Stonehenge Alliance: Objection to the Visitor Centre, 8 November 2004
THE STONEHENGE ALLIANCE
Chairman: Lord Kennet
Special Projects Officer,
Salisbury District Council,
61 Wyndham Road,
Salisbury SP1 3AH.
8 November 2004
Dear Mr Milton,
Planning Application S/2004/0001: proposals for a new Stonehenge visitor-centre, transit system and associated works
I have been asked to write to you on behalf of The Stonehenge Alliance, a group of organisations and individuals who are opposed to the Government’s proposals to widen the A303 between Amesbury and Berwick Down. You will know that our organisations took part, as objectors, under the umbrella of The Stonehenge Alliance at the recent Public Inquiry into Draft Orders for the A303 Improvement scheme.
We have given consideration to the proposals for the Stonehenge visitor-centre since they are not only inextricably linked to the proposals for the A303 but also threaten, in part, those qualities of the World Heritage Site (WHS) that would also be damaged by the road scheme. A number of our organisations will also be making their individual objections to the visitor-centre proposals.
Our objections to the visitor-centre proposals can be summarised as follows.
1. We note that the visitor-centre proposals are firmly linked to the Government’s preferred A303 scheme and that a visitor centre at Countess East would not be viable without an A303 improvement that would permit adequate access and egress from the site and would resolve present problems of congestion at Countess Roundabout during busy periods. We do not see how the District Council could satisfactorily determine this application in the absence of any Ministerial decision on the A303.
2. We note that the Highways Agency stated, in relation to the A303 scheme, that its implementation would make it possible to close part of the A344 to general traffic: this is, however, another ‘given’ assumption for the present application. There is no guarantee that closure of the A344 will take place, or that a TRO may be achieved for Byway 12 to enable proposed works for visitor-transit to take place. These are matters for Wiltshire County Council to decide, following advertisement and consultation, and, possibly, Public Inquiry. Again, we do not see how the Council could determine this application, unless certain provisos are made in respect of the A303, the A344 and Byway 12.
3. The Transport Plan for the application is insubstantial and aims only to maintain the existing modal split of visitor transport modes. We consider that this is not sustainable at a time when positive encouragement should be given to reducing vehicular traffic and encouraging public transport. (We also note, in this respect, that it was agreed by the Highways Agency at the A303 Inquiry that the A303 improvement was not justified on transport grounds.)4. We object to the lack of adequate information available to us concerning the protection of the River Avon cSAC. We argued at the A303 Inquiry that protection for the cSAC was not adequate in respect of the proposed road works and noted that insufficient information was made available for us to assess the impact of both temporary and permanent measures to protect the site from contamination, since some of these matters remained to be agreed between road engineers and the Environment Agency at a later date. We do not think that this situation is acceptable in terms of natural justice, and without adequate information being made available to the public for consideration on the impacts of the A303 Improvement and the visitor-centre on the cSAC, we cannot make a fair assessment and nor do we see how the Council could do so openly and fairly. We have seen no Appropriate Assessment for the A303 scheme or for the visitor-centre proposals and cannot see how the Council could make a full Appropriate Assessment without knowing the Ministerial decision on the A303. We note that three drainage treatment areas (one for the A303) would be sited close to the Avon and have no certainty that measures would be adequate to prevent contamination due to saturation, flooding or other, unexpected, problems.
5. We agree in principle, to the siting of the visitor-centre at the edge of the WHS, following Objective 18, para. 4.5.6 of the Management Plan. We note with concern, however, that drainage treatment areas and roads would impact on the integrity of an important and rare Anglo-Saxon site at Countess East. We do not consider this to be acceptable (see bullet point 1 of Management Plan para 4.5.6).
6. A number of Objectives of the Management Plan would not be met by the provisions for visitors’ access to and information about the WHS, notably those concerned with protection and rehabilitation of the whole WHS (e.g. Obs. 2, 3, 6, 9, 10, 11 and 16). The siting of the new land train trackway so close to the Cursus would be damaging to its setting, also to the setting and integrity of the barrow group to the north of the Cursus, over which the trackway would pass. The trackway itself would not only form a sizeable new road in the WHS but also create an entirely new and very substantial monument in the WHS. We do not believe that the evidence of any such trackway could be entirely removed from the WHS in future and consider that permanent traces of it would remain if that were attempted.The proposed visitors’ shelters would form incongruous and major intrusions into the landscape, especially at King Barrow Ridge. Furthermore, inadequate information is given about their appearance.
7. Management Plan objectives (18, 20 and 21) to disperse visitors throughout the landscape and to offer multiple choices would not be adequately met by the proposals for the visitor-transit system. There could be problems for able-bodied and disabled visitors in making their way from Durrington Farm to the henge and back on rainy days.
We trust that the Council will refuse this application and ask for it to be called in for Public Inquiry. It departs substantially from agreed objectives of the Management Plan and does not provide adequate information on key issues. We have pressed earlier for the A303 scheme and the visitor-centre application to be considered together and not separately and, in our view, this would be the sensible way forward. An holistic approach ought to lead to a more sympathetic scheme for the A303 and more sensitive proposals for visitor-access that would be in harmony with planning policy and the WHS Management Plan.
Yours sincerely,
Dr Kate FieldenHon Secretary, The Stonehenge Alliance
Member organisations that have approved this letter
Ancient
Sacred Landscapes Network
CPRE
Wiltshire Branch
Friends
of the Earth South West Region
The Pagan
Federation
RESCUE:
The Trust for British Archaeology
Transport
2000 (National Office and Salisbury Group)
The UK
Rivers Network
THE STONEHENGE ALLIANCE IS SUPPORTED BY
Ancient Sacred Landscapes
Network, Campaign to Protect Rural England,
Friends of the Earth, The Pagan
Federation, RESCUE: The British Archaeological Trust;
Transport 2000; and the UK
Rivers Network