Brian Garlick, a 69-year-old UK retiree, finds himself in a peculiar predicament due to the construction of the A417 Missing Link, a new 3-mile highway project aimed at alleviating traffic congestion between Gloucester and Cirencester. Garlick’s home, a property inherited from his mother and grandfather, sits adjacent to the new road, and while initially offered compensation by National Highways, the government agency responsible for the project, the offer was subsequently withdrawn, leaving him stranded with a property he can no longer easily access. The proposed solution? A private tunnel, estimated to cost between $5 million and $7.5 million, to connect his property to the outside world once the highway is completed in 2027.
The situation has left Garlick understandably frustrated and displaced. Currently residing in a trailer park, he must provide 21 days’ notice to access his home, a process that underscores the logistical challenges created by the road construction. While initially shocked by the suggestion of a tunnel, Garlick acknowledges that it appears to be the only viable option given the circumstances. The tunnel, planned to be a quarter of a mile long, will not only provide access to his property but also serve two telephone poles and facilitate drainage in the area, according to National Highways. The specifics of the tunnel’s dimensions are yet to be finalized.
The core of the dispute lies in the withdrawn offer from National Highways to purchase Garlick’s property. He contends that an offer of $940,000 was made and later rescinded, leaving him in limbo. National Highways, however, claims that while initial discussions about purchasing the property took place, it was determined that the house fell outside the project’s boundary, rendering acquisition impossible. This discrepancy in accounts fuels Garlick’s frustration, who describes the agency’s handling of the situation as “diabolic.” He highlights the financial burden of maintaining his home – paying council tax, electricity bills, and other expenses – while simultaneously covering the costs of his trailer park accommodation, with National Highways only contributing to campsite fees and petrol.
The financial implications of this situation are substantial. The A417 Missing Link project carries a price tag of $577 million, a figure dwarfed by the potential cost of Garlick’s private tunnel, ranging from $5 million to $7.5 million. While the project promises improved traffic flow upon completion, the personal cost for Garlick remains significant. He faces not only the inconvenience of accessing his home through a tunnel but also the ongoing uncertainty surrounding noise levels from the new highway. National Highways has indicated that additional noise mitigation measures, such as glazing, will only be considered a year after the road’s official opening, leaving Garlick potentially exposed to excessive noise for an extended period.
Despite the contentious nature of the situation, both Garlick and National Highways express a commitment to finding a workable solution. Garlick, while critical of the agency’s handling of the matter, acknowledges the potential benefits of the completed road project, including improved safety due to the tunnel. He remains concerned about the potential noise pollution, a concern that will only be addressed after a year of highway operation. Meanwhile, National Highways maintains that they engaged in extensive discussions with Garlick prior to construction and agreed on a mutually acceptable approach. They reiterate their commitment to minimizing the impact of the project on the community and addressing any concerns raised by residents.
The case of Brian Garlick and his “private” tunnel highlights the complexities of large-scale infrastructure projects and their impact on individual lives. While the A417 Missing Link promises to improve regional transportation, the situation underscores the importance of clear communication, consistent policy application, and a commitment to mitigating the disruptions experienced by those directly affected by such projects. The significant cost of the tunnel, a solution necessitated by the project’s design and the location of Garlick’s property, raises questions about the balance between public benefit and individual burden in infrastructure development. The ongoing dialogue between Garlick and National Highways will ultimately determine whether a truly equitable resolution can be achieved.
