Stonehenge Update for Rescue News May 2006

A303 Options Review

Public consultation on the A303 Stonehenge Options Review (see 'Stonehenge update', RN 98, p.5) ended on 24 April and a decision on the way forward has been promised in the summer.

Rescue's joint submission with the Stonehenge Alliance echoes the views expressed in our position statement of 23 January (loc. cit.). We said that we were unable to support any of the five options put forward by the Highways Agency. The four options for dualling the A303 across the WHS were: above-ground routes to the south and north of the henge (estimated costs �246m and �272m, respectively); and on-line routes with a 2.1km cut-and-cover tunnel (estimated cost �391m) and the Published Scheme, with a 2.1km bored tunnel, tested at Public Inquiry in 2004 (estimated cost now �510m).

A fifth option, at an estimated cost of �159m, involved closure of the A344, together with construction of a bypass for Winterbourne Stoke and a flyover at Countess Roundabout, Amesbury. The accompanying documentation showed that it was no more than partial implementation of the Published Scheme which raised obvious concerns. Traffic congestion could precipitate early on-line widening of the A303, and future options for moving the road outside the WHS would be closed.

Our suggestion for an interim way forward—closure of the A344/A303 junction only—gained fairly wide support as the consultation progressed. It was highlighted, as a measure to improve the setting of the henge that could be realised within a short time-scale, in an important press statement issued by ten archaeological and environmental organisations on 30 March.

This statement, endorsed by the National Trust, ICOMOS-UK, the CBA, the Prehistoric Society, Wiltshire Archaeological and Natural History Society, and the Alliance organisations including Rescue, is a significant milestone on the long road back to the proper way forward at Stonehenge. Its consensus vision for the WHS is:

All signatories 'encourage delivery of this vision through strategies that take the long-term view for Stonehenge'; and for this reason they reject the five options put forward in the Review as 'lacking a long-term vision that respects the international significance of Stonehenge as a World Heritage site'. They all support re-nomination of the WHS as a cultural landscape 'in order to provide appropriate protection'.

The signatories also challenge the reasoning and recommendation in the A303 Stonehenge Inquiry Inspector's Report and consider that there could be grounds for judicial review should the preferred scheme be approved for implementation.

At a meeting of invitees at Burlington House on 31 March, called to discuss the Options Review, English Heritage's Chairman, Sir Neil Cossons, rebuked the signatories for having issued their statement the day before and stifling useful debate. English Heritage itself, however, has not budged in its support for the Published Scheme for the A303, and it could hardly be considered surprising that those organisations opposed to that scheme at Public Inquiry had not changed their minds—nor were likely to do so. That English Heritage has been unnerved by the strength of informed opposition to the Published Scheme is indicated by its several apparent challenges, at and following the meeting, to the legitimacy of the views of those organisations that endorsed the Statement. It is certainly curious that English Heritage, among conservationists, is only now struggling to face its isolated position on Stonehenge. Let us hope that more useful dialogue will follow, especially as the Published Scheme was declared too expensive, thus giving rise to the Options Review; while any of the other four options might require a further Public Inquiry into new Road Orders.

Stonehenge visitor centre

Salisbury District Council's July 2005 rejection, on sound planning policy grounds, of English Heritage's planning application for a new Stonehenge visitor-centre was applauded by conservation bodies and local residents. Subsequent discussions initiated by the District Council were unsuccessful in persuading English Heritage to abandon its visually and environmentally damaging visitor-access land train route just north of and parallel to the major 'Cursus' monument; and English Heritage appealed against refusal of planning permission in late 2005.

Rule 6 Appeal Statements were exchanged at the end of December 2005. The District Council stood firm in opposing the plans, saying that they were contrary to eight robust Local Plan and four Structure Plan policies, as well as the Planning Brief for the development site which has Supplementary Planning Guidance status.

On 6 February 2006, however, a meeting of the Council's Planning and Regulatory Committee decided to invite English Heritage to submit another application and a press release to that effect was published on 7 February. The earlier application has been renewed and is now out for consultation until 25 May. The plans remain exactly as before but the indications are that the District Council will now approve them. All attempts to find out why or how the Council was persuaded to change its mind have been rebuffed; documentary material surrounding the decision is stated to be 'exempt' information. This certainly seems an unusual way of proceeding on a matter of national and international importance and, although the Appeal has not been withdrawn, it must be hoped that the application, if approved, will be called-in for Public Inquiry so that the whole issue, including any merits of the application may be fully discussed in the open.

Kate Fielden

May 2006