Closed petition Reject the proposals for Junction 10 of the A3/M25

Calls on the Secretary of State for Transport to reject the Development Consent Order for Highways England’s proposals for Junction 10 of the A3/M25. Urges the Secretary of State to adopt the Alternative Scheme advocated by the RHS to protect the local environment and RHS Garden Wisley.

More details

We believe the proposals from Highways England for Junction 10 of the A3/M25 are flawed because an Alternative has not been considered, and that the DCOs scheme unnecessarily threatens the environment including the future of RHS Garden Wisley. The proposals would put the RHS under huge financial burden; the increased journey time to the Garden could lose the RHS £6.6m during the construction period & lead to a loss of £19.2m over 10-years. The Garden risks the loss of 44 ancient trees on the boundary of RHS Wisley.

This petition is closed All petitions run for 6 months

46,388 signatures

Show on a map


Government responded

This response was given on 24 August 2020

As this is a live planning application, we are unable to comment on the merits of the proposals.

Read the response in full

On 12 July 2020, the Examining Authority, a panel of two planning inspectors appointed by the Planning Inspectorate, concluded its eight-month-long examination of Highways England’s application for a Development Consent Order to upgrade Junction 10 of the M25, also known as the A3 Wisley Interchange. As part of this process the Examining Authority heard evidence from those that opposed the scheme as well as those proposing it. There is now a period of three months for the Examining Authority to write its report and recommendation. The Secretary of State is due to receive this by 12 October 2020. Upon receiving the report, the Secretary of State will have three months to issue a decision on this application.

The Department for Transport acts in a quasi-judicial role in this decision and the proposal is subject to a live planning application. As such the Department is not able to comment on the merits of the case.

Department for Transport