| Closing
Statements
Summary of objections
Countess Road Residents Group
Stonehenge Alliance
Wiltshire Archeological and Natural History Society
We publish
to our Web site any literature that helps the cause. Either E-mails,
letters, magazine or newspaper reports and journals. We would appreciate
your comments.
Please use the Have Your Say
section. Thanks.
We
publish to our Web site any literature that helps the cause.
Either E-mails, letters, magazine or newspaper reports and journals.
We would appreciate your comments.
Please use the Have Your Say
section. Thanks.
We publish
to our Web site any literature that helps the cause. Either E-mails,
letters, magazine or newspaper reports and journals. We would appreciate
your comments.
Please use the Have Your Say
section. Thanks.
We publish
to our Web site any literature that helps the cause. Either E-mails,
letters, magazine or newspaper reports and journals. We would appreciate
your comments.
Please use the Have Your Say
section. Thanks.
We publish
to our Web site any literature that helps the cause. Either E-mails,
letters, magazine or newspaper reports and journals. We would appreciate
your comments.
Please use the Have Your Say
section. Thanks.
We publish
to our Web site any literature that helps the cause. Either E-mails,
letters, magazine or newspaper reports and journals. We would appreciate
your comments.
Please use the Have Your Say
section. Thanks.
We publish
to our Web site any literature that helps the cause. Either E-mails,
letters, magazine or newspaper reports and journals. We would appreciate
your comments.
Please use the Have Your Say
section. Thanks.
We publish
to our Web site any literature that helps the cause. Either E-mails,
letters, magazine or newspaper reports and journals. We would appreciate
your comments.
Please use the Have Your Say
section. Thanks.
We publish
to our Web site any literature that helps the cause. Either E-mails,
letters, magazine or newspaper reports and journals. We would appreciate
your comments.
Please use the Have Your Say
section. Thanks.
We publish
to our Web site any literature that helps the cause. Either E-mails,
letters, magazine or newspaper reports and journals. We would appreciate
your comments.
Please use the Have Your Say
section. Thanks.
We publish
to our Web site any literature that helps the cause. Either E-mails,
letters, magazine or newspaper reports and journals. We would appreciate
your comments.
Please use the Have Your Say
section. Thanks.
We publish
to our Web site any literature that helps the cause. Either E-mails,
letters, magazine or newspaper reports and journals. We would appreciate
your comments.
Please use the Have Your Say
section. Thanks.
We publish
to our Web site any literature that helps the cause. Either E-mails,
letters, magazine or newspaper reports and journals. We would appreciate
your comments.
Please use the Have Your Say
section. Thanks.
We publish
to our Web site any literature that helps the cause. Either E-mails,
letters, magazine or newspaper reports and journals. We would appreciate
your comments.
Please use the Have Your Say
section. Thanks.
We publish
to our Web site any literature that helps the cause. Either E-mails,
letters, magazine or newspaper reports and journals. We would appreciate
your comments.
Please use the Have Your Say
section. Thanks.
We publish
to our Web site any literature that helps the cause. Either E-mails,
letters, magazine or newspaper reports and journals. We would appreciate
your comments.
Please use the Have Your Say
section. Thanks.
We publish
to our Web site any literature that helps the cause. Either E-mails,
letters, magazine or newspaper reports and journals. We would appreciate
your comments.
Please use the Have Your Say
section. Thanks.
We publish
to our Web site any literature that helps the cause. Either E-mails,
letters, magazine or newspaper reports and journals. We would appreciate
your comments.
Please use the Have Your Say
section. Thanks.
We publish
to our Web site any literature that helps the cause. Either E-mails,
letters, magazine or newspaper reports and journals. We would appreciate
your comments.
Please use the Have Your Say
section. Thanks.
We publish
to our Web site any literature that helps the cause. Either E-mails,
letters, magazine or newspaper reports and journals. We would appreciate
your comments.
Please use the Have Your Say
section. Thanks.
We publish
to our Web site any literature that helps the cause. Either E-mails,
letters, magazine or newspaper reports and journals. We would appreciate
your comments.
Please use the Have Your Say
section. Thanks.
We publish
to our Web site any literature that helps the cause. Either E-mails,
letters, magazine or newspaper reports and journals. We would appreciate
your comments.
Please use the Have Your Say
section. Thanks.
We publish
to our Web site any literature that helps the cause. Either E-mails,
letters, magazine or newspaper reports and journals. We would appreciate
your comments.
Please use the Have Your Say
section. Thanks.
We publish
to our Web site any literature that helps the cause. Either E-mails,
letters, magazine or newspaper reports and journals. We would appreciate
your comments.
Please use the Have Your Say
section. Thanks.
We publish
to our Web site any literature that helps the cause. Either E-mails,
letters, magazine or newspaper reports and journals. We would appreciate
your comments.
Please use the Have Your Say
section. Thanks.
We publish
to our Web site any literature that helps the cause. Either E-mails,
letters, magazine or newspaper reports and journals. We would appreciate
your comments.
Please use the Have Your Say
section. Thanks.
We publish
to our Web site any literature that helps the cause. Either E-mails,
letters, magazine or newspaper reports and journals. We would appreciate
your comments.
Please use the Have Your Say
section. Thanks.
We publish
to our Web site any literature that helps the cause. Either E-mails,
letters, magazine or newspaper reports and journals. We would appreciate
your comments.
Please use the Have Your Say
section. Thanks.
We publish
to our Web site any literature that helps the cause. Either E-mails,
letters, magazine or newspaper reports and journals. We would appreciate
your comments.
Please use the Have Your Say
section. Thanks.
We publish
to our Web site any literature that helps the cause. Either E-mails,
letters, magazine or newspaper reports and journals. We would appreciate
your comments.
Please use the Have Your Say
section. Thanks.
We publish
to our Web site any literature that helps the cause. Either E-mails,
letters, magazine or newspaper reports and journals. We would appreciate
your comments.
Please use the Have Your Say
section. Thanks.
We publish
to our Web site any literature that helps the cause. Either E-mails,
letters, magazine or newspaper reports and journals. We would appreciate
your comments.
Please use the Have Your Say
section. Thanks.
We publish
to our Web site any literature that helps the cause. Either E-mails,
letters, magazine or newspaper reports and journals. We would appreciate
your comments.
Please use the Have Your Say
section. Thanks.
We publish
to our Web site any literature that helps the cause. Either E-mails,
letters, magazine or newspaper reports and journals. We would appreciate
your comments.
Please use the Have Your Say
section. Thanks.
We publish
to our Web site any literature that helps the cause. Either E-mails,
letters, magazine or newspaper reports and journals. We would appreciate
your comments.
Please use the Have Your Say
section. Thanks.
|
|
Summary
of objections
This summary sets out the main objections put before the inspector
at the above Inquiry. Detailed submissions or closing statements
are below.
The points of criticism that seemed to emerge at the inquiry included
the following:
- a significant lack of detail in the planning application documents
- items omitted from the planning application
- failure to comply with the WHS Masterplan or Management Plan requirements
- a reinterpretation of the WHS structuring
- the land train specification and intrusiveness
- transport and traffic
- consultation
The principal objectors were the Stonehenge Alliance (AS) and the
Wiltshire Archaeological and Natural History Society (WANHS). In
their closing statements they identified the following shortcomings:
Items were missing from the English Heritage statement.
The proposals add to the modern intrusion in the WHS.
County politicians overrode their own specialist’s advice
concerning archaeology.
The WHS Management Plan (MP) referred to was effectively outdated
and had not been reviewed as required.
Failure to comply with the MP aims and objectives, which will damage
the WHS.
A multi-tiered approach in determining importance aspects within
the WHS.
Existence of a previously-unknown additional transportation system
of buggies between the Durrington drop-off point and the henge,
in addition to the transportation for the disabled.
An erroneous statement by English Heritage (EH) of no conflict between
the MasterPlan and the Management Plan. A clear requirement of the
former is for the visitor centre to produce no additional traffic
in Countess Road.
The land-train received particular criticism for the following aspects:
- Insufficient detail provided in the application.
- The proposed version would be a visual intrusion and noisy.
- It would have an adverse impact on the WHS.
- Feasibility and design of the track and its bed criticised.
- Health and Safety issues had not been addressed.
- The environmental impact it might have on the Steel Houses residential
area.
Transport and traffic also came under the microscope:
- If the visitor centre is located at Countess, slip roads to it
could become congested.
- There could be long delays in processing visitors.
- There could be a risk of traffic chaos at peak times, with difficulties
of management.
- Critical detail had been omitted from the planning application.
- The Travel Plan was weak.
- The National Trust would not support the application if the A303
preferred scheme were approved.
Impact of the scheme on residential areas dwelt mainly on the Steel
Houses. The problems for Countess Road residents received little
or no mention.
The CRRG input.
This dealt with a number of aspects:
- The application’s conflict with regional planning guidance
and structure plans.
- Intrusion into a planning restraint area.
- Visual and safety aspects of retaining the pylons, and their 133kV
power lines overhead the visitor centre
- Loss of amenity.
- Likely noise and pollution.
- Disruption due to out-of-hours use of the visitor centre.
- Property blight.
- Important emergent archaeology providing evidence of Amesbury's
origins at Countess east, and its subjective evaluation by English
Heritage.
Countess Road Residents
Group
SUBMISSION BY GEORGE DU PRÉ
TO ENGLISH HERITAGE APPEAL INQUIRY
CHAIRMAN ON BEHALF OF COUNTESS ROAD RESIDENTS GROUP
INTRODUCTION
There is no doubt that Stonehenge is a monument of immense national
importance and that its treatment should recognize this fact. Quite
rightly it attracts a huge number of tourists, both foreign and
local, who should be able to take advantage of the monument, its
history and surroundings in the best way possible.
There is also no doubt that the current facilities for visitors
at the Stonehenge site are at best inadequate and at worst have
been described as "a national disgrace".
It is quite right that English Heritage should wish to remedy this
situation and provide better visitor facilities at an attraction
for which they have now been responsible for more than 20 years.
APPROACH
As the chairman of the Countess Road Residents Group I shall explain
why it is that there is so much opposition locally to the proposed
Visitors Centre scheme and why the Salisbury District Council Planning
and Regulatory Panel was right to reject the English Heritage planning
application in July 2005 and therefore why the current appeal by
the latter against this rejection should not be upheld.
In order not to repeat what may have been, or will be submitted
by others, I shall endeavour to restrict my evidence to matters
that are directly related to local residents.
In doing so I shall relate what I have to say to the draft main
issues listed at Annex B. to the notes on the pre-enquiry meeting
dated the 13th of October 2006. Therefore the main issues I shall
refer to are numbers 1, 3, 4, 5 and 11.
By way of introduction and background, the fundamental flaw in the
whole visitor centre proposal is the location of the site selected,
namely Countess East. Any visitor centre, no matter what the attraction,
that is sited 2 miles away from said attraction, which requires
the extra infrastructure of a private transport system and all logistic
baggage that comes with it, the construction of several miles of
roadway, the construction of a tunnel under a busy main road, which
happens to be in a residential area and is planned to require the
demolition of three residential properties to achieve it, is manifestly
in the wrong place.
English Heritage appears to be hamstrung as it persists with its
blinkered, dogmatic view that this is the only site suitable, because
it lies outside the World Heritage Site and there can be no building
within the World Heritage Site. It is, however, prepared to sanction
the construction of two enormous tunnel portal entrances, a stretch
of cut-and-cover tunnelling at Stonehenge bottom as part of the
A 303 road improvement scheme, and the construction of the roadway
for the land train and its associated pickup and drop-off points.
All of these within the World Heritage Site. This is obviously inconsistent
DRAFT MAIN ISSUES
I shall now deal with the draft main issues from the body of local
residents in turn:
1. The extent to which the development proposed accords
or conflicts with the Regional Planning Guidance for the South-West,
or with the policies of the Wiltshire Structure Plan 2001 and Salisbury
District Local Plan 2003.
As local residents it is most appropriate that I deal exclusively
with the latter, namely the Salisbury District Local Plan, with
which the proposal conflicted directly with articles G1, and G7.
Article G1 of the Salisbury District Local Plan states:
“In accordance with the principles of sustainable development,
priority will be given to ensuring that development proposals:
(i) achieve an overall pattern of land uses which reduce the need
to travel and support increased use of public transport, cycling
and walking;
(ii) promote the vitality and viability of local communities;
(iii) conserve both the natural environment and cultural heritage
of the District; and
(iv) make effective use of land in urban areas, particularly on
previously developed sites.”
The greenfield development of the Countess East site, the construction
of a transport system and its associated roadway, namely the "land
train", the construction of drop-off points for the latter,
which are liable to be of the order of 30 m long and 3 m high,
tunnelling under a busy main road in a residential area are all
not in accordance with (i), (iii) and (iv) of Article G1. As far
as (ii) is concerned it is believed that the proposal would have
an adverse effect on the local community of Amesbury.
Article G7 delineates a Development Restraint Area (diagram attached)
to the east of Countess Road and to the west of the River Avon within
which the entire building structure of the proposed Visitor Centre
would lie, and which also covers approximately 25% of the car park.
Although not stated on the diagram, I believe this refers to the
presence of a sewage works immediately to the east of the proposed
site on the other side of the river Avon.
3. The effect of the development on the safe and free flow
of traffic in the area.
There are three points to be examined here.
First, the executive summary of the English Heritage Masterplan
(1999) for Stonehenge requires: "The minimum of disruption
to local residents with no new traffic using Countess Road or the
Packway”. The very fact that vehicular egress from the proposed
visitor centre will be on to Countess Road clearly contravenes this.
Additionally, there would be new traffic travelling from the north
to the visitor centre, on Countess Road.
We estimate there could be around 500 vehicles an hour - that would
mean one vehicle every seven seconds would be turning on to Countess
Road from the visitor centre. Simple, but more concrete calculations
based on the Environmental Statement figures of 5000 visitors per
peak day, suggest that if 60% arrive by car, that could mean in
the order of 375 cars per hour and possibly 10 coaches. This is
equivalent to a vehicle every 9 seconds, but is probably conservative.
Irrespective if it is a vehicle every 7 or 9 seconds, this is a
huge volume of traffic to be disgorged onto a road that is already
considered to be at the limit of its capacity at peak periods. This
is clearly unacceptable and is a direct result of the selection
of the wrong site for the visitor centre.
Thirdly the plan includes a controlled pedestrian crossing from
the visitor centre to the western side of Countess Road to allow
access to the Stonehenge monument and the world Heritage site on
foot. Obviously, this would exacerbate the already severe traffic
problem, which would also be suffering further problems from the
proposed new controlled pedestrian crossing on the Countess roundabout
slip-roads.
4. The extent to which the proposals are compatible with
Government proposals affecting the A 303 and A 344 roads.
Part of the Government proposal for the A 303 / Stonehenge road
improvement scheme is the closure of the A 344, and the provision
of a flyover at Countess Roundabout and the modification of the
traffic system there to provide an entrance for the proposed visitor
centre.
To deal with the A 344 first, this junction should have been closed
years ago as it kills people. Nevertheless, from the residents’
point of view I shall restrict my comments to the proposals for
Countess Roundabout. There is no doubt that the visitor centre will
bring with it increased volumes of traffic on the Countess roundabout
and for the traffic system to function there would have to be improvements
here. Any such improvements, however, would have absolutely no beneficial
effect on the traffic making its way out of the visitor centre on
to Countess Road – possibly500 vehicles an hour at peak periods
- which would all have to pass via Countess Roundabout, causing
further congestion there. (As part of the investigation into the
Road Improvement Scheme, a consultant engaged by English Heritabe
carried out a computer modelling study of potential traffic volumes
using the Countess Roundabout. We consider the results to be highly
flawed, as on their own admission the Highways Agency modelling
study was carried out assuming 100% compliance with traffic regulations,
and error-free driving.)
The visitor centre is therefore not compatible with the above proposals.
5. Whether the development proposed would be harmful to
the amenity of the occupiers of nearby dwellings.
The Shorter Oxford English Dictionary defines amenity as: "The
quality of being pleasant or agreeable".
There is no doubt that the residents of Countess Road, particularly
those at the southern end on the eastern side, will have their "amenity"
significantly and adversely affected. The following should be taken
into consideration:
- Noise. The proposal would bring with it several additional
sources of noise. These are:
o Vehicles entering, and leaving the centre and moving within
it. Particularly buses and coaches.
o Noise generated by the activities of the centre itself, including
probable out-of hours supply deliveries.
o Additional traffic noise on Countess Road itself caused by the
extra traffic in the road resulting from vehicles entering and
leaving the site.
o The land train. Not only from the point of view of its passage
to and from the drop-off points, but also from the point of view
of the parking, maintenance, servicing and inevitable need for
repair of the vehicles involved
- Exhaust fumes and other vehicle generated pollution.
- Dust and other particle pollution generated by the visitor centre
itself,
- Catering odours. The visitor centre will no doubt have a substantial
catering and cooking facility, which inevitably will be a source
of cooking smells.
- Light pollution. This is already significant in the area. Inevitably
such a visitor centre will require security lighting and that
will need to be illuminated throughout the hours of darkness,
which will merely add to the problem.
- Out of hours use. It is reasonable to expect that such an extensive
facility will not be allowed to remain out of use following normal
visiting hours. It is highly likely, if not inevitable, that conferences,
functions, etc. will take place once visiting for the day has
stopped. The effect of this will be to prolong an increase in
the adverse effects already mentioned.
- Privacy and security. If, as envisaged, the visitor centre is
to receive one million visitors a year, a goodly proportion of
them will end up looking straight over the back fences of the
adjacent houses and even stray on to the properties. Whilst the
vast majority of these will be harmless, if slightly intrusive,
sightseers, it can be guaranteed that some of them may approach
the properties adjacent to the visitor centre with dishonest intent.
- Additional traffic. This has been mentioned already, so need
not be repeated.
- Fly parking. On the back of what has been mentioned just now,
it is inevitable that there will be visitors who will not wish
to go through the "correct channels" and pass through
the visitor centre, but will choose instead to park along Countess
Road either in the existing lay-bys, or on the pavements. This
problem exists at the current site and is exacerbated by the levying
of a fee for parking there.
- Reduction in property values. Although they are not prepared
to put a percentage on it, local estate agents are of the view
that the development will have a significant downwards effect
on the value of properties in the area and make them hard to sell.
This is a problem that is already being experienced. One property,
on the western side of the road has had at least 20 viewings without
a single offer being made.
It is therefore clear from the above that this proposal will have
an adverse affect on the "amenity" of local residents,
particularly, but not exclusively, for those whose properties are
adjacent to the Countess East site. Indeed all those living locally,
or users of the A 345 will be and adversely affected, either by
the site itself, or by the traffic it generates.
I am neither an expert nor even an amateur archaeologist, but I
feel that the archaeology of the Countess East site has been conveniently
forgotten. Previously unknown Saxon settlements and Romano British
construction have been found there. We believe that Wessex Archaeology
and English Heritage have attributed some importance to this archaeology.
If this archaeology is considered by experts in the field, and by
English Heritage, as it is believed it does, to be of significant
even national importance, then there can be no question of planning
permission to develop the site being granted, certainly not until
the extent of these archaeological finds have been determined.
I should like to make two further points on the location and setting
of the visitor centre. It will be located immediately beneath 132kva
power lines. There are two risks here: first, the building itself
has a metal structure, meaning that any rupture of the power lines
above would have catastrophic consequences. I do not believe that
any risk assessment of this potential danger has been carried out;
secondly, when viewed from the East the visitor centre would be
crowned by a row of houses, and not by low vegetation. The picture
attached clearly shows the difference between reality and the conveniently
drawn artist’s impression.
CONCLUSION
I shall conclude by referring to Draft Main Issue number 11.
11. If harm were to be found in relation to any of the
foregoing main issues, whether there are circumstances present to
outweigh that harm and justify grant planning permission.
I believe I have demonstrated above that there is considerable
harm in relation to the issues that I have quoted. I do not believe
that there are any circumstances, or mitigating factors that outweigh
that harm. The source of this harm as far as we are, the local residents
are concerned is fundamental and obvious. The site chosen for the
visitor centre is in the wrong place. Were a more suitable site
to be chosen from those that exist the source of the harm would
be removed. We therefore believe that the Planning and Regulatory
Panel of Salisbury District Council was entirely correct in rejecting
the planning application by English Heritage for the Countess East
visitor centre and that the appeal against this decision by English
Heritage should not be upheld.
Stonehenge Alliance and
Avebury Society
CLOSING STATEMENT BY THE STONEHENGE ALLIANCE AND AVEBURY
SOCIETY
TO ENGLISH HERITAGE APPEAL INQUIRY
1. Introduction
The Stonehenge Alliance’s objections to the proposal remain
unchanged and are as set out in our evidence to the Inquiry, in
which we have attempted to deal with all of the matters raised by
the Inspector in relation to the appeal and identified by the Secretary
of State in relation to the call-in application. Further concerns
in relation to these objections have arisen in respect of matters
that have been heard at Inquiry.
The Avebury Society wishes to join with the Stonehenge Alliance
in this closing statement; Dr Fielden, our witness on archaeological
matters, having acted also for the Avebury Society throughout the
Inquiry.
The District Council has not defended its position on the Appeal
application and their evidence has been directed towards their decision
on the second application for a new Stonehenge visitor centre and
associated works which is not before this Inquiry.
Our principal concerns arising from matters raised at this Inquiry
are as follows.
2. Planning considerations
The Town and Country Planning Act 1990 as amended at Section 54A
says,
‘Where, in making any determination under the planning Acts,
regard is to be had to the development plan, the determination shall
be made in accordance with the plan unless material considerations
indicate otherwise.’
The development plan consists of the Wiltshire and Swindon Structure
Plan 2016 and the Salisbury District Local Plan 2003. The development
plan is relevant to this appeal and the appropriate policies of
these two plans have been presented to the Inquiry. It is submitted
that when these policies are taken as a whole the submitted proposals
are not in conformity with them. It is accepted that a site for
a new visitor centre is a material consideration as is the removal
of surface buildings at the present visitor centre with its surface
car park. These considerations need to be taken into account with
the development plan policies concerning the need to protect and
conserve the World Heritage Site and its archaeological monuments
and also the need to comply with the provisions of the UNESCO Convention
concerning the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage.
PPG15 makes it clear that inclusion of a site in the World Heritage
list highlights the international importance of the site as a key
material consideration in the determination of a planning appeal.
The word ‘key’ indicates the weight to be attached to
the international importance of the Site.
The Avebury Society has supplied a case history of decisions by
Secretaries of State on planning proposals at Avebury and other
UK WH Sites which we believe are relevant for this Inquiry.
3. The World Heritage Convention
It is agreed by English Heritage (EH) that no UK statutory controls
follow from inclusion of World Heritage Sites on the World Heritage
list. It is also agreed by EH that the UK Government has, in signing
the Convention, recognised its ‘duty of ensuring the identification,
protection, conservation, presentation and transmission to future
generations’ of the cultural heritage of the Stonehenge part
of the WHS (Article 4) and is committed to ‘endeavour, in
so far as possible . . . to take the appropriate legal, scientific,
technical, administrative and financial measures necessary for the
identification, protection, conservation, presentation and rehabilitation
of this heritage’ (Article 5(d)).
The Convention itself is a legal document; and it is incorrect to
describe it as ‘International Guidance’ as stated in
the SOCG (p.11).
The provisions of the Convention require States Party to identify
and delineate their cultural or natural sites of outstanding universal
value (Article 3). English Heritage’s witnesses did not challenge
the delineated boundary of the WHS nor, for the purpose of the Convention,
that the whole WHS is considered to be of outstanding universal
value (OUV).
Sir Neil Cossons, witness for English Heritage, expressed the view
that the application would provide for protection, conservation
and presentation of the WHS, and that, although measures for the
‘presentation’ of Stonehenge inevitably required some
disbenefits for conservation and protection, these could be weighed
one against another in terms of the requirements of the Convention.
We do not see any such provision for weighing the benefits and disbenefits
of these three requirements in the Convention. It is implicit in
the wording of the Convention that implementation of measures for
presentation must also ensure that protection and conservation of
the WHS are not compromised.
In our view, any development scheme that does not contribute to
conservation, protection, presentation and rehabilitation of the
WHS without damage to the Site in the short or longer term is not
acceptable. The basic assumption must be that no further damage
should be done to the WHS: so that any scheme for providing visitor-facilities
or road improvements must either be compatible with all of these
commitments or not compromise any of them.
Witnesses for English Heritage expressed the opinion that the central
area of the WHS, within the setting of the Stonehenge monument,
was of greater importance than the area outside the central area;
and that the benefits that would be gained for the central area
by the scheme would outweigh any disbenefits that would result from
the scheme in other parts of the WHS.
Mr Moore suggested in giving evidence that the henge and associated
monuments and sites were to be considered of greater OUV than the
remainder of the WHS. We believe that no such distinction can be
made under the obligations of the Convention.
We agree with the view of ICOMOS-UK, as expressed in their closing
statement to the A303 Inquiry, that OUV may be understood to be
present in the whole WHS in the
‘. . . complex archaeological landscape, its strong spatial
interrelationships, the dense collection of its monuments, its designed
landscaping, its ceremonial approaches, its associations with astronomical
practices, and its reflection of a long continuity of inhabited
space’ (ICOMOS-UK’s submission to this Inquiry, Annexe
3, para.10.2).
We also agree the concept of these characteristics and interrelationships
expressing OUV as being present in ‘layers’ across the
WHS, as discussed in Section 12 of ICOMOS-UK’s Annexe 3, mentioned
above. We have commended the whole of this ICOMOS-UK document to
the attention of the Inspector.
We have seen the letter to the Inspector from Professor Alec Boksenberg,
Chair of the UK National Commission for UNESCO (dated 7 December
2006), and note that this body supports the application largely
on the grounds that it will improve the visitor-experience. The
letter does however give scant regard to the wider obligations of
the WH Convention. We would like to point out to the Inspector that
this body is broadly based and was ‘designed and tasked to
work closely in partnership’ with the Government; it does
not speak for UNESCO and it is not specifically charged, as is ICOMOS-UK,
to advise the UK Government and, through ICOMOS International, the
World Heritage Committee on World Heritage Sites.
Mr Hobson, for English Heritage, referred to the A303 Inquiry Inspector’s
Report (D. Milton, PoE, Appendix 7, p.321, para 10.110) in which
he rejected the suggestion that balancing positive and negative
impacts is inappropriate in a WHS. In our view the A303 Inquiry
Inspector was wrong in his conclusion and in his recommendation,
in part because he had incorrectly interpreted the nature of OUV
and its application to the whole WHS and had given insufficient
weight to the requirement to meet the obligations of the World Heritage
Convention. We pointed to a press statement, issued on 30 March
2006 (K. Fielden, PoE, Appendix SA/2/2/9) by ten conservation organisations
including the NT, ICOMOS-UK and Stonehenge Alliance member-organisations,
stating (p.1, penult. para.) that
‘All challenge the Inspector’s reasoning and recommendation
in the A303 Public Inquiry Report, and consider that there could
be grounds for judicial review should the preferred scheme be approved
for implementation.’
We ask the Inspector to draw the content of this press statement
to the attention of the Secretary of State.
4. Supplementary Planning Guidance
4.1. Stonehenge WHS Management Plan (2000)
Sir Neil Cossons and Mr Carson, for English Heritage, said or indicated
that the application was compatible with Objectives of the Management
Plan and/or that the scheme would, through implementation of Management
Plan objectives, meet HMG’s obligations under the WHConvention.
Mr Carson, in cross examination however, admitted that many of the
Plan Objectives would not be met by the scheme, either wholly or
in part. It has been shown that the Management Plan’s aims
and objectives would not be met in terms of conservation and rehabilitation
of the core and wider areas of the WHS (Obs. 9, 10 and 11) nor of
the WHS as a whole (Obs. 2, 3, 6, 13).
Measures to enhance the ancient Avenue to make it more clearly visible
on the ground (Ob. 16) would be compromised by the presence of the
land trains and associated structures on King Barrow Ridge.
No ‘limits of acceptable change’ model has been drawn
up (Ob.15, para.4.4.19) to assist in management of the landscape;
nor has a comprehensive tourism plan been developed to benefit conservation
and tourism (Ob.17, para 4.5.1, first two bullet points).
The site chosen for the new ‘world class visitor centre’
(Ob.18) would not encourage the dispersal of visitors around the
whole WHS. The A303 Published Scheme, opposed by the Alliance and
the Avebury Society, does not fulfil the requirement of Objective
23, para 4.6.4, bullet point one). Objective 25 would also not be
fully met by the scheme and it would appear that realisation of
Ob 24 would be in some doubt.
4.2. Visitor Centre Planning Brief (1999)
It was established that the Planning Brief for a New Stonehenge
Visitor Centre (adopted as SPG in December 1999) differs substantially
from the application in its proposals for vehicular visitor-access
routes into the WHS: it only suggests drop-offs on King Barrow Ridge
(site unspecified) and at Fargo; and no route is proposed alongside
and to the north of the Cursus.
5. The land train
5.1. Route options
It has not been a part of the evidence submitted by ourselves to
make any suggestions for an alternative route for the land train,
but we were interested to see that in the evidence for the local
planning authority it was recognised that there were viable options.
Mr Milton in his proof at paragraph 7.34 recognised a southern route
would be a viable alternative option. It is agreed that this route
would be a viable alternative and if there is a demonstrable need
for a land train to run within the WHS it is accepted that this
route would be acceptable.
5.2. Visual impact
It has been shown that the land train would be an intrusion into
the landscape of outstanding universal value in the WHS. The appellant
has accepted that it would have some adverse impacts within the
WHS. It is considered that it would be conspicuous from many parts
of the open countryside particularly on and to the east of King
Barrow Ridge and would be an intrusion into the area where it would
run. It would adversely affect the tranquillity of the WHS. The
appellant has admitted that it would have an adverse impact on the
settings of a number Scheduled ancient monuments, some of them lying
within the ‘Core’ area of ceremonial monuments associated
with the henge: the Cursus, the barrows on King Barrow Ridge and
the Avenue. The large bus shelters would be incongruous features
in the landscape with their extensive glazed sides.
It is proposed by the applicant that mitigation by tree and shrub
planting will overcome the adverse effects of the land train scheme
on some of the Scheduled monuments. These measures are in conflict
with the Management Plan which seeks to limit screen planting where
used to justify development (Objective 13, para. 4.4.16, bullet
point one); and they are in some respects alien to the character
of the WHS.
The scale of the land train roads in the WHS indicates the effect
they would have on the landscape and visual appearance of the area.
Application Plan CO11 shows the metalled road surface as being variously
4m, 5m and 6m in width.
Application section drawings NR03.3 and NR04.3 show the metalled
surface on an embankment of up to 0.80m above ground level and some
10m in width which will be clearly visible in the landscape. Our
measurements of height were not challenged by the applicant whose
witness (Mr Moore) said in evidence that the height of the embankment
would be only c.0.40m.
It was admitted by Mr Blandford, for EH, that the land train roads
would be fenced. There are no application drawings showing fenced
land train roads or how the crossings of Bridleways 39 and 9A by
the land train roads would be constructed.
The proposed new path from the Seven Barrows drop-off up to King
Barrow Ridge would have a dressed surface width of 2.5m and its
overall width, with its shoulders, would be between 9m and 9.5m.
It would be another new distinct feature in this open landscape
which provides a setting for the monuments on King Barrow Ridge.
5.3. Land train specification and feasibility
It is clear from the advice of Mr Gamper, a consultant chartered
civil and structural engineer, and the evidence of our witness Dr
Moon, that the land train roads would not be wide enough for articulated
trains, each said by the applicant to be of four coaches some 2.5–3m
wide and 30–35m in combined length, to be driven along them.
(Indicative trains shown in the section drawing on Plan CO11 are
shown as c.2.5m wide without wing mirrors.) It was pointed out that
some of the curves in the track appeared too tight and too narrow
to accommodate the natural tendency of the later carriages to swing
wide during a turn. Mr Gamper noted that the turning circles appeared
inadequate for an articulated land train 35m long; and he could
not see how an articulated land train could possibly steer the route
in safety, even at low speed. Mr Gamper also noted that the proposed
structure of the track was potentially unstable and subject to seasonal
shrinking or expansion. The complete infeasibility of two trains
passing safely on a 5m wide section of track was established. None
of the observations made by Dr Moon and Mr Gamper was challenged
at the Inquiry.
The feasibility of measurements given on the plans and sections
for the land train roads provided with the application must therefore
be questioned.
5.4. Safety and emergency access
Further considerations arise from these observations in respect
of health and safety, emergency access to land trains, and the impracticality
of attending to and towing away land train vehicles that have broken
down. Mr Milton, for SDC, admitted that Health and Safety issues
had not yet been addressed.
5.5. Implications for changes to the land train road specification
The impacts of land train roads of greater dimensions than those
shown in the proposal on the buried archaeology and the settings
of monuments and the WHS landscape would need to be assessed in
the light of any new plans.
Mr Milton, for Salisbury District Council, expressed the opinion
that any changes to the dimensions of the land train roads would
require a fresh application and we are of the same view.
We hope that the Secretary of State would wish to ask for detailed
plan and section drawings of the land train route and the specification
for the land train that will be run upon it before determination
of the application, should she be minded to allow the Appeal.
6. Noise from the land train
Dr Moon drew attention to the unsubstantiated statement in the ES
that ‘The land train is a very quiet vehicle that would result
in no noise impacts’. He also pointed out that although para.
8.2.1 of the ES acknowledges that the potential impacts of the new
visitor centre and its operation include ‘Impacts of changes
in noise levels for visitors to the WHS and local rights of way
users’, no assessment of this had been made.
Dr Moon expressed the opinion that the Highways Agency’s
estimates of the post-A303 improvement noise levels formed the best
available estimate of the likely ambient noise and these gave around
40dB as the ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the land train
route near the northern end of King Barrow Ridge and the Cursus.
These estimates were not challenged.
Attention was drawn to the fact that the ES’s estimate of
70dB at 3m for the noise emitted by the land train had been revised
considerably upwards by the Temple Group report, produced by SDC
at the Inquiry, which considered 72dB at 10m to be more realistic,
indicating that the ‘very quiet vehicle’ would evidently
not be so quiet. Based on this assumption, Appendix 2 of the Temple
Group report gave predictions of the land train noise in a series
of drive-past scenarios and it was asserted by Dr Moon that these
showed that within 400m of the land train the noise from it would
equal or exceed an ambient noise of 40dB. This assertion was not
challenged.
It was concluded by Dr Moon that the land train would be audible,
and therefore intrusive, to visitors to this part of the WHS. This
is in contradiction to the assertion in the ES that the land train
would have no aural impact. Finally, it was established that all
of the conditions proposed by the Council to control land train
noise had been devised for the benefit of residents and none had
been devised to benefit visitors to the wider WHS. The noise of
the land trains, especially close to, would significantly adversely
affect the enjoyment of walkers on the rights of way and in the
open countryside: notably on Bridleways 39, 37 and 9A, and on King
Barrow Ridge and alongside the Cursus.
7. Archaeology
7.1. Land train: damage to archaeological remains and ‘reversibility’
Mr Moore, in cross-examination, confirmed the statement in the ES
that there could be some damage to archaeological remains in the
topsoil as a result of rolling prior to laying the land train roads.
He did not deny the suggestion that there could be damage to ‘in
situ’ archaeological remains as a result of compression over
time (he considered the roads would be in operation for 30 years
or more). Mr Moore did not deny the possibility of damage to archaeological
remains in the underlying ground in the process of ploughing, following
removal of the roads.
No full and satisfactory explanation has been given by the applicant
of the method of removal of the land train structures without damaging
archaeological remains and ‘without leaving any trace, either
visibly or in the archaeological record’ (C.Moore, PoE, para
4.4.6). An unsigned ‘Statement on the reversibility of the
land train track’ was produced by the applicant on 13 December.
It states that
‘The proposed methodology is a standard technique which has
been used on a number of occasions to construct tracks over archaeological
sites and monuments . . .’ without explaining what that technique
is.
Reference is made to research into ‘this methodology’
on Salisbury Plain but the information supplied again gives no information
about the technique employed, the underlying top and sub soils and
geology, how high any embankments were, or the length of time the
roads were in operation before removal. Nor does it indicate whether
the technique used for track removal left the ground unscarred either
visibly or in the archaeological record (for example, as a ‘crop
mark’ or visible trace from the air). No results of the research
were produced in evidence to the Inquiry. It has therefore not been
satisfactorily shown that the land train works would be fully ‘reversible’
in the manner suggested by the applicant.
We hope that the Secretary of State will wish to be fully assured
of a well-tried method for complete reversal without trace of the
land train roads and structures and the certainty that the process
of construction, use over many years and then removal may be undertaken
without damage to archaeological remains, before the application
is determined, should she be minded to allow the Appeal.
7.2. PPG 16
It is admitted by the applicant that the normal procedure for determining
applications where there is potential for important archaeological
remains to be found was not followed (PPG16 paras 21 and 22). This
advice is translated into Local Plan policy (Policies CN21 and CN22
and accompanying text, para.6.34). Trial trenching to investigate
the archaeological potential of extensive areas north of and close
to the Scheduled Cursus monument has not been done. It is admitted
that this could alter proposals for tree screening in these locations.
But we do not consider the alternative use of close-boarded fencing
on an embankment a suitable method of screening the land train:
this would introduce another alien feature into the landscape alongside
the land train embankment and the Cursus monument, bringing greater
adverse effects to the setting of the Scheduled Cursus and upstanding
barrows close by.
We request that the Secretary of State, if minded to allow the
Appeal, should ask for the necessary trial trenching work to be
done in advance of determination of the application, in the interest
of ensuring that best practice and procedure in line with Government
advice are followed and the impacts of proposed screening of the
land train route may be fully assessed beforehand.
7.3. Archaeological advice to the LPA
PPG16 advises that the County Archaeological Officer’s advice
should be sought on applications of the kind before us. It was agreed
by Mr Milton in cross-examination that he had been advised by telephone
by WCC’s CEO, to ignore the County Archaeologist’s advice
and that, in his view, this was a ‘political’ decision.
Although he was asked not to take it, Mr Milton continued to seek
the County Archaeologist’s advice, apparently on an informal
basis. We know, however, that he did not mention the County Archaeologist’s
written advice to refuse the application (K. Fielden, Appendix,
SA/2/2/14) to the Council’s Planning and Regulatory Panel;
and that he did not take his advice in asking for more information
on test pitting data that had not been produced at the ‘Supplementary
Information’ stage in May 2005 (letter from Roy Canham to
Mr Milton, 27.6.05, para 2; produced by Dr Fielden at the Inquiry).
We do not know what other advice was offered to Mr Milton by the
County Archaeologist nor what action was taken upon it.
PPG16 advises that the advice of the County Archaeologist or English
Heritage should be sought as a part of the research into the archaeological
potential of a development site (PPG16, para 19); and this is translated
into local plan policy (Salisbury District Local Plan, para 6.33)
where it is specified that the advice of the County Archaeologist
will be sought.
We consider it acceptable in principle for WCC to hold a corporate
view that the application should be granted but that it was wrong
of WCC to ask the LPA to ignore the advice of the County Archaeologist
when Government advises that it should be sought and especially
when a significant part of an application affects an archaeological
WHS of the utmost international archaeological sensitivity. We also
believe that it was wrong that the only other professional archaeological
advice given to the Council on a regular basis appears to have been
that of the applicant. We believe that a precedent may have been
set here that has implications for planning case law.
The letter from English Heritage’s Curatorial Unit produced
by Mr Milton at the Inquiry (A. Chadburn to Mr Milton, 5.7.05),
differs in advice given in the letter of the County Archaeologist
of similar date (26.6.05).
Ms Chadburn’s letter indicates that the EH Stonehenge Curatorial
Unit was ‘content the curatorial comments on this application
have continued to be taken on board and reflected in the final scheme’.
The letter does not mention the necessity for trial trenching north
of the Cursus at all; nor does it refer to the settings of any monuments
in the WHS landscape or the impact of the development on the WHS
landscape itself.
No witness from its Curatorial Unit was put forward by English Heritage.
When questioned about the Scheduled Monument Consent (SMC) for
works in relation to the Cursus, referred to in Ms Chadburn’s
letter, Mr Milton did not know what these were: we were surprised
by this statement.
Furthermore, Mr Milton stated in cross-examination that he understood
that the archaeological potential of the area yet to be fully evaluated
was ‘low’ although it is stated in the ES as being ‘high’.
Mr Milton several times said in cross-examination that as a non-specialist,
he relied on the advice of specialists in archaeology.
We believe that matters revealed at the Inquiry in relation to
the proper implementation of Government advice and planning policy
on archaeological evaluation are highly unsatisfactory. From the
advice we have seen from English Heritage to Mr Milton – which
omits to mention significant aspects of the necessary evaluation
procedure, as well as the adverse impacts of the scheme on the settings
of a number of Scheduled monuments and the WHS itself, and indicates
English Heritage’s satisfaction with the scheme – we
find it difficult to accept that this advice was wholly impartial.
We consider that this application is one where best practice in
archaeology and planning should be seen to have been adopted and
that, for whatever reason, that has quite clearly not happened.
8. Impacts on the settings of monuments and the landscape
of the WHS
We note that Mr Moore, although admitting in his evidence that there
would be adverse impacts on the settings of a number of Scheduled
monuments and parts of the WHS, said in cross-examination that he
was unable to judge whether these impacts would conflict with Local
and Structure Plan policies concerning the protection of the settings
of the WHS and its monuments: he considered this to be the duty
of the LPA. In our view this is an extraordinary statement from
an archaeological consultant.
We also consider the absence of recognition of the importance of
the archaeological monuments in the WHS landscape by Mr Blandford,
the applicant’s landscape witness, in his proof of evidence
also to be quite extraordinary. In cross-examination Mr Blandford
said that the archaeological aspects of the application were not
being dealt with by him.
There is a clear attempt by the applicants to ‘play down’
the importance of the archaeological landscape of the WHS beyond
the ‘central area’ identified as benefiting from the
scheme but admitted by witnesses as being only a part of the Management
Plan’s ‘Core’ management zone.
It was suggested by Mr Blandford that, if important archaeological
remains were discovered north of the Cursus and it was necessary
to leave them in situ, close-boarded fencing and climbing shrubs
on a bund might be used where tree screening could not be planted.
Mr Blandford was only able to suggest honeysuckle as a climbing
shrub – a woodland plant that needs support. In our view,
it would not be possible to achieve successful low-maintenance planting
to screen such fencing with climbers without the very extensive
use of ivy or non-native species. Presumably the same kind of treatment
is envisaged in relation to fencing proposed to screen the land
train from the houses at Strangways. This kind of planting would
create a suburban buffer-effect, such as might be seen in a railway
cutting; it would not be appropriate to the countryside of the WHS.
Furthermore, were this kind of screening to be the only viable option
for providing a buffer for the Steel Houses, it would depart substantially
from the 20m tree belt that is proposed on the plans.
We are further concerned about the proposed new surfacing of Byway
12 which would be an incongruous feature in the open countryside
of the ‘Core’ area of the WHS. It is also unclear precisely
where the surfacing would be laid within the byway, raising concerns
about its use and degradation by vehicles other than bicycles and
wheelchairs.
Mr Norfolk’s evidence that the landscape section of the ES
was defective in not following industry standards was not effectively
challenged. There was no incorporation into the landscape characterisation
or the assessment of landscape and visual impacts of
· The interrelationship between important factors
· The views of important groups of stakeholders
· The intention to make more of the WHS open access grassland
· Intangible but important aspects of landscape character
· A historical perspective of the ‘time-depth’
of the WHS
· Sensitivity of different user groups.
Because the relevant guidelines were not followed, the landscape
characterisation, the assessment of sensitivity of landscape character
areas, the sensitivity of ‘visual receptors’, and the
assessment of impacts are unreliable and understated, which means
that Part 6 of the Environmental Statement is seriously flawed.
9. Transport and traffic
9.1. Adequacy of information
Transport information emerged at the Appeal which differed significantly
from that which was available when we submitted our proofs of evidence.
We learned from the SOCG and the Highways Agency’s accompanying
report (Appendix 4, para 5.2) that the slip roads to the new Visitor
Centre were at risk of congestion at peak times and that an operational
strategy and pre-emptive action would be needed as part of Condition
48. This is in contrast with the assumption in paragraph 2.7.12
in the Transport Assessment which states that ‘traffic generated
by the new Visitor Centre could be more than adequately accommodated
with the highway network, both now and in the future.’
In managing the numbers of car borne visitors the Travel Plan would
therefore have to play a central role. However, information accompanying
the Travel Plan was limited, and para 8.5 of The Plan gives it the
status of a ‘framework’ and says that it would be permitted
to evolve. Weakness of the Travel Plan was conceded by Mr Milton
in cross examination but in addressing the issue of ‘pre-emptive
action’ Mr Carson revealed a traffic management plan in addition.
Mr Carson explained that part of EH’s strategy would involve
warning potential visitors to book in advance for a 2-hour ticket
at peak times and that casual visitors could be mopped up within
the slack created in the booking system. Notices to motorists would
be displayed along approach roads to the Visitor Centre to announce
when Stonehenge was full. Although Mr Carson ‘hoped that timed
ticketing would work’, paragraph 10.1.7 of the Transport Assessment
undermined that aspiration and warned of long delays in processing
visitors at peak times. The absence of critical detail of such significance
in the Environmental Statement at the time of the application is
a remarkable omission which has not been adequately addressed by
the SOCG nor the S.106 Agreement, considered below.
In cross examination both Mr Milton and Mr Carson deferred to their
professional and statutory advisers, WCC and the Highways Agency,
on transport matters. However neither party were invited as transport
witnesses. We were therefore unable to ascertain, inter alia, the
likelihood of congestion along Countess Road at egress between the
new Visitor Centre and Countess Roundabout, nor the efficacy of
managing fly parking from this site.
9.2. Non-compliance with guidance on transport
Linked to non compliance with guidance is demand management described
in PPG13 para 49, supported by the Good Practice Guide on Tourism
(para 3.2). These emphasise the role of parking to control car use,
strengthened by PPG 13 para 58 which states that lack of compliance
should ‘generally’ be grounds for refusing planning
permission.
Contrary to PPG13 para 52 which prohibits minimum levels of parking,
other than for disabled people; PPG13, paras 53 to 56, which requires
a maximum level informed by Schedule D; and Wiltshire Structure
Plan policy T6; it was concluded in cross examination with Mr Carson
and Mr Milton that a maximum level did not apply and that the minimum
parking level was 581: three times the current land take for parking.
Further calculations in cross examination suggested that between
810 and well in excess of 900 spaces might be required at peak times
under the scenario of a straight transfer of current visitor numbers
due to the three-fold increase in dwell time. The early aspiration
for 1.8 million visitors cited by SDC’s Cllr Spencer in the
Planning Committee report of 26 January 2000 would suggest that
if achieved the scale of parking provision for a successful business
case has been greatly underestimated. Mr Milton pointed out that
additional land could become available for parking, subject to a
further planning application.
Although in Mr Milton’s professional judgment the balance
of benefits outweighed Government guidance, this is contrary to
policies designed to strengthen sustainable transport and wider
environmental interests sought by the application and Stonehenge
Management Plan Objective 25, especially at a time when the state
of the transport debate is moving rapidly towards economic instruments
to influence climate change.
9.3. Weak Travel Plan
The site works against enforceable and effective parking measures,
a key tool in any good Travel Plan. This is particularly due to
the requirement for free access and people’s frustrated desire
in simply coming to see the Henge but being forced to dwell longer.
The Travel Plan does not quantify reduction targets for car borne
visitors, nor reduction targets for carbon dioxide emissions, nor
is there an aim for more efficient land use. In questioning Mr Carson,
targets in the S.106 Agreement were promised but none have been
produced. Travel Plan obligations in the S.106 Agreement should
contain targets that are stretching and SMART (i.e. Specific Measurable
Achievable Realistic Time-related). It is insufficient to apply
best practice at a secondary stage without the benefit of proper
scrutiny of such aims and targets prior to planning permission.
This in itself is contrary to best practice, and leaves too much
to chance to fulfil Management Plan Objectives 24 and 25.
Modal shift requires ‘carrots’ and cannot be achieved
unless the alternatives compete on cost, comfort and convenience
of the motor car. This requires investment which the application
could provide for new or improved non-car access, and new bus routes
serving other nearby sites, and modernizing the bus infrastructure
used by the less able bodied or those without access to a car. Despite
this requirement in Wiltshire’s Structure Plan Policy T3,
the LPA have no plans for such investment. Under cross examination
Mr Milton considered that market forces would be sufficient to tempt
visitors, even though it was explained that some of the county’s
subsidised services might be under threat.
9.4. Site selection
The two major attractions, visitor centre and henge 3km apart would
generate a great deal of traffic next to a busy main road, risking
traffic chaos at peak times, at least for 20 days of the year given
a no-growth scenario. In other words, the site risks a major access
problem that would be extremely difficult to manage.
When considering the impact of traffic we looked at the new visitor
centre as a package of three functions:
· an educational and recreational centre about 3km from
the Henge;
· a terminus to facilitate access to the WHS and monuments;
and
· an extremely large park and ride
We do support a better quality visitor centre, but in traffic terms
we advocate separating the park and ride function from the educational
and recreational function and replacing the transit with a short
shuttle bus on existing roadways. We need to go back to the drawing
board, consider updating the current facilities and, perhaps as
a second step combined with closure of the A303/A344 junction, re-siting
the car park a short shuttle bus ride away which could deliver visitors
to an entrance to the west of the henge. We need to address the
causes of traffic growth and site this scheme more favourably.
10. The A303
10.1. The position of the National Trust
The position of the National Trust is important in relation to the
outcome of this appeal. Its position is set out in a letter written
to The Planning Inspectorate of
2 October 2006. It says that the Trust supports the visitor centre
and access scheme. It then goes on to add qualifications to this
statement in relation to the A303 Improvement Scheme by saying the
support hinges substantially on the application of a tunnel of acceptable
length, i.e of more than 2.9km, or of an alternative which removes
traffic while protecting the World Heritage Site. Finally it says
that if supporting the 2.1km tunnel published scheme is a necessary
condition of supporting the application for the visitor facilities
and access scheme then the Trust does not support the application.
If the proposals before this Inquiry were to be approved then they
would only go ahead in relation to the provisions of the A303 Improvement
Scheme that was considered at the 2004 Public Inquiry being implemented.
This A303 scheme proposed a 2.1km bored tunnel. In these circumstances
there is no support for the appeal proposals by the National Trust.
10.2. The position of the Stonehenge Alliance and the Avebury Society
We have stated in our evidence to the Inquiry that we do not support
the A303 Published Scheme or any of the options proposed in the
A303 Options Review.
In order to clear up any misunderstanding of our position with regard
to suggested condition 44 of the Statement of Common Ground our
position is that we understand why it has been agreed by Salisbury
District Council and English Heritage in relation to the Appeal
proposals. As we opposed the A303 Improvement Scheme at the 2004
Public Inquiry we consider it would be inconsistent for us to endorse
it at this time.
We consider that the application for the new visitor centre is premature
in the absence of a decision on the A303.
11. Legal Considerations
11.1. Scheduled Monument Consent
Scheduled Monument Consent (SMC) is required for works associated
with the Cursus monument. An application for SMC has not been supplied
with the application presumably because, in this case, English Heritage
is able to grant itself SMC. We note that SMC is required for works
to move a trackway from the Cursus Long Barrow, and to metal part
of Byway 12 that is currently an unmetalled track which lies across
the Cursus. We believe that in the interest of natural justice and
in a case such as this, full details of SMC works should have been
made a part of the application. However, it is now for the Secretary
of State to make a decision with regard to SMC and we hope that
she will wish to have the details of the works to be undertaken,
possibly in the form of an application, placed before her before
making a decision on the application as a whole.
11.2. The Appropriate Assessment
The Alliance’s view concerning the incompleteness of the Appropriate
Assessment which is a legal requirement under the Habitats Directive
was not challenged by the applicant or the District Council. We
presented evidence to the Inquiry indicating that English Nature
was unaware of any new findings on hydrogeology in relation to the
A303 proposed tunnel.
In cross-examination on this matter by the Council, our witness
Dr Fielden pointed out that the wording of conditions in relation
to the protection of the River Avon SAC was a procedure that should
be applied following satisfactory completion of the Appropriate
Assessment and ought strictly not to be done or judged in advance
of that exercise. The Appropriate Assessment should now be undertaken
by the Secretary of State who will determine the application. Following
full appropriate assessment, to include any implications arising
from the new findings on hydrogeology in relation to the A303 scheme
in the ‘in combination’ assessment of impacts on the
SAC, it might be necessary to modify or propose new construction
measures to protect the SAC. The Construction Environmental Management
and Ecological Management and Monitoring Plans to which the currently
proposed conditions refer might also need to be modified accordingly.
An unsigned note from the Highways Agency was produced at the Inquiry
on 13 December. It implied that an Appropriate Assessment had been
undertaken for the A303 Published Scheme: if one has been undertaken
by the Secretary of State for Transport as decision-maker, we are
surprised that it was not made available to SDC in the preparation
of their Appropriate Assessment for the Appeal application. We are
not convinced that the factors which gave rise to the increased
cost of the tunnelling proposals for the A303 would not require
alterations to the Environmental Statement or the Appropriate Assessment
for the A303 scheme. The hydrogeological problems that are said
to have arisen were matters that we pointed to in our evidence to
the A303 Inquiry and were dismissed at the time by the Highways
Agency. Despite these findings having, as a result of their leading
to increased costs in tunnelling, persuaded the Secretary of State
for Transport to undertake an options review on the A303, Mr Jones
of the Highways Agency informed Dr Fielden before the Inquiry that
no report on the new findings had been produced which is a matter
of some considerable surprise to us. There is now public concern
about these findings that needs to be satisfied in relation to Appropriate
Assessments for both the road and visitor centre proposals.
We would not have expected any of the A303 Review Steering Group
bodies to have been asked to consider the Appropriate Assessment
for the A303 as a part of that Review.
As in the case of the A303 Inquiry, where no Appropriate Assessment
has yet been made available for consultation to third parties by
the determining authority, we also believe that the Secretary of
State’s Appropriate Assessment should, in this high-profile
case and in the interest of natural justice, be made available for
comment by third parties before determination of this application.
12. Case Law
12.1. Coal Contractors Ltd v Secretary of State for the Environment
and Northumberland County Council 1993
We wish to draw your attention to the decision taken in the Queen’s
Bench Division in the case of Coal Contractors Ltd v Secretary of
State for the Environment and Northumberland County Council 1993
(E. Holmes, Appendix to PoE, AVS/15).
The Court case arose from an appeal against the decision of the
Secretary of State to refuse an application for opencast mining
and the reclamation of disused colliery works to take place for
two years. The site of the proposed development was within the setting
of the Hadrian’s Wall World Heritage Site. The site lies within
land designated as an Area of Great Landscape Value. Hadrian’s
Wall is a Scheduled Ancient Monument and the area has exceptional
qualities in historical and archaeological terms. The development
plan contained policies which dealt with conservation of the landscape
and protection of the vicinity of Hadrian’s wall having regard
to the special archaeological and environmental qualities of the
Wall and its setting. There were policies supporting tourism. As
part of the planning application there would have been a planning
gain in respect of land restoration of an old colliery. The circumstances
of the application have similarities to this appeal application.
The Secretary of State in dismissing the appeal decided the proposals
notwithstanding the relatively short duration of the development
would be an alien and visually intrusive feature damaging the setting
of Hadrian’s Wall and the World Heritage Site and would not
be in accordance with the development plan and there were no other
material considerations sufficient to override the presumption that
the appeal should be determined in accordance with the provisions
of the development plan. The subsequent attempt by the developer
to have the Secretary of State’s decision overturned failed
in the High Court which ruled that the Secretary of State had ‘elevated
the world heritage site factor to the main consideration in the
planning decision did not have the effect of rendering his reasoning
obscure’.
It is requested that this decision of the Court is brought to the
attention of the Secretary of State.
12.2. Hereford Waste Watchers Ltd v Hereford District Council 2005
In the case of Hereford Waste Watchers Ltd v Hereford DC 2005 it
was claimed that the applicant of the planning application had failed
to provide relevant information to support the application and as
a consequence the Council had been unable to assess the effects
of the proposal. It was decided that the Council should have insisted
upon the provision of the additional information before granting
planning permission. The planning permission was quashed. The decision
of this case indicates the importance of the Council having full
information on all aspects of a planning application before determining
it.
The proposed land train forms an important part of the planning
application subject of the present Appeal as it could have significant
environmental effects within the WHS. The Case Officer in his report
to the Council said that the actual land train will not be commissioned
until planning permission is granted. Indicative illustrations of
potential land trains have been submitted with the application although
it is important to note that the specific land train to be used
will be bespoke and not commissioned until the Stonehenge Project
gets the go ahead.
The Case Officer recommended that a condition should be attached
to the permission requiring the development hereby permitted should
not commence until full details of the design and specification
(including actual noise emissions) of the land train to be used
to take visitors between the new visitor centre and the WHS have
been submitted to and approved by the LPA. The minimum criteria
it should meet are those set out by English Heritage in their document
entitled ‘Outline Design Principles For Land Train System’
dated 2 June 2006.
The requirement of this condition indicates there are no details
about the land train available at the present time sufficient to
make a judgement on their suitability to operate within the WHS.
It is considered the Council should have refused to deal with the
application without the full details of the land train because of
its importance in the planning application.
13. Conclusions
We believe that we have shown that the application, in so far as
important parts of it, notably the land train works, may be judged,
would cause demonstrable harm to the WHS and the settings of a number
of its principal monuments. There could be damage to archaeological
remains in the topsoil as a result of rolling the surface prior
to construction of the land train embankments; and archaeological
remains north of the Cursus might be disturbed and some even destroyed
in excavation prior to tree planting in this area.
There would be considerable damage to the present visual experience
of and quiet enjoyment by visitors and local users of the bridleways
and footpaths of parts of the WHS that are at present open countryside;
the tranquillity of these areas would be improved if the A303 were
removed into a tunnel and cuttings, but the presence of the land
train nearby would make them less tranquil than they are at present.
We believe that the experience of those who would use the land
train from the new visitor centre would not be exceptional since,
for much of the journey in the train they would see and comprehend
little of the WHS; those on the north side of the train to and from
Durrington Farm would see only hedges, trees and close boarded fences
for most of the journey.
The walk to the henge from the drop-offs would be too far for many
visitors there and back; and it is unrealistic to imagine that more
than a few would be able or keen to walk to other parts of the WHS
having visited the henge. The land train would not disperse visitors
around the whole WHS. It would raise expectations that we suspect,
in many cases, would not be met.
It is considered the planning application is deficient in respect
of two fundamental components of the application. First, the information
about the land train scheme is lacking sufficient detail to enable
a proper judgement of it. Second, there is no adequate information
about the archaeology in the area north of the Cursus monument.
Complete information on these two matters is essential before the
appeal application can be determined.
The planning conditions proposed should the appeal be successful
would leave a very considerable amount of detail to be decided by
the local planning authority and, in our view, the amount of detail
to be decided is excessive.
We hope that the Secretary of State, should she be minded to allow
the appeal, will make it a condition of planning permission that
before determination of the application,
(i) the necessary trial trenching north of the Cursus is undertaken
and its results are assessed by a specialist archaeologist who is
independent of the applicant;
(ii) full plan and section drawings at a scale of 1:50 for the land
train scheme are presented for public scrutiny; and
(iii) a full Travel Plan is produced
We also request that the Appropriate Assessment in respect of the
River Avon SAC is made available to public view in advance of determination
of the application.
We support the Council’s reasons for refusal of the application
and hope that the Secretary of State will be minded not to allow
the Appeal.
Wiltshire Archeological
and Natural History Society
CLOSING STATEMENT
TO ENGLISH HERITAGE APPEAL INQUIRY
1 Introduction
1.1 Although this inquiry is about one of many of the visitor centre
proposals for the Stonehenge site, it is nevertheless a first in
more than one respect. It is the first visitor centre proposal to
be considered at an inquiry after the UNESCO inscription of the
Avebury & Stonehenge World Heritage Site. It is also the first
time that a Planning Inspector or the Secretary of State have had
the chance to consider the provision of a new visitor facility within
the framework of the Management Plan. It is the first proposal for
a visitor centre outside the World Heritage Site. But is it a Visitor
Centre too far?
1.2 There are, therefore, no helpful precedents highlighting where
previous proposals were acceptable and the margins by which they
failed. This is the first attempt, and the only other scheme considered
within the same framework was not a scheme about the preservation
of World Heritage; it was, of course the proposal for revisions
to the A303. What could be further from this visitor centre proposal,
and yet what could be more closely linked? We will come to that
a little later.
2 The Development Plan, and the Statutory Presumption in
favour of development.
2.1 If one is going to begin at the beginning, what does the Society
believe is the starting point when considering this application?
Well, the first thing is that the presumption in the legislation,
contained in s54A of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, and
more recently s38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act
2004, namely a presumption in favour of development in accordance
with the development plan, unless material considerations indicate
otherwise .
2.2 Two of those material considerations are planning policy guidance
notes. Although PPG16 is entitled “Archaeology & Planning”
and this World Heritage Site was inscribed because of the archaeological
remains, it is PPG 15 “Planning and the Historic Environment”
which is the starting point. The reason for this is because the
status, such as it is, of World Heritage Sites is not found within
in our planning legislation, but in PPG15:-
"No additional statutory controls follow from the inclusion
of a site in the World Heritage list. Inclusion does, however, highlight
the outstanding international importance of the site as a key material
consideration to be taken into account by local planning authorities
in determining planning and listed building consent applications,
and by the Secretary of State in determining cases on appeal or
following call-in."
Paragraph 2.22
2.3 And then we have Supplementary Planning Guidance adopted by
Salisbury District Council, the ‘Stonehenge World Heritage
Site Management Plan’. If you take a look at your copy, sir,
you will see it bears the logos of English Heritage and Chris Blandford
Associates.
I mention this because one imagines that with the inquiry assisted
by the presence of both there should be no doubts about the proper
management of the site that the Plan is designed to ensure. However,
it is worth examining where some of the differences lie.
3 The Stonehenge Management Pla
|
