|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Last updated: 17th July 1999.
|
PLEASE NOTEThis document is now obsolete and the information it contains may be inaccurate or wrong.It is included here purely for archive purposes. |
1. Introduction
Stonehenge is a world icon -- the best known monument in Britain, a "must-see" stop on the foreign tourist’s itinerary visited by 750,000 people every year (and up to 6000 per day in the peak tourist season). Its international importance was recognized by its designation as a World Heritage Site under the UNESCO World Heritage Convention in November 1986 [1].
But the problem with Stonehenge is that it is effectively a traffic island, captured in the ‘V’ of land between two major roads: the A303 (part of a "strategic" trunk road between the M3 at Basingstoke and the A30 leading to the West country) and the A344 (a smaller main road), which actually separates the main group of stones from one of their number, known as the Heel Stone. Removing Stonehenge from the grip of traffic has proved difficult, largely because there are so many different organisations with conflicting interests:
So at its simplest, finding a solution to the Stonehenge problem involves reconciling the conflicting needs of three government departments and two councils with the conservation aims of an environmental organisation. To complicate matters further, there are a number of other bodies with a close interest in any potential scheme. These include archaeological organisations, such as the Council for British Archaeology and the Prehistoric Society; local groups concerned with preserving Stonehenge and its landscape, such as the Avebury Society; and organisations campaigning for environmentally sustainable transport, including Transport 2000 and Friends of the Earth. Any scheme must also be acceptable to local people in Amesbury, the nearest town, and residents further afield in Wiltshire and the neighbouring English county of Somerset. And, because of the sensitivity of the site, to national and international public opinion.
2. Planning history
Numerous attempts have been made to devise solutions to the Stonehenge problem that would be acceptable to all of these different groups and organisations; they are documented in detail elsewhere [3]. In 1993, the Department of Transport (now DETR) announced its intention to "improve" the Amesbury to Berwick Down section of the A303, bypassing Stonehenge. Various different proposals were put forward, but by general agreement at a planning conference in November 1995, only a so-called 4km "long-bore tunnel" met the criteria put forward by English Heritage and the National Trust, the concerns of the archaeological community, the requirements of the Department of Transport, and the needs of local people in Amesbury and Larkhill.
Unfortunately, the Department of Transport refused to fund the cost of the long-bore tunnel, estimated by them to be £200-300 million, compared to the probable £11-30 million needed for a surface road [4]; environmentalists were equally adamant in rejecting cheaper and more destructive alternatives. This left the Stonehenge scheme in stalemate, and although some unsuccessful alternatives have been proposed by English Heritage since then (including a controversial £83 million Stonehenge Millennium Park partly funded by lottery money), the position remained in stalemate until summer 1998, when the current Stonehenge Master Plan was announced.
3. Stonehenge master plan
The current scheme, announced in a press release on 31st July 1998, claims to be a joint proposal by English Heritage, the National Trust, the Department of Culture, Media and Sport, and the Highways Agency [5]. This aims not only to solve the traffic problem, but also to tackle several other key issues, including the poor visitor facilities at Stonehenge, traffic problems in the neighbouring village of Winterbourne Stoke, and congestion on the A303 during the holiday season.
The Stonehenge Master Plan proposes the following solutions:
The cost of the scheme is expected to be £125 million (plus VAT), of which at least one third would be provided by National Heritage sources [5]. The reason for this, according to the DCMS, is: "If assessed solely in terms of transport benefits, the scheme would not have met the criteria for priority funding from the Roads Vote. It is therefore being taken forward on the basis that at least a third of the cost will be funded from heritage sources" [5].
Under "A New Deal for Trunk Roads" announced by the Labour government in July 1998, the Stonehenge scheme is one of 37 roads that it is committed to building before the year 2005 [7]. Subject to the planning process and after a full archaeological survey, construction work could begin in 5-7 years [5].
4. Impacts
The scheme would have a number of significant impacts on Stonehenge and its surroundings.
Landscape:
The cut-and-cover tunnel would be more like a cutting than a tunnel: it is effectively a deep cutting with a roof. It will be constructed from two parallel tunnels excavated one at a time. One two-lane carriageway will be excavated first next to the current A303. When this is complete, it will be opened to traffic, the current A303 will be closed, and the current A303 will then be cut away to form the second part of the four-lane tunnel, forming effectively two separate two-lane tunnels running parallel to one another [8].
The dimensions of the proposed tunnel are significantly greater than those of the existing road, which is 13 metres wide (the distance between the existing fences on the A303). The construction zone would be 45 metres wide near the monument, but 140 metres wide at Stonehenge bottom, where large amounts of chalk spoil would be used to create a new land fill over the shallow tunnel. Calculations suggest that there would be approximately 400,000 m³ of spoil altogether, which would weigh around 1 million tonnes [20]. The scar left by the new road would be bigger than any other monument in the landscape and, like Twyford Down, would probably be visible from the air. Important parts of the landscape, such as Stonehenge bottom, would be drastically changed [8].
Although supporters of the scheme suggest removing the A303 and A344 would reunite Stonehenge with its landscape, adding one million tonnes of chalk would obliterate the existing landscape entirely. "Stonehenge" is often taken to mean the group of stones, rather than the vast and priceless landscape defined by the World Heritage Site boundary (which extends as far as Durrington in the north, Countess and Amesbury in the east, Normanton Down in the south, and Longbarrow crossroads in the west). It is the impact on the entire landscape that must be considered, not just the impact on the central monument.
Archaeology
English Heritage suggests that 16 monuments would be damaged or destroyed by the new layout of the A303, 5 of them scheduled and protected by the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Areas Act (1979), and three of these already damaged by ploughing:
Long Barrow crossroads would need to be upgraded to handle the two extra lanes of the A303 and to allow the considerable extra tourist traffic to leave the new four-lane road safely. The full design for Long Barrow crossroads has not yet been worked out, but could involve either a grade-separated junction or a damaging interchange [6]. The area around Long Barrow crossroads is particularly sensitive. A "senior archaeological source"quoted in The Guardian commented: "This is a disaster. We will never be forgiven if we get this wrong. The road interchange implications for the western end of the tunnel are devastating--it could leave the Long Barrow group, one of the best barrow groups in the land, under a motorway flyover."; [9].
Although the Stonehenge World Heritage Site contains several hundred monuments, 300 years of archaeological investigations have produced relatively little in the way of finds [25]. According to some studies, there is little archaeology on the tunnel route itself, but Kate Fielden of the Wiltshire Archaeological Trust has suggested that this was a deliberate policy by the henge builders: "You could almost see it as akin to a cathedral close." But she points out that this is not necessarily the issue: "You have to decide whether this site is too important to tamper with, purely for a visual improvement to the setting of the stones." [9].
English Heritage is well-intentioned, but appears to be guilty of double standards where the threatened monuments are concerned. Quoted about the proposal to damage monuments at Stonehenge on 19th August 1998, English Heritage's distinguished chief archaeologist Dr Geoffrey Wainwright said: "Our assessment is that the damage to monuments will be in two figures, so it has to be a balance of judgement. The huge visual improvement, the unique chance to free the stones from the sight and the roar of passing traffic, is worth it on balance." [9].
So is it sometimes acceptable to destroy Scheduled Ancient Monuments? Quoted in a different newspaper the very next day, Dr Wainwright was urging quarrying and construction companies to spare (admittedly much older) Stone Age sites: "Well-preserved paleolithic sites are very rare and should be regarded as nationally important.... The amount [of archaeology] that has been lost is impossible to quantify. But in future no-one will be able to get rid of this material out of ignorance that it was there." [19]. And in its landmark Monuments at Risk Survey (MARS) project in 1998, English Heritage commented: "MARS demonstrates that at least 22,500 monuments have been wholly destroyed since 1945-a rate of just over one monument per day over that period. In addition, there has been a 20% decline in the proportion of archaeological earthworks having good survival from 95% in 1945 to about 75% in 1995.... MARS shows that 2% of all monuments (4500) are at high risk of serious damage or destruction within 3-5 years..... [and] 28% of monuments (c.65,000) at medium risk...." [24]
How can English Heritage expect developers to preserve archaeologically important remains if it not only pardons but funds their destruction in a scheme as high-profile as Stonehenge?
Heritage sources will provide one third of the funding for the Stonehenge scheme. One way of looking at this is to say that heritage funding is actually making possible a scheme that damages and destroys some of the best of Britain's heritage -- and without which, according to the DCMS, the scheme would not be in the roads programme at all [5].
Dr Wainwright was also the principal architect of Planning Policy Guidance note 16 (PPG16), one of the major milestones in the protection of archaeology in the UK this century [22]. PPG16 (paragraph 6) has no doubt about the importance of archaeology: "Archaeological remains should be seen as a finite, and non-renewable resource, in many cases highly fragile and vulnerable to damage and destruction. Appropriate management is therefore essential to ensure that they survive in good condition. In particular, care must be taken to ensure that archaeological remains are not needlessly or thoughtlessly destroyed. They can contain irreplaceable information about our past and the potential for an increase in future knowledge. They are part of our sense of national identity and are valuable both for their own sake and for their role in education, leisure and tourism."
PPG16 (paragraph 8) is unequivocal: "Where nationally important archaeological remains, whether scheduled or not, and their settings, are affected by proposed development there should be a presumption in favour of their physical preservation." Again, if English Heritage is not prepared to follow its own guidelines, how can it expect developers or county councils to take any notice of them?
Regional Planning Guidance for the South West (RPG10) has this to say: (para 3.3): The South West is a Region of outstanding environmental quality and diversity which is a national asset and should not be put at risk. Development plans should ensure that nationally and internationally designated areas and features are protected from damaging development and change.
and (para 4.23): "The South West contains an impressive range of archaeological features and remains, from individual sites to extensive historic and prehistoric landscapes such as Dartmoor and Bodmin Moor. Stonehenge/Avebury and associated sites are internationally important, having been designated a World Heritage Site by UNESCO. Development plans should carry forward the advice in PPG16 on the protection of nationally important archaeological remains and their settings. " [23].
Transport
Doubling the capacity of the A303 also raises significant transport issues. The Government’s transport white paper aimed to reduce car dependence, but doubling the width of a road for Stonehenge seem quite at odds with that [7].
For some years, the Highways Agency has been upgrading sections of the A303 between Basingstoke and the West country. The 1994 roads review contained details of around a dozen "improvements" between Basingstoke and Honiton, most of which have subsequently been cancelled. The DETR was scheduled to start a London to South West and South Wales Multi-Modal transport corridor study of the A303 and its parallel rail corridor (between Salisbury and Exeter) in Spring 1999, but is running about a year late [18]. The remit of the study is to compare the advantages and disadvantages of investing in the road and rail corridors. But by proceeding with the Stonehenge scheme before the outcome of this study is known, DETR is prejudicing the entire study [10].
An upgraded road to Stonehenge and improved visitor centre would, presumably, drastically increase the number of visitors to the site. Although this is not in itself a bad thing, the traffic impacts on Salisbury, Amesbury, Wiltshire, and Somerset must be considered, and non-road methods of handling increased numbers of visitors also need to be examined. Salisbury is a strategic hub in the national rail network, and reopening the old railway line between Salisbury and Amesbury (or a light-rail link) are two possibilities for increasing visitor numbers in a more sustainable way. A new Stonehenge visitor centre would qualify as a traffic-generating development and should be subject to the usual considerations of Planning Policy Guidance (PPG) note 13, which states:
3.11 Leisure travel is the fastest area of traffic growth. In promoting policies for tourism and recreation, local authorities should ensure that major new attractions (such as sports stadia or leisure parks) are readily accessible by a range of means of transport [21].
Doubling the A303 capacity would also "induce traffic" (encourage traffic to use the road that does not already do so), an effect noted and accepted by the Government since the publication of the SACTRA report "Trunk Roads and the Generation of Traffic" in December 1994 [11]. This would have impacts along the length of the A303 throughout Hampshire, Wiltshire, and Somerset. According to Somerset County Council: "Of particular concern is the extra pressure the up-grading will place on the single carriageway sections of the A303 in Somerset to be similarly upgraded to dual carriageway. One of these sections goes over the Blackdown Hills, an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty." [26]. Indeed, Somerset County Council has raised a provisional objection to the scheme with the Highways Agency on these grounds. [5].
5. Alternatives
At the Department of Transport planning conference in 1995, archaeologists agreed unanimously that the only solution they could accept for Stonehenge was a long-bored tunnel (a 4-km tunnel beneath the monument itself, which would not disturb the archaeologically important topsoil at all). Martin Drury, Director of the National Trust, stated: "The National Trust remain adamant that the long tunnel is the only solution worthy of this remarkable place" [12]. But the British Government and DETR have repeatedly ruled out this option, because they claimed it would cost £300 million [4, 13]. Some organisations, including the National Trust and English Heritage, are now cutting their losses and supporting the inferior tunnel design, because they believe it is the only option on offer [2]. British Prime Minister Tony Blair has personally written to Lord Kennet, Chairman of the Avebury Society and a tireless campaigner for a worthy Stonehenge solution, stating that "it is this [cut and cover] or nothing" [13].
However, the long-bored tunnel has never been accurately costed out. A report by the Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology in 1997 concluded that estimates of tunnelling were misleading, and that they contained large contingencies, which drastically prejudiced politicians against tunnelling [4].
Transport 2000 and other organisations have proposed that any Stonehenge upgrade should not increase the capacity of the existing A303; in other words, any new road should be no greater than two lanes wide. This implies that a bored tunnel could be constructed at much less cost than has previously been supposed. T2000 also argue that there is no justification for a Winterbourne Stoke bypass; they suggest that village’s problems might be addressed more quickly and more effectively using traffic management [14].
6. Comparitive costs
The cut-and-cover tunnel is estimated to cost £125 million plus VAT before a detailed design has been worked out. A complex interchange (involving any kind of built structure, such as an underpass or flyover) at Long Barrow crossroads could increase this further. The estimate does not include the cost of the extensive archaeological work, which can be expected to run into millions of pounds, and any cost for security or policing (which exceeded £20 million for the Newbury bypass) if the scheme continues to prove controversial.
The on-line long-bore tunnel was estimated by consulting engineers Sir William Halcrow and partners to cost £190-237 million (1991 prices) [17], but as the Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology has pointed out, "only half is for actual construction work and one third is to consider uncertainties (which would be reduced as the design progressed… at later stages, this figure may change significantly)" [4]. Considerably less money would have to be spent on archaeological work, and if the scheme could be generally agreed to be acceptable, security and policing costs could also be reduced to a minimum. Coupled with these reductions, reducing the width of the tunnel from four lanes to two could make a long-bore tunnel design not so very much more expensive than the four-lane cut-and-cover tunnel currently proposed, and far superior in environmental terms.
7. Supporters and opponents
Supporters include DETR/Highways Agency, DCMS/English Heritage, and the National Trust. The National Trust owns the "inalienable" land around the stones, bought by public subscription in the 1920s [9], but has already agreed to give up part of that land for the Master Plan to proceed [5], even before the detailed design and impact of the scheme have been discussed at a public inquiry [2].
Opponents include the Avebury Society, Wiltshire Archaeological Trust, Transport 2000, CPRE, Friends of the Earth, Somerset County Council, and the Green Party. Organizations with a more uncertain position include the Council for British Archaeology (weighing up the options), the World Archaeology Congress (expressed reservations), the Prehistoric Society (reservations), and Council of British Druid Orders [15].
Archaeologists and Development opposes the scheme because it has an unacceptable impact on a unique archaeological landscape of world importance, and because, as an investment in transport infrastructure, it does not meet the Government’s objectives to reduce dependence on the car—it actually creates more transport problems than it solves.
8. More information
Archaeologist Peter Stone has written a very thorough and very interesting article about the Stonehenge controversy called "The Stonehenge we deserve?", published in the archaeological journal Minerva [16]. and also available on the Internet at:
http://www.britarch.ac.uk/cba/stone14.html
If you do have access to the Internet, you may find the following two websites worth watching:
The Council for British Archaeology website has a comprehensive account of the planning history: http://www.britarch.ac.uk/cba/stone1.html
Press releases and clippings (e.g. scheme announcement and reactions, media coverage) and various other useful bits of info (e.g. Stonehenge World Heritage Convention listing) are on the campaign website: http://www.savestonehenge.org.uk/
Do please send us your comments or feedback on this briefing.
Chris Woodford, 1999.
References
:1. UNESCO World Heritage Convention: Stonehenge, Avebury, and Associated Sites. Available on the Internet at: http://www.unesco.org/whc//sites/373.htm
2. "The Stonehenge Master Plan" by Maev Kennedy. National Trust Magazine, Summer 1999.
3. The detailed planning history of the Stonehenge saga is chronicled on the Council for British Archaeology’s "Save Stonehenge" web-page http://www.britarch.ac.uk/stone1.html
4. "Tunnel Vision? The Future Role of Tunnels in Transport Infrastructure" by Gary Kass and Dr Michael Norton. A report published by the Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology, January 1997.
5. Department of Culture Media and Sport Press Release 1777/98 31 July 1998: "Stonehenge: At last, light at the end of the tunnel as DCMS and DETR join forces".
6. Parliamentary question by Robert Key MP, 19 October 1998.
7. Somerset County Council: Highways, Transport, and Stratgeic Planning Board: Briefing for members, 19 May 1999.
8. From: "Stonehenge Master Plan": Construction drawings produced by Ove Arup and Partners, 17 September 1998.
9. "Tunnel Vision" by Maev Kennedy, The Guardian, 19 August 1998.
10. Roads Review, Department of Transport, 1994.
11. "Trunk Roads and the Generation of Traffic." A report by the Standing Advisory Committee on Trunk Road Assessment (SACTRA) to the Department of Transport, 19 December 1994.
12. Quoted in 1996 on the day when Transport Secretary announced he was "minded to" give the go-ahead to the Salisbury bypass, but would do nothing for Stonehenge.
13. "Blair insists on cheaper tunnel for Stonehenge." by Charles Clover, The Daily Telegraph, 23 September 1998.
14. "Tunnel plan under fire." Salisbury and Andover Avon Advertiser. 12 May 1999.
15. "Welcome aboard the Stonehenge experience tour." by Charles Clover, The Daily Telegraph, 24 April 1999.
16. "The Stonehenge we deserve?" by Peter Stone, Minerva, vol 10(3), May/June 1999, pp22-25.
17. "A303 Amesbury-Berwick Down Tunnel Options--Planning and Design Considerations." Sir William Halcrow and Partners, Highways Agency South West, June 1994.
18. Answer to parliamentary question on "Roads Review" by Glenda Jackson, MP, 10 December 1998.
19. "Developers urged to spare Stone Age sites", Daily Telegraph, 20 August 1998.
20. Arup's design appears to show a road tunnel approximately 30 m wide inside, by 2000 m long, by approximately 5 m high = 300,000 m³. Suppose the cuttings at either end (which appear to total about 1 km ) generate a third as much spoil as the tunnel, this gives a total of 400,000 m³. The density of chalk is about 2.5 g/c³ = 2500 kg/m³, which gives a mass of chalk displaced of around one million metric tonnes.
21. Planning Policy Guidance Note 13: Transport. Department of Environment/Transport, March 1994.
22. Planning Policy Guidance Note 16: Archaeology and Planning. Department of Environment, November 1990.
23. Regional Planning Guidance for the South West (RPG10), Government Office for the South West, 1994.
24. Monuments at Risk Survey (MARS) Project. English Heritage, RCHME, and Bournemouth University, 1998.
25. "Stonehenge" by Christopher Chippindale, in Oxford Companion to Archaeology, Brian M. Fagan (ed), OUP, 1996.
26. Letter from Nigel Farrow, Corporate Director (Environment and Property), Somerset County Council, to participants of proposed A303 Stonehenge meeting, 15th July 1999.
@nticopyright - copy, use, and distribute freely.