Stonehenge update for Rescue News 101 (Spring 2007)

The Public Inquiry into English Heritage's Appeal against refusal of its new Stonehenge visitor centre proposals was held in December 2006. RESCUE, as a member organisation of the Stonehenge Alliance, gave evidence on archaeology; other matters covered by the Alliance included planning policy, landscape impacts, ecology, transport issues and the noise and feasibility of the land train.

As expected, Salisbury District Council, having refused the application in 2005 and then approved the same proposals last year, did not contest the Appeal.

The principal objections to the proposals have been covered before in RESCUE News (RN 100 and earlier). A number of significant facts emerged at the Inquiry that may, however, be of interest to archaeologists.

English Heritage, in contrast to its stance at the A303 Inquiry, accepted that all of the designated World Heritage Site (WHS) is of outstanding universal value and that the WH Convention, committing the Government to conservation, preservation, rehabilitation and presentation, applies to the whole of the designated area. English Heritage witnesses, however, still considered it acceptable to weigh the benefits of rehabilitation of the setting of the henge against the detrimental impacts of the proposed visitor-transit 'land train' on other parts of the WHS.

It was revealed during the course of the Inquiry that the County Council's Chief Executive had telephoned the Case Officer to ask him to ignore the County Archaeologist's advice that the application be refused owing to the impact of the land train on the setting of the Scheduled Cursus monument. Wiltshire County Council gave corporate support to the scheme. The Case Officer, admitting his lack of specialist knowledge in archaeology, said that he had continued to take 'unofficial' advice from the County Archaeologist but under the constraints of what he considered to be a 'political' decision, he could only turn to the applicant (English Heritage) for official advice on archaeology. This is clearly a most unsatisfactory situation. The applicant's advice to the Case Officer failed to mention the impact of the land train on the setting of the Cursus—or indeed on a number of other Scheduled monuments—even though this was a concern raised by consultants in the Environmental Statement. No application for the necessary Scheduled Monument Consent had been presented for public scrutiny. Furthermore, the applicant apparently failed to advise the Case Officer of the standard requirement for full evaluation of areas affected by the proposals and considered to have high archaeological potential, in advance of determination of the application. We remain ignorant of the archaeology of these areas. In a case such as this, involving a WHS, we ought to expect the highest standards and best practice from any applicant.

Further incredulity was expressed by objectors when, on closer examination of the plans and elevations for the land train, it was found that the land train scheme was not feasible as proposed: the roads were too narrow and the turning loops were too tight. One of the application drawings showed the metalled surfaces at widths of 4, 5 and 6m, together with indicative drawings of land train coaches some 2.5m wide without wing mirrors. Despite the applicant's assertion that the land train vehicles had not yet been specified, it was obvious that 'trains' of four articulated coaches 2.5m wide could neither steer the route nor pass one another without departing from it. This gave rise to further concerns about safety and the retrieval of trains that might run off the road or break down—matters not addressed in the application. The full land train specification, which would obviously dictate the width of the roads required, ought to have been a part of the application. There would be archaeological and indeed planning implications for any necessary alterations to the track proposals as they currently stand.

The applicant argued that the land train roads, constructed on a geotextile membrane above the land surface, would do no damage to underlying archaeology and could be removed without trace at any future time. No specific examples of such roads or convincing method for their removal were presented. Evidence brought by another witness to the Inquiry showed that roads of this kind, constructed on Salisbury Plain military training area, would result in some damage to archaeology.

Local residents, concerned about their loss of amenity, also pointed out that the 'artist's impression' drawings of the state-of-the-art new visitor centre building at Countess East failed to include the pylon-supported power line that would pass right over the top of it.

Implementation of the A303 published scheme was accepted as a base-line condition of the visitor-centre proposals. The National Trust, owners of land involved and partners with English Heritage in the Stonehenge Project, stated to the Inquiry that it would not support the visitor centre scheme unless a road tunnel of 2.9km—or a less damaging A303 alternative—were to be implemented. The CBA reiterated its unwillingness to accept the A303 published scheme.

The outcome of the A303 Options Review may now await a decision on the visitor centre Appeal. Given the heavy hand of politics that has dominated the Stonehenge saga since imposition of the Stonehenge Master Plan in 1998—and apparently relegated conservation of the WHS to second place—it is anyone's guess what will happen.

Kate Fielden
Spring 2007