THE public inquiry into the A3 Hindhead tunnel scheme finally came to an end this week following almost six months of intense debate to decide the best solution to end Hindhead's 30 years of traffic problems. Information from barristers and campaigners, local residents and organisations is now in the hands of government inspector Alan Gray, who in due course will make his recommendations to the Secretary of State. The final day on Tuesday was dominated by the closing address by the Highways Agency, which had the last word on why it considered the scheme to be the best solution for Hindhead. Speaking on behalf of the agency, barrister Christopher Lewsley told the inquiry that it was impossible to present a tunnel scheme which suited everybody. But he argued that in the agency's opinion, the proposed scheme, which involves the closure of the existing A3 corridor and the restoration of the Devil's Punch Bowl, presented the best environmental solution, was in accordance with government policy, and was deliverable. He stressed that there was in fact widespread support for the proposed tunnel route, even from principal objectors such as STOAT, and that differences of opinion centred on "modifications which were relatively local in their effect" and suggestions involving "modest changes". Focusing on the potential closure of the old A3, perhaps the most contentious issue for local people, Mr Lewsley stressed the need for a wider focus on the environmental benefits of the scheme. "It is not possible to provide to all local people all the benefits for which they might wish," he said. "Such closure inevitably means that for some journeys, some local people would have to travel further. But there are many benefits to weigh against this. "And I reiterate that the closure and restoration of the existing A3 corridor is not indicative of a lack of concern for the interests of local people. On the contrary, it is part of a strategy to secure the construction of a scheme which includes many benefits for local people." Mr Lewsley argued that the restoration of the Devil's Punch Bowl would not only enhance an area which has been extensively damaged by traffic and surface water from the existing A3, but would play a significant role in attracting more people to Hindhead and rejuvenating the town as a tourist area, to the benefit of local businesses. He further argued that the closure would have particular benefits for those using the area for recreation purposes, with improved access for horse riders, cyclists and pedestrians, who could pursue their activities away from traffic. He then turned his attention to the objectors to the scheme, who had presented their case over the course of the inquiry, beginning with STOAT (Save The Old A3). He argued that the campaign group's primary objective to keep the old A3 open was too narrow in focus and had failed to disprove that the effects of the traffic on the existing A3 had a detrimental impact on surrounding wildlife, including protected species, the nightjar and Dartford warbler. He added that STOAT had been dismissive of the environmental and recreational benefits of the Highways Agency scheme and that in evidence, the latter had even been discounted as "not a crucial issue". "STOAT failed to address the important issue as to the overall environmental balance of the scheme and how that balance could possibly be positive without the removal of the existing A3 and the restoration of the landscape and nature conservation interest of the Punch Bowl. "For this reason, STOAT failed to show how in the absence of closure of the existing A3, the scheme could be consistent with government policy for the conservation and enhancement of the environment, and therefore deliverable." Mr Lewsley spoke of the concern from Grayshott residents that the controversial Hazel Grove junction, proposed as part of the the agency's scheme, would turn the village into a traffic hotspot. He argued that although there was no evidence to support concerns over increased traffic flows on Headley Road and Crossways Road, the fears were nonetheless "genuine and reasonable". Mr Lewsley stressed that it had always been the intention of the Highways Agency to provide traffic calming in both these roads if the scheme goes ahead. He then dealt briefly with the main points from the rest of the objectors including The British Horse Society, The Hindhead Business Group, Defend Our Commons Campaign and The National Trust, before turning his attention to the alternative schemes, one by one. He concluded that none of the alternatives offered an overall clear advantage when compared to the agency's scheme. Summing up, Mr Lewsley described the Highways Agency scheme as presenting an "unique opportunity to restore the damage done by the existing A3 route through the Devil's Punch Bowl". He added that it fully complied with government policy for environmentally sensitive areas by providing "overall enhancement". This concluded the formal business of the inquiry.