on Facebook.
A typical post calls for “full
A27 dual carriageway upgrade without further delay!!”
The account doesn’t show any of the usual features you’d expect on Facebook – there are no friends or family photographs, no holiday snaps, no job details in the ‘“About” section.
It states that she lives in Tunbridge Wells, but she’s not listed there on the electoral roll.
Last October, she shared a picture captioned Highways England Staff at our Leading Women Conference, which is an odd post for anyone with no connection to the government company.
The same account has been used to post messages supporting other road expansion schemes such as a bypass in Hereford, the A10 in Herts and Cambridgeshire and the A21 in Kent.
As one campaigner against the Arundel bypass put it, why would someone promote multiple road schemes across the country unless they have a vested interest?
I’ve sent messages to Heather L Pearson but have had no replies.
The account holder is clearly aware of suggestions that it might be fake, recently posting to insist that the profile picture is real but admitting that the others on the account “are just random really”.
Besides dubious Facebook accounts, opponents say that the debate has been skewed by Highways England using a firm called WSP to carry out the consultation.
WSP is a business partner of construction giant Balfour Beatty, which could win some or all of the £250million bypass contract.
WSP announced this partnership last July, saying it would “foster a new level of openness, collaboration and innovation never before seen within the construction industry”.
Emma Tristram, from the Arundel Bypass Neighbourhood Committee, accused Highways England of downplaying the impact of the proposed road.
“It will cause a terrible trail of destruction,” she said.
“There are 250 acres of incredibly high quality wood here with 14 species of bats, Purple Emperor butterflies, deer, dormice, badgers, dragonflies and toads.
“It’s a wildlife haven. We call it a Noah’s ark. If this bypass is allowed to go ahead then it could mean a free-for-all – and all National Parks could be threatened. Then what’s the point in having National Parks?”
She branded as “fake news” a Highways England press release from the start of the consultation which stated that the route, known as Option 5A, went “between Binsted Woods and the National Park”, saying: “This was a falsehood since Binsted Woods is in the National Park – it destroys parts of both.”
A Highways England spokesperson said the project has strong local support, adding: “There is no conflict of interest here and all the evidence we are gathering for the project will continue to be subject to independent scrutiny and review.”
WSP and Balfour Beatty said they had nothing to add to the statement from Highways England.