Stonehenge Alliance: Outline Statement of Case

 
 
 
 

THE STONEHENGE ALLIANCE

(Objector No. 278)
 

A303 Stonehenge Improvement Scheme
OUTLINE STATEMENT OF CASE

for Public Inquiry into:
 
 

The A303 Trunk Road (Stonehenge Improvement) Order 200

The A303 Trunk Road (Stonehenge Improvement) Slip Roads Order 200

The A303 Trunk Road (Stonehenge Improvement) Detrunking Order 200

The A303 Trunk Road (Stonehenge Improvement) Side Roads Order 200

The A303 Trunk Road (Stonehenge Improvement) Compulsory Purchase Order 200

The A303 Trunk Road (Longbarrow Crossroads to Countess Roundabout) (Prohibition of Certain Classes of Traffic and Pedestrians) Order

The A303 Stonehenge Improvement (Byway . . .) (Restriction of Motor Vehicles) Order
 
 

November 2003

EarthRights Solicitors
Axminster
Devon
 

Introduction.

The Stonehenge Alliance is supported by the Ancient Sacred Landscapes Network, CPRE, Friends of the Earth, The Pagan Federation, RESCUE: The British Archaeological Trust, Transport 2000 and the UK Rivers Network. This document comprises the Outline Statement of Case for the Alliance. For the avoidance of doubt, some or all of the above mentioned organisations may submit, in addition to this Outline Statement of Case, separate Outline Statements of Case on behalf of each individual organisation.

1. Planning considerations.

1.1 The Alliance will produce evidence to show that the planning policy framework for the World Heritage Site (WHS) and adjacent designated areas affords sufficient protection for the landscape under threat from the A303 scheme to make the scheme unacceptable in terms of sustainability, the quality of the heritage landscape, the demands of conservation and rehabilitation, and public amenity and access. The proposed development is contrary to Government planning policy and objectives.

1.2 Evidence will refer to:

Planning Policy Guidance Notes 1, 7, 9, 13, 15, 16, 21, 23 and 24;

Regional Planning Guidance 10,

The Wiltshire Structure Plan 2011,

The Replacement Salisbury District Local Plan (2003);

The Stonehenge WHS Management Plan (which has SPG status)

The Master Plan for Stonehenge (1998; now re-named �The Stonehenge Project�).

1.3 We shall also refer to the World Heritage Convention (1973), the European Convention on the Protection of the Archaeological Heritage (Revised: 1992) , and the Highway Agency�s A303 Planning Conference for Stonehenge (1995).
 
 
 
 

2. Transport Considerations.

2.1 Evidence will be produced to show that the scheme is not in conformity with Government transport policy. The Integrated Transport White Paper states that, "For all environmentally sensitive areas or sites there will be a strong presumption against new or expanded transport infrastructure which would significantly affect such sites or important species, habitats or landscapes" (para. 4.201), and that such schemes should not go ahead, "unless it is clear that the net benefits� clearly override the environmental disbenefits, there is no other better option and all reasonable steps have been taken to mitigate the impacts" (para. 4.202). It also states, "Since new roads can lead to more traffic, adding to the problem not reducing it, all plausible options needs to be considered before a new road is built" (para 3.126).

2.2 Such GOMMMS/NATA appraisal as has been carried out in our view wrongly attributes to the scheme a "Large Beneficial" impact on Cultural Heritage and a "Moderate Beneficial" impact on Landscape; these should be "Large Adverse". While the tunnels would keep the road out of sight in the immediate vicinity of the henge, some 2.4 kms of the proposed scheme would lie above ground within the boundaries of the World Heritage Site, together with the tunnel portals and associated earthworks and buildings, and slip roads linked to roundabouts to both east and west of the World Heritage Site. The whole landscape of the World Heritage Site is recognised for its importance as a prehistoric landscape, not just the area immediately around Stonehenge, and the level of destruction proposed to this landscape is unacceptable. The entire justification for the proposal as an "exceptional environmental scheme" is therefore fundamentally flawed and contrary to Government planning policy and objectives.

  2.3 Evidence produced will cover the following areas of concern:

a. Closure of the A344 was the only commitment made by the UK government when Stonehenge was inscribed on the World Heritage list: this should be assessed as a "Do Minimum" option against the current proposals.

b. The scheme is being assessed at an inappropriate level due to its exclusion from the SWARMMS study and a Strategic Environmental Assessment is necessary for the whole corridor.

c. Local and whole corridor traffic impacts have not adequately been weighed against the benefits claimed on the short stretch of the A303 itself that the scheme directly affects.

  d. According to the ES (2.1.3.8), the accident rate for the current A303 is virtually the same as the national average (to within the third decimal place). The road is not significantly more dangerous than any comparable road; the Highways Agency�s emphasis on accident reduction is therefore somewhat disingenuous. Details of ant cost benefits associated with accident reduction have not yet been supplied, and these should be compared with what could be achieved with safety improvements to the current road network.   e. The claim that the scheme contributes to wider economic benefits for the South West lacks credible supporting evidence and ignores the adverse economic effects that may result.   f. Viable public transport based solutions for access to Stonehenge and the area exist but have not been adequately explored.   g. The effect of demand management measures, either locally or on the A303 corridor as a whole, has not been adequately taken into account. These measures include but are not limited to: policies to reduce the need to travel, and to increase the real cost of motoring through fuel tax increases and/or road pricing, a sustainable tourism strategy for the South West, and a Green Travel plan for Stonehenge itself.

h. The transport impacts of the road scheme are closely interlinked with those of the Visitor Centre and the two should be considered at the same inquiry not separately.

  i. The scheme is designed to meet the perceived needs of travellers during a historical span that is likely to be very brief. If traffic growth continues at forecast rates, then the relief of congestion and other transport benefits will have been substantially reduced within years. Circumstances will inevitably have changed significantly within a period measured in decades. The scheme however threatens to be a major and irremediable human disruption to a WHS whose lifespan is measured in millennia.

The Alliance reserves the right to submit evidence on alternative schemes and routes once it has had adequate opportunity to assess those schemes and routes considered by the Highways Agency.
 
 

3. Ecology, Hydrology and Biodiversity Considerations.

3.1 The Alliance will produce evidence on ecology and hydrology to show that there has been inadequate assessment of the significant likely effects of the proposed development on European protected habitats and species contrary to the requirements of the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) (England and Wales) Regulations 1999.

3.2 Evidence will be produced to address the following issues:

a. The Rivers Till and Avon are part of the River Avon candidate Special Area of Conservation (cSAC). In its Environmental Statement the Highways Agency concedes (8.2.1.3) that "There are a number of potential environmental issues arising from the development of the tunnel... both during construction and in the long term, principally from the tunnel structure itself. However, currently there is no prescriptive methodology available to carry out the necessary assessment." In other words, there is an uncertainty about the effect of constructing the tunnel on the aquifer that supports the Rivers Avon and Till, on the rivers themselves, and on the biodiversity they support that could be inconsistent with the EU Habitats Directive. The Highways Agency has not produced hydrological evidence to show that harm is unlikely to be caused or can be prevented.

b. Furthermore, the construction and operation of a major highway crossing both the Rivers Avon and Till can be expected to cause harm to, including pollution of, the cSAC. The Highways Agency has not demonstrated that it can devise satisfactory pollution control engineering and management systems to prevent pollution from traffic and from discharges to the cSAC.

c.It is common ground, we believe, that the A303 Stonehenge Improvement and the proposed new Stonehenge visitors' centre are two parts of a larger Stonehenge Project. Pursuant to EU and domestic law, their environmental effects should therefore be assessed jointly, not separately. Pursuant to Regulation 48 of the Conservation (Natural Habitats etc) Regulations 1994, an "appropriate assessment" of the effects of both projects must be carried out by the competent authority (in this case, Salisbury District Council). Until this has been done, it is impossible for anyone�including the Highways Agency�to say with certainty that the proposed road scheme will not have an adverse effect on the River Avon cSAC. Salisbury District Council has so far failed to supply the UK Rivers Network with information about its "appropriate assessment", despite two written requests.

d. Furthermore, an Appropriate Assessment should also assess the impact of this scheme in conjunction with others which might potentially have an impact on this cSAC. In addition to the Stonehenge Visitor Centre proposals, such assessment should also include other road schemes which are currently being pursued by Wiltshire County Council with the potential to impact upon this cSAC. These include the Brunel Link/Harnham Relief Road, the Codford to Heytesbury Improvement and the Wylye Valley Relief Road).

e. Pursuant to the Habitats Directive (92/43/EC) as implemented by the 1994 Conservation Regulations a scheme of this kind, which threatens damage to the River Avon cSAC, can only proceed where there is no alternative solution, and where there are imperative reasons of overriding public interest (of an economic or social nature). At the time of writing, no economic case for the road (cost-benefit analysis or otherwise) has been advanced by the Highways Agency either in its Environmental Statement or elsewhere.

f. In addition, and pursuant to the EIA Directive (97/11/EEC), as implemented by the 1999 EIA Regulations, environmental assessment must include a detailed evaluation of alternative schemes. The Highways Agency has not yet produced an adequate assessment of various alternatives, nor satisfied the requirements of the 1994 Regulations regarding alternative solutions.

3.3 There appears to be no evidence to indicate that the present scheme was selected primarily on environmental grounds, bearing in mind the significance of the WHS as a whole.

3.4 Nor is there, in the Environmental Statement, an evaluation of the �heritage� value of the WHS that, in our view, ought to be considered a factor in comparing costs for different options. Such studies have been undertaken in the past for Stonehenge and their results appear to have been ignored (POST Report, 1997; CSERGE Study, 1998).

3.5 It is understood that more information on alternatives suggested for the A303 scheme (including information on longer tunnels and the so-called �Parker Plan�) will be presented by the HA in late November. This information is vital to objectors in preparing their cases and it is likely that it will be necessary for the Alliance to apply for the start of the Inquiry to be postponed to allow sufficient time for this information to be properly considered and evidence produced.
 
 
 
 

4. Archaeological and Landscape Considerations.

4.1 The Alliance�s view is that this internationally important monument deserves the best possible setting and the ancient landscape within which it is set should be cared for in the best possible way to secure its future. The Alliance supports the principles of the Stonehenge World Heritage Site Management Plan, at the heart of which is the principle that the whole archaeological (and spiritual) landscape of the WHS should be conserved and protected. The WHS was designated because of the significance of sites throughout the area, not just beside Stonehenge itself.

4.2 Evidence will be produced to show that the proposed development is contrary to the objectives of PPG16 in a number of significant respects. For example;

a. The summary version of PPG 16 says "Archaeological remains are irreplaceable. They are evidence - for prehistoric periods, the only evidence - of the past development of our civilisation."

b. This is most certainly true of Stonehenge. The English Heritage discussion document, "Sustaining the Historic Environment", acknowledged that heritage owes its present value and significance to people's perceptions and opinions, beliefs and values, although it failed to recognise the spiritual and religious values ancient sites and landscapes have for some.

c. PPG 16 recognises that archaeological remains vary enormously in their state of preservation and in the extent of their appeal to the public. Parts of the Stonehenge landscape have been adversely affected by agriculture, but this is still a unique landscape with many obvious remaining features.

d. PPG 16 states that "archaeological remains should be seen as a finite, and non-renewable resource, in many cases highly fragile and vulnerable to damage and destruction. Appropriate management is therefore essential to ensure that they survive in good condition. They are part of our sense of national identity and are valuable both for their own sake and for their role in education, leisure and tourism."

e. The Stonehenge World Heritage Site was designated because it is a unique ancient landscape, but it is also a finite and non-renewable resource, highly fragile and vulnerable to damage and destruction. It was designated at least in part to protect it from damage and destruction. A great part of its value lies in its overall integrity as an assemblage of linked monuments. The current road proposals only seem to value sites and their integrity as a linked landscape over only about half the WHS. This is an arbitrary view and is conflict with PPG 16.

f. PPG 16 further states, "With the many demands of modern society, it is not always feasible to save all archaeological remains. The key question is where and how to strike the right balance. Where nationally important archaeological remains, whether scheduled or not, and their settings, are affected by proposed development there should be a presumption in favour of their physical preservation."

g. The whole landscape around Stonehenge is nationally, and internationally, important. The World Heritage Site of Stonehenge has been recognised as being of worldwide importance and it should be treated as such. There should be a presumption in favour of the physical preservation of all remains, both known and visible at surface and presently undiscovered.

h. PPG 16 says that, "Detailed development plans should include policies for the protection, enhancement and preservation of sites of archaeological interest and of their settings." The current road proposals at Stonehenge seem to be driven by highways concerns and financial considerations with scant concern "for the protection, enhancement and preservation of sites of archaeological interest and of their settings".

i. PPG 16 also says, "Archaeological remains identified and scheduled as being of national importance should normally be earmarked in development plans for preservation.

4.3 There is a need to look at the Stonehenge WHS landscape as a whole, whilst recognising the special character of Stonehenge itself. There needs to be a clear recognition of the outstanding universal value of this historic landscape as an assemblage of elements with a synergistic increase in value because of their typicality, diversity and extent. There is also a need to make sure that the more ordinary features in a landscape are properly valued for their contribution to local distinctiveness. Equally a focus on the finest historic assets is an incomplete approach to sustainability.

5. Supplementary Evidence.

5.1 The Alliance reserves the right to produce any other evidence as may be appropriate following consideration of the cases of other parties to the Inquiry.
 
 

Charlie Hopkins
EarthRights Solicitors

November 2003.