Stonehenge update for Rescue News (Autumn 2005)

On 20 July, Roads Minister Stephen Ladyman announced a ‘detailed review of the options to ease congestion on the A303 and improve the setting around Stonehenge’ before a final decision is taken on the Inquiry Inspector’s Report. It had been found that soft chalk and the high water table would complicate the tunnelling process and substantially increase the estimated cost of the scheme since it went to Public Inquiry – from £192m to some £470m if construction were to begin in 2005. The review, for which terms of reference are being drawn up (September 2005), will include consultation with relevant bodies, such as English Heritage and the National Trust.

The Inquiry Inspector recommended approval of the road scheme and his report, also published on 20 July, makes depressing reading. (See Rescue News 93, for account of Inquiry; and www.dft.gov.uk/stellent/groups/dft_roads/documents/page/dft_roads_039211.hcsp, for Inspector’s Report.)

In rejecting the cases put forward by all of the archaeological and conservation bodies objecting at the Inquiry, the Inspector nevertheless acknowledged that the scheme would conflict with Structure and Local Plan policies in adversely affecting the settings of archaeological sites and of the World Heritage Site (WHS), notably in those parts of the landscape affected by the scheme outside the proposed road tunnel. While he considered neither paragraph 2.22 nor 2.23 of Government Planning Policy Guidance Note 15 (which might be interpreted as dealing only with planning or listed building applications) to be directly applicable to the highway proposals before him, he accepted that WHS inscription was a key material consideration to be taken into account in consideration of the Orders. He commented that

"...the proposed tunnel would probably be the largest earthworks ever constructed within the WHS and that its entrance portals would represent new and substantial non authentic intrusions into the WHS".

That planning policy might not be considered to provide sufficient safeguards against a major intervention within the Stonehenge WHS was presumably not envisaged during the drafting of Planning Policy Guidance Note 15, the publication of which, in 1994, was warmly welcomed for the protection it advised for UK WHSs.

The Inspector accepted the Highways Agency’s view that positive and negative impacts should be balanced against one another in evaluating the road scheme, an approach that some objectors, including the International Council on Monuments and Sites (ICOMOS-UK), considered inappropriate for the WHS, arguing that the proposals must be assessed first and foremost for their impact on World Heritage values, and that conservation and rehabilitation of the whole site not just the central area should take precedence. The Inspector concluded that there is a traffic need for the A303 Improvement scheme and an environmental and heritage need to improve the setting of the Stonehenge monument, finding that the balance fell in favour of meeting these needs rather than those of protecting and rehabilitating the whole WHS.

That he was able to reach this view may be owing to his acceptance of the argument of English Heritage and the Highways Agency at the Inquiry that, within the WHS, only the Scheduled archaeological sites were to be considered of Outstanding Universal Value (OUV). The wording of the World Heritage Convention, however, makes clear that a designated WHS is of OUV. WHSs such as Stonehenge must therefore be seen as areas encompassing all the attributes of OUV – in this case, the archaeological landscape and the various interconnections between its network of monuments. In accepting the premise that the emphasis ought to be only on the Stonehenge monument and associated sites, the Inspector considered that the disbenefits of the road scheme would not threaten the OUV of the WHS.

This approach, given the legal protection that already exists for UK Scheduled sites, makes nonsense of the WHS designation of the archaeological landscapes of Stonehenge and Avebury, a designation which is intended to emphasize their international importance and to ensure their protection now and in the future. If accepted by the Government, it would render both parts of the WHS dangerously vulnerable to major development proposals and the shameful possibility of de-listing.

At the road Inquiry, the Prehistoric Society argued

‘a road scheme carried out now would represent a solution to a short-term problem which would have long-term consequences and that many similar initiatives at Stonehenge carried out in the recent past have rapidly been regarded as mistakes’;

but the Inspector considered that

‘it is the policies and standards of today which should be applied to the proposals put to the Inquiries, and . . . those proposals should be considered against the situation which currently applies on the ground’.

ICOMOS-UK, advisor to UNESCO on UK WHSs, stated, however, in its 22 July press release following the A303 announcement, that the scheme

‘may have been considered acceptable by the Inspector but runs contrary to the Government’s commitments to the World Heritage Convention to protect the Stonehenge World Heritage Site for future generations.’

The long conflict of understanding and purpose at Stonehenge between conservationists and the Government, if allowed to continue unchecked, appears set to become an international scandal. The opportunity to review the options for the A303 is therefore all the more welcome, especially as refusal of the planning application for the new Stonehenge visitor-centre (see Rescue News 94) now makes it possible to reconsider the future of the Stonehenge Project as a whole.

Despite Officers’ recommendation for approval, and Councillors being aware that refusal might result in a costly appeal, English Heritage’s visitor-centre plans were rejected by Salisbury District Council on 26 July – largely because of the impact of the visitor-transit system on the archaeology of the WHS (including the Cursus), the visual setting of the WHS and the amenities of local residents. The uncertainty of adequate access to the visitor-centre site without a decision on the A303 Improvement was another factor in refusal of the application. The refusal cited a substantial raft of planning policies, including those policies in the Local and Structure Plans that the A303 Inquiry Inspector highlighted as conflicting with the A303 proposals but did not consider sufficiently important in relation to his own recommendation.

The Stonehenge Project appears to have suffered a setback. At the same time, the credibility of English Heritage as guardian of our heritage at Stonehenge is being seriously questioned. As initiator and supporter of the road scheme and as applicant for the visitor-centre, English Heritage may be considered too closely associated with a major enterprise that has, as its driving aim, the marketing of the Stonehenge monument (however that may be interpreted), rather than protection, rehabilitation and presentation of the WHS. Having championed Government proposals for an affordable road improvement rather than one that would respect the demands of the World Heritage Convention, and having challenged protective planning policy in its failed proposals for the visitor centre, English Heritage has much ground to make up if it is to regain the confidence of local people and conservationists.

In its 22 July press release ICOMOS-UK warned of the possibility of WHSs being placed on the World Heritage in Danger List owing to developmental threats and said that the Government review

‘allows time for serious consideration to be given to alternative schemes for upgrading the A303 that do not involve cutting across the heart of the WHS. We would like to see all the main parties working together to promote a solution that respects the significances of the WH site.’

In his 20 July announcement, Dr Ladyman said:

‘The increase in scheme costs represents a significant change to the basis on which the Government originally decided to progress this scheme. Our recognition of the importance of Stonehenge as a WHS remains unchanged but given the scale of the cost increase we have to re-examine whether the scheme still represents value for money and if it remains the best option for delivering the desired improvements.’

Since no decision has been reached on the Inspector’s Report, the Statutory process on the A303 Improvement has not been completed. Thus we may expect that the A303 options review will involve wide consultation, including representatives of the South West Regional Assembly which now has an enhanced role in deciding priorities for major transport schemes in the region. Most of the alternative routes examined at the Inquiry would, if brought forward as prospective options, require an Environmental Statement and publication of Orders at least, both of which would involve public consultation.

It would make sense for the A303 options review to be wide-ranging and not simply a review of cost implications. It could, perhaps, consider interim solutions, such as traffic calming measures (including road user charging) to ease congestion at busy times. Closure of the A344 combined with improvements to the junctions at Countess and Longbarrow roundabouts might also be considered. Using the A344 solely for access to the present visitor-centre from the west would bring substantial benefits and would not preclude the possibility of removal of the A303 from the WHS in the longer term. Again, ideally, English Heritage will re-examine the possibility of using roads and byways that already exist in the WHS, rather than creating new roads for any visitor-transit system.

Above all, it is to be hoped that the reviewers will constantly bear in mind the obligations arising from the World Heritage Convention and follow the advice of ICOMOS-UK. What conservationists now fear most is that the ‘something must be done’ lobby might prevail, leaving us with cheaper and nastier solutions that would suit no-one and certainly not the WHS.

Kate Fielden
17 September 2005