Letter: Nature and the Salisbury bypass

Friday 21 March 1997 00:02 GMT

Your support helps us to tell the story

From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.

At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.

The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.

Your support makes all the difference.

Sir: Your report "Bypass cost to nature is too high" (19 March) suggests that the Highways Agency has backed English Nature in saying that the impacts of the Salisbury bypass are unacceptably high from a nature conservation point of view. That is not so. The Highways Agency has submitted a factual report on various matters referred to it by the Secretaries of State. This includes in an appendix a report by English Nature, but the Highways Agency has expressed no opinion on English Nature's views, apart from on purely technical matters.

Copies of the agency's report will now be sent to interested parties to allow them to comment.

Sir GEORGE YOUNG

Secretary of State for Transport

Department of Transport

London SW1

Join our commenting forum

Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies

Comments

Thank you for registering

Letter: Nature and the Salisbury bypass

Join our commenting forum

Thank you for registering