Current Plans for Stonehenge: a farcical situation

Text of a paper by Kate Fielden published in Rescue News 86 (Spring 2002)

Both the Stonehenge World Heritage Site Management Plan and the Stonehenge Master Plan aim to improve the environment of the World Heritage Site (WHS) and make it more pleasant to visit. This article aims to demonstrate that the two plans are fundamentally incompatible.

Recent initiatives to improve the WHS environment

Plans to improve the surroundings of Stonehenge and relocate the visitor centre have hitherto been frustrated by the intrusive presence of the A344 and the A303. Until something is done about the roads, little progress can be made.

1993: The Highways Agency put forward a number of route proposals for dualling the A303 between Amesbury and Berwick Down specifically for the improvement of the A303 Trunk route to the South West. These included an on-line scheme with a short cut and cover tunnel close to Stonehenge, and an option for diverting the A303 to the south of the monument. English Heritage and the National Trust rejected all of these proposals as too damaging. In 1994 both organisations resoundingly endorsed the long bored tunnel as the only acceptable solution for protection of the landscape and archaeology of the WHS.

This view was reaffirmed in a remarkable consensus at a Highways Agency Planning Conference on the A303 in 1995, which also argued for considering, as a separate scheme, a bypass for Winterbourne Stoke, a village some distance west of the WHS. Since the then Government could not immediately afford the solution regarded as ideal (costed in the region of £300 million), the A303 improvement was dropped from the Roads Programme.

July 1998: Those representing local pressure for road traffic flow improvements, and conservation bodies seeing a concomitant chance to make improvements to the environment of the Stonehenge monument, persuaded the new Government to place a scheme for dualling the A303 from Amesbury to Berwick Down in its Targeted Programme of Improvements for Trunk Roads. The scheme was considered

'too expensive to warrant priority within the targeted programme of improvements if assessed solely in terms of transport benefits' and would 'therefore be taken forward on the understanding that at least a third of the costs will be funded from heritage sources'; it would include a bypass for Winterbourne Stoke (a village lying well outside the World Heritage Site). (DETR leaflet A New Deal for Trunk Roads in England, July 1998).

The New Deal for Trunk Roads leaflet emphasised that the proposed road scheme was considered to be the 'only acceptable solution' to relieve 'a bottleneck' on the A303 alongside Stonehenge and 'enhance the setting of the monument'.

In the House of Lords, Lord Whitty said that this (inter-departmental) solution for the roads at Stonehenge would include a 2km cut and cover tunnel close to the Henge. Despite concerns raised by Lord Kennet, he replied that the Government would 'ensure that archaeological sites are not destroyed in the process' (Hansard, 31 July 1998, cols. 1745 and 1751).

September 1998: a Stonehenge 'Master Plan', dealing with the roads and visitor centre, was announced. There had been minimal consultation and no originator or author is named for the document, Stonehenge The Master Plan. (This document is hereafter referred to as the Master Plan). An undated leaflet published not long afterwards, the master plan: Stonehenge, bears the endorsement of the Chairmen of English Heritage and the National Trust, and the Secretary of State for the DCMS.

It was immediately clear, from the plans in the Master Plan appendices that, despite Lord Whitty's assurance in the House of Lords, the road scheme proposed would have a severe impact on the archaeology of the WHS with a significant number of sites and/or their settings destroyed. Indeed, this was why on-line widening of the A303 (to include a cut and cover tunnel) had been firmly rejected by English Heritage and the National Trust in 1994. It appears that in 1998 Ministers had been wrongly informed.

The Master Plan refers (p.3) to 'a major study' undertaken, by the DETR and DCMS, 'of the options for dualling the A303 with a tunnel, and the potential for including this scheme in the Targeted Programme of Improvements for Trunk Roads announced on 31 July 1998'. This study, based on a commissioned report by Messrs Halcrow, had not included the long bored tunnel option preferred until 1997.

The Halcrow report itself pointed to the serious damage that the Government's chosen, Master Plan, option would cause to the WHS landscape and its archaeology:

a new land-take of (at least) 10 hectares within the WHS would be needed for new dual carriageways;
11 hectares (including existing roads) could be returned to grass but there would need to be a road of some kind for traffic which could not use the A303 tunnels;
there would be 400�500m cuttings leading down to the tunnel portals at each end;
the tunnel portals and sections of road either side would still have a significant impact on the landscape;
lighting at tunnel portals could produce significant visual impact;
there would still be noise and pollution;
there would be direct physical impact on Scheduled Ancient Monuments and adverse impacts on the settings of archaeological sites and monuments;
the road would be removed from view within the 'Stonehenge Amphitheatre' but not the sensitive 'Stonehenge Bowl', nor the remainder of the WHS;
there would be a new and undisguisable mound over the tunnels in Stonehenge Bottom, close to the Henge, which would have an impact on the appearance of the area; and
above-ground traces of the 2km tunnels might still be visible in dry weather.

(Halcrow 1998, eg, pp. 19�20)

Those who read only the 'Executive Summary' of the Halcrow report would not have become aware of the full extent of the damage.

The on-line option chosen for the Master Plan, including a 2km cut and cover tunnel and a bypass for Winterbourne Stoke, described as 'an Exceptional Environmental Scheme' and 'the only scheme deliverable', was then estimated to cost some £125 million (Master Plan, p.3). As far as is known, the cost only included direct money costs: no particular 'value' costs were identified.

November 1998 (i.e. some months after the Master Plan had been formulated): the Stonehenge WHS Management Plan Group was convened by English Heritage. Management plans are a UNESCO requirement for all WHSs but the Stonehenge plan was produced rather late in the day. Discussions by all the interested persons and representatives of organisations involved were inhibited from the outset by the refusal of the Management Plan Group's English Heritage Chairman to permit any critical discussion of the Master Plan, the central element of which, the A303 scheme, was already moving forward quite independently.

January 1999: locally-based statutory consultation on the A303 scheme allowed no choice between a bypass for Winterbourne Stoke and dualling the A303 within the WHS. The majority of respondents were local residents who, not surprisingly, were in favour of the proposed road traffic flow improvements.

June 1999: an A303 Preferred Route Announcement leaflet again focused on the benefits of a bypass for Winterbourne Stoke and improvement of the environment of the Henge. The scheme was highlighted as 'a central element of the Government's proposals set out in the Stonehenge Master Plan which include the removal of traffic from the area of the Stonehenge monument by use of a 2km tunnel and the re-creation of its unique landscape'.

The A303 project had now become a major Highways Agency road scheme with a heritage aspect attached: a chance to improve the setting of the Stonehenge monument by removing the sight of roads from it, but not the sound of traffic (Master Plan, p.6).

The proposed road scheme would have, of course, enormous implications for the management of the WHS. The refusal of those in authority to allow the Management Plan Group to consider whether or not it was necessarily the best solution for the WHS meant that possibly the most important factor affecting the future management of the WHS was not discussed critically at all in the context of the Management Plan. No thought was given to the possibility of failure of the current A303 scheme following Public Inquiry; nor is implementation of the scheme referred to specifically as one of the desired objectives of the Management Plan.

The situation was farcical, to say the least, leaving concerned participants in the discussion process confused or irritated (or both); and it is greatly to the credit of the consultants, Chris Blandford Associates, who provided the final draft Management Plan that they were able to produce a document which stands firmly on its own, independent of the Master Plan.

Spring 2000: the Stonehenge WHS Management Plan was published. Among its distinguishing characteristics, the Plan

is a UNESCO requirement recognised by the UK Government for defining appropriate and sustainable management objectives for the WHS, and initiating and monitoring their implementation
was drawn up over a lengthy period of discussion by a wide range of interested bodies and individuals
was agreed following wide consultation, including national organisations and individuals from other parts of the country
has been accepted as Supplementary Planning Guidance by Salisbury District Council, giving it some status in the planning process
takes local, regional and national planning policies and guidance, as well as the international requirements of the World Heritage Convention, specifically and fully into account
is independent of the Master Plan (Management Plan, para 1.5.11)

Throughout the Management Plan production process a parallel process of Master Plan topic group discussions and implementation of Master Plan projects was taking place that the Management Plan Group (while given updates) were prevented from considering in the light of the evolving Management Plan.

Nevertheless, in response to a parliamentary written question (HL4504) about the status of the two Plans, Lord McIntosh for the DCMS replied in November 1999 that the Management Plan 'provides the overarching framework within which the Stonehenge Master Plan will be implemented'.

This clearly established that the Management Plan takes precedence over the Master Plan.

Confidence in that assurance has slowly been eroded as progress continues on the implementation of Master Plan schemes without the expected consultation and/or the benefit of certain vital preliminary researches recommended in the Management Plan.

The published Management Plan and Master Plan:

fundamental incompatibilities

The eleven-page Master Plan document comprises little more than a statement of aims and intentions, accompanied by some plans, section drawings and photographs.

Main aims of the Master Plan

'to combine the benefits of the A303 improvement with the conservation and enjoyment of the World Heritage Site'
to set up a 'Stonehenge Steering Group tasked with the earliest implementation of the Master Plan including the A303 improvement scheme with the 2km tunnel within the WHS and the bypass for Winterbourne Stoke'
'the use of a cut and cover technique to minimise traffic disruption during construction [of the A303 tunnel] and provide an affordable solution'
closure of the A344
re-siting the visitor centre at Countess, closure of the present visitor facilities and provision of a free park and ride shuttle service to Fargo North for visitors
'free access for everyone . . . to Stonehenge'
'minimum of disruption to local residents with no new traffic using Countess Road and the Packway'
'conservation of the unique landscape . . . and the recreation of a downland park in which the public can roam and the archaeology is forever safe'
to provide the 'great benefits of the tunnel in reuniting the landscape when compared to the possible loss of only 5 scheduled monuments'

Master Plan, Executive Summary, p.2

It can immediately be seen that there are contradictions between Master Plan aims 1 and 8, and 3 and 9. Over time it has also become clear that aims 6 and 7 may not be achievable.

WHS Management Plan: purpose and aims

The Management Plan is concerned with the proper management of the whole WHS over time, rather than the delivery of targeted schemes that have not been carefully developed within the context of its recommended surveys and detailed interrelated and sustainable management objectives for the short, medium and longer term.

The Management Plan is intended '. . . to provide objectives for the management of the WHS landscape and archaeological sites and monuments within it, so that the outstanding universal value of the place is conserved and improved.' (Management Plan, para 1.1.2)

It is structured to provide

'a definition of the overall character and significance of the WHS which should be maintained and enhanced, its current management and the planning policy context for the site'
'identification of the main issues affecting the physical conservation of the WHS which need to be addressed'
suggested objectives to be achieved in the short, medium and long term 'for the integrated management of the Site, arising from the management issues identified'
'suggestions as to how the Plan might be implemented and an outline of a programme of action' (Management Plan, para 1.4.1)

Part 1.1 states that 'The primary emphasis of the Management Plan is to ensure the outstanding universal value of the cultural heritage assets of the Stonehenge World Heritage Site (WHS). 'Conservation' in the context of this Plan includes not only ensuring the physical survival of the archaeological sites and monuments but also enhancing the visual character of their landscape setting, increasing biodiversity and improving the interpretation and understanding of the whole WHS as a cultural landscape to visitors.' (Management Plan, para 1.1.1, The Main Aims of the Plan)

Part 1.5 emphasises that 'A key role for the Management Plan is to set out the principles of sustainability and environmental improvement as an overarching strategy for the implementation of all future plans for the WHS as a whole.' (Management Plan, para 1.5.12, Relationship to Stonehenge Master Plan)

Part 2.2 underlines that 'the Stonehenge WHS comprises an archaeological landscape rather than a series of individual monuments. It is not so much a site as a 'cultural landscape'. ' (Management Plan, para 2.2.3, World Heritage Criteria)

Part 2.2 states

'The WHS contains much more than the Stones alone. Stonehenge lies at the heart of a very dense archaeological landscape.'
'Together with associated sites and monuments, the Stones contribute to a wider archaeological landscape without parallel in the world.'
'Visibility does not always equate with importance: some built monuments may be highly visible in the landscape, but other buried sites may be more important.'

(Management Plan, paras 2.2.6�7, Archaeological and Historic Significance) Part 2.2 reminds us that 'The strong sense of history, the continuing intrigue and speculation, and the astronomical and mystical significance of the Stones and its landscape setting for many people, all point to the universal spiritual value of the WHS in today's society. Maintaining and improving Stonehenge and its landscape for future generations as a place that can continue to offer sanctuary and spiritual sustenance is of fundamental importance.' (Management Plan, para 2.2.32, Spiritual Values)

Part 3 identifies the 'overriding issue' as 'the need for a sustainable Management Plan which has the conservation of the outstanding universal value of the WHS as its priority.' (Management Plan, para 3.1.3, Evaluation of Key Management Issues)

Part 3.2, Issue 1 requires that 'A clear vision for the future of the WHS as a whole, and not just the landscape setting of the Stones, needs to be articulated as the starting point for the Management Plan.' (Management Plan, para 3.2.3)

Part 3.4 unequivocally highlights that 'conservation of the archaeological resource and its landscape setting is the key goal for the WHS Management Plan'. (Management Plan, para 3.4.7, Opportunities and Constraints for Future Management)

The Management Plan's primary concern is with the conservation, preservation and improvement of the WHS as a whole not just that part closest to the Henge. The Management Plan is at odds with the Master Plan which is directed towards improving the visual environment of the Henge and the 'core' of the WHS at the expense of any archaeological remains in the path of road and tunnelling works, and at the expense of the setting of, and increased aural intrusion into, the wider WHS. Unlike the Master Plan, the Management Plan does not promote a Winterbourne Stoke bypass.

The planning and policy framework

Part 2.5 of the Management Plan highlights the local and regional planning policy framework, as well as national and international designations, that together provide an exceptionally high level of protection for the WHS. In contrast, the June 1998 Halcrow Report on tunnelling options draws attention to the fact that the chosen (Master Plan) scheme for the A303 does not 'integrate well' with the Local District, Regional and County Structure Plans (Halcrow 1998, p.20).

Preparatory studies

The Management Plan recognises that information is needed before relevant management measures can be formulated and implemented. Part 3.2 (Issue 2) of the Management Plan emphasises the need for various surveys to be undertaken to inform management decisions for the WHS; these include:

a comprehensive monument condition survey
a limits of acceptable change model for monuments under threat from ploughing
an historic landscape character assessment
a WHS archaeological research agenda

Work has now begun on some of these researches but they are largely incomplete. Their findings and recommendations have not informed the production of the Master Plan, nor can they properly inform Master Plan projects already under way and/or committed in certain respects.

Visitor access

The Management Plan notes that:

'A comprehensive assessment of visitor numbers, profile and behaviour is required before arrangements for effective visitor management at the Stones can be fully addressed.' (Issue 8, para 3.3.12)
'The need to estimate and control acceptable levels of visitor numbers to different parts of the WHS is an important principle for the Plan. This would need to be based on the definition of the area's carrying 'capacity' derived from detailed assessments of the landscape, archaeological and ecological sensitivity of zones throughout the WHS.' (para 3.3.21)
'The overall aim of providing flexibility and choice for access to and movement within the WHS needs to be addressed by proposals for a new visitor centre.' (para 3.3.22)
'Informed by the WHS Objectives, the formulation of a Comprehensive Tourism Development Plan for the WHS and surrounding area should be considered.' (para 3.4.29)

Heritage Lottery Funding for the Master Plan visitor centre has already been applied for, in advance of surveys needed to inform management priorities for sustainable visitor access to the WHS � and before full consultation with all relevant Master Plan implementation groups. The Master Plan omits careful consideration of sustainable and enjoyable access for visitors. It advocates 'free access to the Stones for all' � which may be difficult to achieve in terms of sustainable management of both visitors and the monument.

Retrospective changes to the Master Plan visitor-transit route have been made: a visitor drop-off point at Fargo North seems now to be less favoured, presumably since it has been realised that it would not be ideal to transport visitors from a Countess visitor-centre for their first view of the Henge via a (free) shuttle service on public highways more than half-way round the WHS. The Management Plan suggestion, amongst others, for a drop-off point at King Barrow Ridge has been adopted by the master planners, possibly because few other practicable choices would be available if a 2km road tunnel were implemented; but there is currently no further information available on flexibility and choice of access, or managed dispersal of visitors into the wider landscape of the WHS.

Dealing with the A303

The Management Plan does not specify any tunnelling method, but

Plan Issue 4 states 'The need to remove the existing visitor facilities, traffic and roads from the Stonehenge 'Bowl' is a clear priority for improving the landscape at the core of the WHS.' (Management Plan, para 3.2.39)

Plan Issue 10 states that 'a consensus has emerged in favour of a tunnel solution which removes the current road from within the 'Bowl' (Management Plan, para 3.3.25; see Appendix C for definition of the 'Stonehenge Bowl' {from E of King Barrow Ridge to the western limit of the WHS}).

Plan Objective 23 recommends a strategy of 'placing the A303 in a tunnel, closure of the A344 and related landscape restoration schemes within the Stonehenge 'Bowl', including removal of the A344 in the longer term.'(Management Plan, para 4.6.4)

Since the Management Plan repeatedly states its priority aim for conservation of the whole WHS and its archaeology, and advocates a tunnel from E of King Barrow Ridge to the western edge of the WHS, it must be logically deduced that a long bored tunnel is preferred, rather than a long cut and cover tunnel. The Management Plan sensibly refers to implementing a 'scheme for dualling the A303 in a tunnel of appropriate length' in the 'medium to long term' (10�30 years) (Table 2: Programme of Action, Objective 23), thus allowing adequate time for relevant and necessary survey work to be undertaken, as specified under other objectives, in the short to medium term (5�10 years).

Implementation of a long bored tunnel (of appropriate length) would not only improve the environment of the WHS, but also make it possible to implement measures for the future management of the WHS compatible with the 'key goal' of the Management Plan to conserve the archaeological resource and its landscape setting (para.3.4.7). It would also make it possible to devise and implement satisfactory options for sustainable visitor-management within the WHS.

The A303 road improvement scheme would not warrant inclusion in the Roads Programme on road transport grounds alone. Nevertheless, it is recommended that 'The Management Plan would . . . benefit from joint working both with the Local Transport Plan and the new London to South West and South Wales Multi-Modal Study [SWARMMS] with regard to transport options for the A303 corridor.' (Management Plan, para 4.3.5)

Despite the matter being raised at Master Plan Highways Agency Public and Community Liaison Group meetings and elsewhere, the authorities have consistently refused to allow consideration of the 'Stonehenge' road scheme within the SWARMMS.

Implementation

'A Stonehenge Steering Group' is tasked with the earliest implementation of the Master Plan including the A303 improvement scheme with the 2km tunnel within the World Heritage Site and the bypass for Winterbourne Stoke' (Master Plan, p. 2). The Stonehenge Steering Group has been in place since 1998 and it is served by a large and complex organisation of subsidiary groups dealing with different aspects of the Master Plan and its implementation.

It is agreed that implementation of the Management Plan, however, 'should be the responsibility of an advisory WHS Management Plan Implementation Group . . . of key organisations and bodies, including representatives of local residents and land owners, with an interest in the administration and management of the WHS. . . . In addition to the Implementation Group, a small Executive Group composed of statutory bodies with responsibilities for planning and land management in the WHS should also be established. The Management Plan Implementation Group and Executive Group should be consulted on all significant matters related to the current and future management of the WHS.' (Management Plan, para 5.1.3.) Bodies and individuals who might logically be included in the Implementation Group and the smaller, Executive Group are listed in the Management Plan, paras 2.4.6 and 2.4.5, respectively.

Para 3.4.9 of the Management Plan states that: 'There is a clear need for effective administration of the whole WHS, and not just the core centred around the National Trust Estate. This is a prerequisite for implementing the aims and objectives of the Management Plan. There is currently no single accountable body responsible for co-ordinating management action within the WHS to identify appropriate resources from partner organisations and deliver projects. In the absence of such a body, there is no focus for promoting the importance and sensitivity of the WHS to other organisations responsible for planning and land management in the area. The early establishment of such a body to take forward the implementation of the Management Plan is a key requirement of UNESCO's Operational Guidelines for WHSs.'

In the event, the agreed method of implementation of the Management Plan has been altered without consultation, one can only assume in order to accommodate the master planners. In view of the SPG status of the Management Plan, this is a matter for concern.

A WHS Management Plan Implementation Group has been set up by English Heritage. Over half of those bodies and organisations represented on it are also represented on the Master Plan Steering Group; of those who are not, the Country Land Owners Association, the Ministry of Defence and the National Farmers Union are unlikely to have a priority interest in 'promoting the importance and sensitivity of the WHS to other organisations responsible for planning and land management in the area' (Management Plan, para 3.4.9).

The only other body on the new Management Plan Implementation Group not represented on the Master Plan Steering Group is the International Council for the Conservation of Monuments and Sites (ICOMOS-UK), a body that in July 2001 made the following statement of its concerns about Stonehenge.

ICOMOS-UK concerns

That the options for routing the A303 at Stonehenge be assessed on equal terms. (On present information, such options would appear to be the 4 km bored tunnel, a 2 km bored tunnel, and the 2 km cut and cover tunnel.)
That due regard is paid to the importance of the World Heritage Site as a whole, and not simply to that part closest to the Stones.
That there should be real 'joined up thinking' on the part of central government, with a particular focus upon the responsibility of the State Party to respect its duty under the World Heritage Convention to ensure the protection, conservation, and presentation of the Site, to the utmost of its resources.
That the current position regarding the 'Master Plan' should be clarified (eg the situation on the original position for the drop-off point at Fargo), and the whole subsumed in a normal unified Management Plan process as soon as possible.

Implicit in ICOMOS-UK's concerns is the need to follow the aims and requirements of the Management Plan for Stonehenge and to review the Master Plan in the light of those aims and requirements.

English Heritage has omitted to set up the second, 'Executive Group' specified by the agreed Management Plan, presumably because those with statutory responsibilities for planning and land management within the WHS have already been included in their single Management Plan Implementation Group.

A new Stonehenge WHS Management Plan Advisory Forum has, however, been convened, comprising individuals and representatives of those bodies responsible for formulating the Management Plan, a number of whom might have been expected to have been members of the Plan Implementation Group and are not. The Forum is to meet once or twice a year simply to receive reports from the Implementation Group. At its first meeting, in September 2001, the Advisory Forum (christened by members the 'Derisory Forum') received detailed reports from the Management Plan Implementation Group of Master Plan projects, including progress on the A303 scheme. The Forum was informed that Lottery funding has been sought for the proposed visitor centre at Countess � without adequate consultation and in advance of vital surveys (for establishing sustainable numbers of visitors, etc.) recommended by the Management Plan. Letters expressing concern about the Advisory Forum from a number of member organisations have been brushed aside: English Heritage is not concerned about alterations to the Management Plan implementation structure (even though it was agreed via the Management Plan consultation process) and, in the face of contradictory evidence, rests content that the Management Plan and the Master Plan are compatible.

Conclusions

The Management Plan and the Master Plan are clearly not compatible in all crucial respects:

principal aims
structure and method
status
respect for planning and policy constraints and for the World Heritage Convention
the need for research before drawing up management projects/regimes and implementing them
objectives for visitor access and dealing with the A303
Plan implementation

The conflicting aims of the Stonehenge Master Plan Steering Group ('earliest implementation of the Master Plan') and of the Management Plan Implementation Group ('implementation of effective co-ordination of the proposed strategies and suggested programmes of action considered necessary for the ongoing management of the site' in the short, medium and long term, based on careful research and a priority aim for conservation and protection of the whole WHS) have led to the formation of an ineffective structure for implementing the Management Plan. Implementation of Master Plan projects has reached a comparatively advanced stage and is largely the responsibility of those also tasked with implementation of the Management Plan.

Speeding up the process of implementation of the Management Plan to meet the demands of the Master Plan will not result in satisfactory resolution of the problems of the WHS, nor meet the requirements of the 'overarching' Management Plan.

ICOMOS-UK, whose approval of plans for the management of the WHS is required as the official advisory body to UNESCO's World Heritage Committee, clearly identified the incompatibilities between the Master Plan and the Management Plan six months ago and recommended that the issue be resolved as soon as possible. So far, nothing appears to have been done about it.

A determined move is needed by those in authority to recognise and resolve these incompatibilities as soon as possible. The Master Plan � and especially the road scheme � should be held in check and modified so that any plans set in motion for the future management of the WHS are fully compatible with the aims of the Management Plan and follow the framework process of decision-making set out therein. This approach would be in line with the Government's international duty to respect the World Heritage Convention. Continued neglect of that duty would without doubt lead to public and world censure.

Kate Fielden
January 2002

References

Stonehenge The Master Plan, (?English Heritage), September 1998

Stonehenge World Heritage Site Management Plan, English Heritage, 2000

Sir W. Halcrow & Partners, A303 at Stonehenge: Review of English Heritage 2km Tunnel and Comparative Options, produced for the Highways Agency, June 1998

Kate Fielden is a Wiltshire archaeologist involved in the production of Management Plans for both parts of the Stonehenge and Avebury WHS. She represents the Council for the Protection of Rural England on the Stonehenge Alliance