Salisbury Transport 2000 objection to visitor centre, 26 October 2004

26 October 2004

Planning Office
Salisbury District Council
61 Wyndham Road
Salisbury
SP1 3AH

Dear Sir,

Salisbury Transport 2000 wish to object to the planning application by English Heritage for the new Stonehenge Visitor Centre (& associated access changes). We are objecting on the following grounds:

• This Visitor Centre forms just one part of the overall "Stonehenge Project", and the combined impact of all the components of this project needs to be considered together.
• This application assumes that the A303 road "improvements" proposed by the Highways Agency will be going ahead. The Inspector has now submitted his report on that scheme, and it would seem to be premature to consider this planning application until Government has made its decision on the road proposals.
• The proposed Visitor Centre would be situated adjacent to the River Avon candidate Special Area of Conservation (cSAC). There has been no "Appropriate Assessment" of the combined effects of the visitor centre and the proposed new road on the river, as required by the EU Habitats Directive.
• The Travel Plan that has been supplied is unworthy of this unique and internationally acclaimed site at a time when environmental concerns are becoming increasingly important.

We have some specific comments about the Travel Plan which has been submitted with this planning application. Salisbury Transport 2000 has a particular interest in promoting sustainable travel modes for trips in Salisbury District, whether for work, leisure or school. We are therefore dismayed by the unchallenging targets that have been set in the Travel Plan. There is a statement that the existing visitor modal split - Car 60%, Coach 35% and Other (including walking, cycling, bus and rail) 5% - is favourable towards sustainable modes [Travel Plan para 5.3.7]. The aim of the Travel Plan is therefore "to ensure that this existing level of walking, cycling, public transport and coach use is maintained, and if possible, improved upon". This exceedingly modest target is not acceptable for a development of this scale in this day and age.

Furthermore, we had been led to expect that more would be delivered. The Highways Agency Proof of Evidence presented to the Public Inquiry into the A303 Stonehenge Improvement [HA/3/1, para 4.2.2.8] stated that "Although the forecast assumes no significant change in the number of visitors as a result of re-locating the Visitor Centre, it does assume a change in the nature of the visits (more coaches and fewer �casual� car trips), which means that there would be fewer vehicle trips than currently go to the existing facility at Stonehenge." This assumption does not seem to have been carried forward into the targets set in the Travel Plan.

We comment in passing (as already mentioned in an email to David Milton at SDC on 21/10, to which there has as yet been no reply) that the Transport Assessment seems to be missing a section which might provide some enlightenment regarding assumptions about prospective visitor trips. In para 5.1.27 it is stated that "the way in which 'existing' visitor trips have been separated from the 'proposed' visitor trips is set out in detail in section 7.6". However there is no section 7.6 in the Transport Assessment, section numbering goes from 7.5.6 direct to section 8.0.  

Sustainable tourism needs to be at the heart of any redevelopment of the facilities for visitors to Stonehenge, rather than a short postscript to an essentially car-based development. We would like to see the opportunity taken for a much more visionary Travel Plan for Stonehenge, worthy of this world heritage site, and something which would be a world-class showcase for sustainable tourism in the 21^st century. The Travel Plan could encompass a number of possibilities which include, but should not be limited to, the following:

• Improvement of the existing bus services from Salisbury railway station. The Transport assessment states incorrectly that the 6 bus services from Salisbury to Amesbury "all provide convenient links for visitors arriving by rail". [Transport Assessment 2.5.10]. This is not the case, as the majority of these services do not serve Salisbury railway station.
• The development of dedicated shuttle bus services from reopened railway stations at Wilton and Porton.
• Through- ticketing from London to Stonehenge, well-promoted, could be part of a package of measures to reduce car-dependent trips to Stonehenge, removing traffic from the A303.
• Arrival by non-car modes could be promoted by discounts on entry tickets. Alternatively the car park charges, which are referred to in the Travel Plan, could be made non-refundable, or only partially refundable, when a Stonehenge ticket is purchased.
• Consideration should be given to the development of a light railway system running from Salisbury to serve Stonehenge. The former branch line to Bulford, closed in 1963, could be used as the basis for such a development, and there were also military railways serving Larkhill and other army facilities which have some potential to be re-instated. If modern trams were used this would allow the use of on-road track for those stretches where modern development rules out use of the former railway line. Such a light railway facility could provide a service to new stations on the existing railway at Idmiston, Porton, Gomeldon, the Winterbournes and Bishopdown, and could also serve the communities of Newton Tony, Amesbury, Bulford, Durrington and Larkhill, as well as providing a visitor link to Stonehenge.

The issues raised by this planning application are of national, and in some cases international, importance. We do not feel that the proposed centre and its travel plan are worthy of a site such as Stonehenge. We therefore urge you to refuse the application. We trust that this action would lead to a revised submission or a planning inquiry at which the need for a more creative and fully integrated transport plan could be properly examined.

Yours Sincerely

Margaret Willmot

On behalf of Salisbury Transport 2000

Copy: Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, 26 Whitehall, London SW1A 2WH
Government Office of the South West, 2 Rivergate, Temple Quay, Bristol, BS1 6EH