Proposed Stonehenge Visitor Centre. Hot News

Now that the website is under the direct control of the CRRG, this news page in particular will be updated more frequently. In addition, the contact page has been altered, so feedback will now reach us immediately whereas it may not have done so in the past. Please note that all feedback received via this site will be acknowledged. We are most grateful for it.

The purpose of this page is to bring recent events and items of news and relevant interest to public attention. It also includes some useful background information and "lukewarm" news.

Due to the volume of material that has been produced, articles or letters published before 14 October 2004 has now been moved to the Press Archives page.

LATEST NEWS

6 SEPTEMBER 2008

English Heritage have now published their five (with a possible sixth) proposals for a new Stonehenge visitor centre. Not only have the plans been exhibited as set out below, but a site visit has been conducted, to which interested parties were invited. This was held on 4 September 2008 and was attended by about 40 people representing a wide range of interest: EH, NT, MoD, RSPB, local residents, various archeological organisations, the Highways Agency, local farmers, local government, et. al..

The five options and their sub-variants are set out in tabular form below. The sixth option is not shown in detail as it is a recent addition. EH have recently become aware that the owner of Greenlands farm is quite positive about visitor centre facilities being close to his farm.

The site visit was a valuable exercise and much useful comment, opinion and factual information was aired. What is not yet known is if EH has a preferred option and if so, which of the various combinations it is. What is certain is that all options involve the closure of the A303/A344 junction and alteration to the A344 to the west of Stonehenge.

To examine more closely the EH proposals, click here. To coment on EH proposals directly, click here.

First, apologies to all our visitors for such a long silence. This has been due to other pressures on the group members and patiently awaiting developments.

English Heritage are about to publish their revised plans for a new Stonehenge visitor centre following the demise of the previous plan due to the A303 road improvement scheme being shelved.

According to a meeting called by English Heritage and held in Amesbury on 15 July, five schemes will be put forward for consultation and comment. It is understood that all of these will be to the west of Stonehenge itself.

AMESBURY - Thu 17 Jul and Fri 18 Jul 13.00 to 18.00 and Sat 19 Jul 10.00 to 17.00
Antrobus house, 39 Salisbury Road, Amesbury SP4 7HH

LONDON - Thu 24 Jul and Sat 26 Jul 10.00 to 17.00
Society of Antiquaries, Burlington House, Picadilly, London, W1J 0BE

SALISBURY - 28 Jul to 17 Oct 2008
Wyndham House, 65 The Close, Salisbury, SP1 2 EN
Times by arrangement during office hours via 01722 343830

It is understood that a brochure with comment sheet will be available to take away.

Two things are of note from the meeting on 15 Jul referred to above. English Heritage are extreemely keen to have the visitor centre in place by the 2012 Olympic Games and the degree of support from the National Trust for the schemes to be exhibited is, despite protestations to the contrary, still uncertain.

It was announced in the House of Commons that the Government had not to go ahead with the published road improvement scheme for the A303 and Stonehenge for reasons of costs. At today's prices the scheme would have cost £540 million. It has already taken £23 million to reach this decision!

At present no alternative scheme will be investigated, but it was announced that minor improvements may be made, most significantly the possible closure of the notorious A303/A344 junction.

Along with the road scheme goes the English Heritage plan for the Countess visitor centre, of course, who will no doubt investagate alternatives.

Naturally the announcement has been greeted with dismay by some (most notably the MP for Salisbury, Mr Robert Key, and EH). Others, like us, have greeted it with relief: local residents and environmental groups, who view the decision as a triumph for common sense.

We await with interest what minor improvements will be announced, what the EH alternative plan will be and what will happen to the Countess Roundabout site, which is currently farm land, and should remain so.

Apologies to all our visitors for such a long silence and lack of updating. This has been in part due to lack of developments and availability.

Since the last announcment below, we have been waiting for a Government announcement on the fate of the A303/Stonehenge road improvment scheme upon which so much depends, including the English Heritage plan for the visitor centre at Countess roundabout.

About two weeks ago there was an article on the BBC news, which reported that there would shortly be an announcement by the Government that funding, approximately £507 million, would not be available for the highly controversial A303 road improvement plan. This followed various reports, articles and letters to local and national newspapers highlighting its merits and demerits. Including contributions from our local MP!

Well, the latest word on the block is that there is to be an announcment in the House today, 5 Dec 2007, at 11 o'clock announcing that the scheme is to be scrapped and nothing offered as an alternative. This, of course, would have a dramatic effect on the English Heritage plans. It is understood that they are preparing a statment, but not sending a spokesperson to Stonehenge.

As expected the announcement of the Government's decision was made on Thursday 29 March. Unfortunately it was not as we had been led to expect. On the recommendation of the Inspector, the Minister recommended that the English Heritage appeal be upheld and planning permission for the Countess East visitor centre granted, along with all that goes with it. There was, however a long list caveats. There is not space to go into detail, but the most significant one is that development of the site must not begin until the published A303 road improvement scheme is approved, funded and scheduled. As we know, this is nothing new! It means, though, that it is still extremely uncertain that the scheme will go ahead - and that yet another Government decision is awaited.

Visitors to this site may also like to read the article on the "This is Wiltshire" site, which stresses:

"The [National] Trust's support for the Visitor Facilities and Access Scheme hinges substantially on the completion of a tunnel of acceptable length or an alternative which removes traffic while protecting the integrity of the World Heritage Site.
"In the Trust's view the Published Scheme, with its 2.1km of tunnel and about 3.4km of surface dual carriageway within the World Heritage Site, fails to meet this vision. "

and closes with:

"The Trust cannot accept the introduction of a new road for a Land Train through land it protects permanently for the benefit of everyone while, a short distance away, traffic still roars along open stretches of dual carriageway."

One of the anomalies of English Law is that it is possible to apply for and be granted planning permission for land that one does not own, which is the case here as the proposed Land Train roadway would be on land owned by the National Trust.

The article reinforces the fact that the National Trust and Engish Heritage are still miles apart over the future for Stonehenge!

Note also the comments posted at the bottom of the page linked above - one by a former chairman of the CRRG!

We have been warned to look out for an announcement from Central Government in the next few days about the English Heritage plan for Countess East.

A number of people received a letter from the Planning Inspectorate recently that said that the inspector at the appeal hearing in December 2006 (see below) was preparing his report and recommendation for submission to the Secretary of State, who would issue her decision on or before 12 April this year. Some feel that the timing is surprising, suggesting that the Visitor Centre Appeal would have to be fast tracked to meet this date. Even more interesting are rumours coming from a number of MPs that the government might opt for surface dualling of the A303, without a tunnel. This option - once said by the Government to be "the one thing that would never be countenanced" - would cause particular concern and might be an attempt to soften up the heritage lobby for a compromise or was seriously being considered. Feeling has it that the government will try to use the Visitor Centre as a lever to make EH and others choose cheaper options, but if no compromise can be found then it may all get put back on the shelf for another 20 years. We live in hope!

On Tuesday, 30 Jan there was the announcement of the discovery of neolithic remains between Durrington Walls and the River Avon (grid reference SU 153437). Despite the fact that this information has been in the public domain for over a year - it was even featured in a Time Team production introduced by Tony Robinson! - it was given considarable media coverage both in the press and on the television. Much of this coverage misleadingly stated that the discovery of these remains were "at Stonehenge". Nothing could be further from the truth. The remains are over 2 miles from the Stones.

Why the announcement should be made now is a mystery, unless it has been timed to coincide with other announcements in the near future.

Not covered in the media is the fact that this "discovery" is only a few hundred metres upstream from the Countess East site chosen by English Heritage for its new Stonehenge Visitor Centre.

In the light of recent coverage of the Durrington Walls "discovery", visitors may wish to make an interesting comparison with the assessment of the archeology at Countess East, the importance of which is downplayed by EH. The assessment of this can be read here here.

The charts below were first published on this site in August 2005. To see how things have changed, click here.

Latest available figures from the British Tourism Authority show that Stonehenge once again languishes towards the bottom of the major paid admission attractions league table. It achieved only 25% of the top attraction visitor numbers, and only 3% more than the lowest entry.

Latest available costings for the project – the A303, visitor centre and world heritage site - suggest that it's now edging towards £600m. It could overtake the Millennium Dome, and now has Wembley Stadium as a serious contender for top place - unless one considers the 2012 Olympics, which will dwarf everything...!

To make a comparison with previous versions of the charts above, click here.

Well, the appeal hearing is now over. Telephones and laptops have fallen silent; email and internet traffic can again be easily accessed, and the objectors are wondering what to do with the sudden activity vacuum! Fortunately Christmas and New Year quickly followed the hearing, so there was a gentle let-down, with distractions! What will the New Year bring, one wonders................?

The English Heritage appeal hearing drew to a close on Thursday, 14 Dec 2006. It is now up to the inspector to consider the evidence put before him and to make his recommendtation to the Secretary of State, who will make the final decision.

Visitors may also find the following link to Vision-News interesting, as it gives video footage of some of the objectors explaining their views.

The hearing to consider the appeal by English Heritage against the decision in 2005 of Salusbury District Council to reject the EH planning application for the visitor centre at Countess East opened in the Methodist Church Hall, St Edmunds Church Street, Salisbury at 10 o'clock on Tuesday 5 December.

The purpose of the hearing is for the Inspector, Mr Martin, to hear the evidence from all parties, not just the appellant, English Heritage, and then make a recommendation to the Secretary of State as to whether planning permission should be granted or not.

The hearing is scheduled to continue until the afternoon of 14 December, with interested persons, including the Counters Road Residents Group having the opportunity to present submissions on the afternoon of 13 December.

The majority of the week 5 - 8 December has been taken up with opening procedures and the hearing of the evidence presented by English Heritage.

It is pleasing to note that the Inspector, whilst controlling proceedings robustly, has adopted a flexible approach and is allowing anyone present at the hearing to put questions to those presenting submissions.

At the beginning of the hearing, the complex legal reasons for holding it now were explained. Most, except the lawyers, probably still don't understand them! The whole scheme still remains dependent on the decision by central Government as to whether the proposed A 303 road improvement scheme goes ahead or not. Stephen Ladyman, the transport minister, is recently quoted as saying that he would not be spending half £1 billion on a tunnel!

On 21 September 2006, English Heritage announced that it had withdrawn the planning application for the Countess East visitor centre that was approved (subject to caveats) by Salisbury District Council on 10 July 2006. It nevertheless intends to proceed with the appeal that it lodged against the SDC decision of July 2005 to reject an exactly similar application. This means that there will be no government "call-in" referred to below.

A representative of EH stated that the reason for this was that as there had already been two public airings of the scheme, it would be in the financial interests of both English Heritage and Salisbury District Council not to have a further public inquiry. They also wished to "progress" the scheme quickly so that it could be completed by the time of the 2012 Olympics.

The reality is that this devious ploy neatly avoids further scrutiny of this flawed and deeply unpopular scheme at a higher level, the outcome of which may not have been to the liking of EH. If the latter were really concerned about saving money, both their own and other people's, they would await the Government's decison on the A303/Stonehenge road improvement scheme, upon which the fate of the Stonehenge visitor centre hangs, rather than press ahead with costly actions, for which Salisbury council tax payers will foot the bill in large part.

At the meeting of the Amesbury Town Council on 5 September 2006, the local MP, Robert Key, announced that he would be meeting Tessa Jowell, Minister for Culture, Media and Sport, and other ministerial representatives at Stonehenge on 18 September 2006.

What was not stated was that this meeting was a private meeting arranged by English Heritage, presumably for the purpose of "informing" the Minister, ministerial representatives and the MP. It is significant that no local councillors or residents were invited to attend. So secret was it, that Robert Key's office, when contacted about the time of the meeting, wanted to know how anybody else knew that it was going to take place, despite the fact that our MP made the information public at the council meeting referred to above!

It is of grave concern that both ministerial representatives and our MP are only getting the blinkered and biased view of English Heritage unleavened by local opinion.

(Note: The "call-in" referred to above and below was by Ruth Kelly (Communites and Local Government) and NOT Tessa Jowell as originally stated here. This has been corrected below.)

Minister "calls in" English Heritage planning application - 25 August 2006

Via a lenghy letter from the Government Office for the South West the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government , Ruth Kelly, has decided to "call in" the highly controversial EH planning application for the Stonehenge visitor centre. In brief the reasons are:

This letter dated 24 August 2006 was received by the SDC planning department today, 25 August 2006. In it is stressed the minister's view that such "call-ins" are only to be made under exceptional circumstances.

This is very good news as it provides the opportunity for further public and official examination of this flawed and deeply resented scheme.

On 18 August 2006, we heard that the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, Tessa Jowell, has asked for more time to consider whether to "call in" the EH Stonehenge visitor center planning application for public inquiry..

The following correspondence was circulated to councillors on the morning of 18 August 2006:

The CRRG feels that this does give cause for some optimism that common sense will prevail.

On 10 July 2006, after a meeting that lasted for over four hours , the Planning and Regulatory Panel of Salisbury District Council voted by a margin of 7 votes to 2 (with 3 abstentions) to approve the English Heritage planning application for the new Stonehenge visitor centre at Countess East. The application that was accepted on Monday last was exactly the same down to the last comma as the one that was refused by the P & RP on 26 July 2005. Following this refusal, English Heritage announced its intention to exercise its statutory right and appeal against the decision. In March 2006 EH was invited by SDC to resubmit the application (see "Planning Application Resubmitted - Fri 31 March 2006" below), which was duly done and the EH appeal was put on hold pending the outcome of the SDC decision.

We believe that this is an extraordinary and unprecedented way for a local council and a government department to operate. It has been characterised by secrecy and withholding of information, as well as the avoidance of important issues. There are also serious questions about the legality of the way things were done.

Naturally, the CRRG is extremely disappointed by this decision, as member after member of the P & RP acknowledged the degree of local unpopularity and stated categorically that the application sites visitor centre in the wrong place. Yet they voted overwhelmingly to accept it as they did not think any planning regulations had been violated! We feel our councillors have represented badly the people that elected them and demonstrated a total lack of moral courage.

Following the SDC decision, the CRRG issued a press release, which has also been posted on this site and can be read on the "Press" Page

The matter concerning the views of our local MP, Mr Robert Key MP, as referred to below, are made clear in a feature article published in the Salisbury Jorunal on 18 May 2006. This article can be read via the link here. Subsequent editions of the Journal published a number of letters, which made clear that local support for a tunnel past Stonehenge is minimal. Two of these letters can be read here and here. One of them also states that in supporting the Tunnel, our MP does not represent his constituants, which he would know if he had taken the trouble to ask them.

Futher on the subject of consultation, there has been a deafening silence from English Heritage, the National Trust and the Highways Agency as far as the Countess Road Residents Group is concerned. Strange...things are developing and we are the ones most itimately affected by what - God forbid - might happen.

Our local MP Mr. Robert Key MP has written a letter to the Prime Minister supporting the tunnel scheme for Stonehenge and calling for it to be a toll road. This is another classic example of failure grasp matters at local level. In another radio interview, this time with Spire FM on Friday 12 May 2006, the CRRG chairman was able to express amazement and opposition to the scheme in principle, as well as highlighting the fact that to introduce a toll scheme would mean that the UK taxpayer would pay for the tunnel twice over: once out of general taxation and a second time through toll charges, which presumably would last for ever. Also part of the interview, although not broadcast, was the mention by the chairman that were a toll to be imposed, local people and many others would quite understandably use a variety of local routes as "rat-runs". Mr Key, it is understood thinks that this would not be a problem as it already happens! It does NOT. How much better informed would our MP have been if he had spent but a few minutes on the phone to people who live directly in the area and who know what is going on! Another case of failure to consult properly - or even at all!

On Friday 5 May the chairman of the CRRG was invited by the presenter of You and Yours on BBC Radio 4 to be interviewed about the European Landscape Convention. In a nutshell, the ELC is an attempt to get local people involved in what happens to the landscape around them. The UK signed up to this convention in February 2006 but has yet to ratify it. The thrust of the interview as far as the CRRG chairman was concerned was the extent to which local people are consulted about such things as the A303 Stonehenge Tunnel scheme. In the few seconds that were available the chairman was able to get the point across that what consultation there was was rather condescending and barely went beyond the statutory requirements. In any case, the initiative for any such consultation came from the local people themselvcs who felt pushed around by the "big boys", which ever official bodies they might be.

The fact of the matter is that despite the rapidly approaching re-examination of the English Heritage planning application for the Countess East visitor centre and the re-examination of the A303 Stonehenge road improvement scheme consultation has all but dried up. One wonders why!

Three events have taken place in the recent past that are noteworthy. First, the English Heritage planning application for the Visitor Centra at Countess east has been resubmitted. This is outlined in the paragraph below and the Salisbury Journal report can be read here or vial the link below.

Secondly, the Cabinet of Salisbuty district council has now publicly given its support to the £510M tunnel option for the A303 past Stonehenge. this was reported in the Salisbury Journal on 30 March with a follow up article on 13 April. The reports can be read at: 30 March, and 13 April. Interestingly the view of the SDC cabinet is in direct conflict with Amesbury town council, who are opposed to such a scheme. It is also significant that whilst vigorously supportig this obscenely expensive scheme, SDC has not offered to contribute one single penny towards the cost! The same goes for English Heritage and the National Trust! One wonders how vigorous their support would be if they were called upon to make a significant financial contribution!!

A group of august, but diverse organisations has recently held a meeting in an attempt to forge a common view for the way ahead for Stonehenge and its surroundings. An article appeared in the Salisbury Journal on 6 April giving details of those attending the meeting and what was discussed. The report can be read on the Press Cuttings page. In summary they "want an approach at Stonehenge that recognises and respects the World Heritage site as a cultural landscape, and they call on the highways agency to explore different options." As an immediate action they call for the closure of the monstrously dangerous A344/A303 junction.

Salisbury District Council recently invited English Heritage to resubmit its planning application for the visitor centre at Countess East (see "Flip-flop council" below). This planning application was duly resubmitted by EH on 31 March. Incredibly it is EXACTLY the same in every detail as the one that was rejected last year! Logically, this means that we shall have to repeat the expensive process that was carried out last year. Equally logically, the result should be the same as well! An article by David Vallis of the Salisbury Journal can be seen at on the Press Cuttings page.

With a major government review of the A303 road at Stonehenge in progress and weighty decisions to be made, the Society of Antiquaries organised a one-day seminar on 31 March to examine the key issues, current proposals and processes by which decisions will be made.
The aim of the seminar was to facilitate debate. It certainly seemed to do that, presentations being put ‘eloquently and with real passion’ on how Stonehenge is failing to live up to its life-changing potential for visitors.

- The reality is that for most visitors this is simply not the case, as they do not have sufficient time, a visit often being part of a busy itinerary, coming between other attractions such as Salisbury Cathedral and Bath. Far from the "envisioned" experience that would keep the cash tills ringing! -

Opinions at the seminar divided into those who were prepared to back the ‘published plan’ for the A303, and those who rejected all five options currently proposed by the Government. The English Heritage chairman, perhaps sensing that his cherished visitor centre project might be under threat, made an impassioned speech suggesting a compromise, and a sinking of differences to support the published scheme.

The word on the street is that there were a few teddy bears flying around!

Latest available figures on the tourist industry's own VisitBritain website show Stonehenge to be far from the most popular tourist attraction. Of the 20 major paid-admission sites listed, Stonehenge comes 19th, attracting only a fifth of the visitor numbers of the the top attraction, which again is the London Eye, with 3.7 million; Stonehenge has just over 802 thousand. Not quite the picture one gets from the EH spin!

As mentioned under Announcement of government review of A303 improvement options below, the five options to be examined were on show at the White Hart hotel in Salisbury between 9 and 11 Feb. As expected, the first four options were merely a rehash of previously assessed and rejected ideas. Option number five is the partial solution, which provides a by-pass for the village of Winterbourne Stoke and a flyover at Countess Roundabout, but essentially leaves everything else as it is now.
This option is the "keep your options open" solution, which would cause more problems than it solves. Agreed it does solve the problem of theWinterbourne Stoke problemby-pass, which should have been built years ago, as was the one for Amesbury. A flyover at Countess Roundabout without improvement, or reorganisation of the road to the west would merely present more traffic at higher speed to the point where the two westbound lanes merge just to the east of Stonehenge and the infamous A344/A303 junction.
Highways Agency representatives at the exhibition acknowledged that a fly-over in isolation would have engineering, safety and noise problems associated with it. It would appear only to be there to support the much-maligned English Heritage visitor centre, which depends on having a fly-over at Countess Roundabout.

An interesting article can be found at the link at the end of this paragraph. In it Maev Kennedy takes an interesting view on recent developments as mentioned below, and features two of our esteemed local residents, Peter and Christine Goodhugh.
She omits two things, however.
First, that the original site chosen for a visitor centre for Stonehenge was at Fargo North, about a mile north-west of the Stones. This site was later dumped in favour of the Countess East site by the then chairman of English Heritage, Sir Joscelyn Stevens, because.....
Secondly, despite sanctioning two massive civil engineering projects (the A303 tunnel and the land train routes) on it, English Heritage remains hamstrung by its own self inflicted rule, which has no basis in law, that there can be no building on the World Heritage Site.
Read Maev Kennedy's article here.

A press release by Salisbury District Council at 11:00 on Tuesday 7 Feb followed a "site visit" by members of the Planning and Regulatory Panel the previous day. In fact, this site visit was restricted to the area of the Cursus, at the back of what is known locally as the Steel Houses.
As a result of this visit and the meeting that followed it - the proceedings of which are being kept secret - the Panel decided to invite English Heritage to resubmit its planning application.
In a article in the Western Daily Press, Councillor Michael Hewitt is quoted as saying that the Panel had been denied access to the area visited on 6 Feb either by the MOD or one of its tenant farmers. "We didn't get much of a view. We had to look through a hedge about 100 yards away. This new decision is a major U-turn."

It is a staggering U-turn! Equally staggering is that the Panel accepted not being allowed to view the site in the first place. Either there is a hidden agenda, or we really do have a flip-flop council!

JANUARY 2006

Breaking news!

Look out for an announcement from UNESCO in the near future.

Recent news:

Announcement of government review of A303 improvement options

A Highways Agency press release on 23 Jan 2006 stated that the options to be reviewed would include the original tunnel scheme, cut-and-cover tunnelling along the same route, by-pass options to the north and south of Stonehenge and alterations to the traffic configuration at Countess roundabout. There is more detail below, but it would appear that by airing unacceptable options once again, the government is attempting to buy time by imposing delay. We should not forget that the A303 road improvement, particularly at Countess roundabout, is crucial to any English Heritage (EH) plans for a visitor centre.

So, the Government and its agents have deliberated long and hard on options for the A303 at Stonehenge. Conspicuously absent from the governmental ‘think-tank’ was the National Trust – the owner of most of the land in question!
Five options have been selected, which will be on view at an exhibition at the White Hart hotel in Salisbury on 9, 10 and 11 February.

The options are:
1 A 2.1km bored tunnel
2 A 2.1km cut and cover tunnel
3 & 4 To re-route the A303 to the north or the south of Stonehenge
5 A ‘partial solution’

The first four options have seen the light of day before and been roundly condemned by everyone, including such as the National Trust, ICOMOS UK, the Council for British Archaeology and the Wiltshire Archaeological & Natural History Society. The fifth ‘partial solution’ implies a graded junction (flyover) at Countess roundabout, but no other improvement in the Stonehenge environs. It would simply not be cost effective, and would present a greater volume of traffic, at higher speed to the same bottleneck just short of Stonehenge bottom. True, it does include a bypass for Winterbourne Stoke, but that is irrelevant to Stoneheng. This last option is seen as English Heritage’s finger-hold attempt to hang on to its visitor centre project at Countess east, which is dependent on improvements to the Countess roundabout, including a flyover. For all of these options it must be better to do nothing until a sensible and universally acceptable scheme can be afforded by Government, rather than add to the present confused situation.

A sixth option has been created by local councillors Colin Mills and Ian West and were recently published in the Salisbury Journal Their proposals include an on-line A303 surface-route dualling, a full movement junction at Longbarrow roundabout, a by-pass for Winterbourne Stoke, the Stonehenge visitor centre to be sited at Fargo North and closure of the A344 past the stones. This option, they say, has strong local support and would attract national interest.

Following a long, quiet period after the refusal of planning permission by Salisbury District Council for the Countess East Visitor Centre, things have suddenly taken a lurch forward with the announcement on 10 Nov that English Heritage is to appeal against the refusal rather than resubmit an altered plan. The reason for this, they say is that first, until the A303 road improvement scheme is resolved, the matter of egress onto the Countess Roundabout cannot be resolve either, and, secondly, any alteration of the routing or configuration of the Land Train in the area of the Steel Cottages on Fargo Road and the nearby line of monuments, would provoke objections from two of the statutory consultees, namely the National Trust and Wiltshire Archaeology. One could be forgiven for thinking, however, that with the recent announcement that Salisbury District Council needs to make savings of in excess of £1m to balance its books, that the intention is to frighten the SDC into not opposing the appeal. A recent CRRG press release and subsequent article in the Salisbury Journal can be read at Press Cuttings.

Unsurprisingly, the two developments in the Stonehenge Visitor Centre sage - the shelving of the A303 road improvement scheme and the refusal of planning permission by Salisbury District Council - have produced a flurry of articles and letters in the local and national press. These can be found under the Press Cuttings page.

We thought, too that the figures below might be of interest! What do you think?

Where does Stonehenge lie in the visitor number ‘league table’? Next to Mersey Ferries, and with only around 18% of top-attraction numbers!

Overall costs of the project – the A303, visitor centre and world heritage site - are estimated close to £500m. More than the Millennium Dome, and look what happened to that project!

At the meeting of the Salisbury District Council Planning and Regulatory Panel held in the Amesbury Sports centre on 26 July, the members rejected the English Heritage planning application for the Countess East visitor centre and related developments by a margin of 6 to 4. In brief the reasons were: the effects of developments on the World Heritage Site (particularly the land train and its effect on residents); access and local disruption. The decision was greeted with universal delight by those local residents who attended the meeting!

Two recent developments will have major significance for the plans for the Stonhenge visitor centre:

On 19 July the Northern Area Planning Committee of Salisbury District Council voted by a margin of 5 votes to 4 to recommend the approval of the English Heritage planning application for the Countess East site. This approval had certain caveats, most notably concerning the land train. This decision was reached depite not a single member of the public speaking in favour of the scheme during the meeting at the Amesbury Sports Centre!

On 20 July, Roads Minister Dr. Stephen Ladyman announced that following survey work at the Stonehenge site the cost estimate for the A303 road improvement scheme had risen from £284m to some £480m, due to soft chalk and high water table. He made the following statement:

This is of major significance for the Stonhenge Visitor Centre plans as it depends on the road scheme for viability and finance. It thus looks likely that the A303 improvement scheme will not go ahead in its current form.

Now that the goal posts have been shifted or even completely removed, English Heritage should be urged most strongly to withdraw its planning application and save a great deal of (tax payers) time and money.

MARCH 2005
An article in the latest edition (24 Mar) of the Salisbury Journal highlights the problems being experienced by both English Heritage and the National trust regarding the delicate relationship between the proposed Countess Road and visitor centre and the A303 Road improvement scheme for Stonehenge and the effect of any delay in decision-making. This article is reproduced on the Press page. To read it, click here. Note the erroneous figures for costing of the road scheme and the glib description of the Countess East site being "a stone's throw" from Stonehenge

FEBRUARY 2005
Following on from the news about the "regionalisation" of the A303 road improvement scheme in January, the 24th of February saw two more revealing articles in the Salisbury Journal. The first concerns the status of the planning application for the Countess East Visitor Centre. It now looks as though a revised application will be considered again in early summer following further public consultation. Click Planning application to read this article
The second article, by our MP Robert Key - easily missed as it appeared without headline below several paragraphs about young peoples' voting intentions - tells of how he found out about the spiralling cost of the A303 road improvement scheme (current estimate £400m) and the liklihood of it going ahead. Click on the name of our MP to read his article.

JANUARY 2005
There have recently been reports on national television and in the national and local press that would indicate that the plans for the A303 road improvement scheme, with its £200M proposal for a tunnel under Stonehenge, are in jeopardy, due to being devolved to regional level from central government. Two articles have been published on this site and are to be found at the following links: Daily Express, 28 Jan 05 and Western Daily Press, 29 Jan 05

This development is of major significance for the plans for the development of the Visitor Centre at Countess East.

DECEMBER 2004
It looks as if English Heritage is again guilty of bending the truth by cooperating with the Arts Critic of The Times, Rachel Campbell-Johnson, in an article she
wrote in that paper on 18th December (Stones in £67m comeback)

One of her illogical conjectures is that, when the A344 becomes a "byway", it will "..perhaps create business opportunities for residents". It is most unlikely that English Heritage or the National Trust will be in a hurry to grant concessions for Burger bars or Cream Teas stands!

Needless to say, a letter to The Times regarding this sloppy reporting was
not printed or even acknowledged .(Letter to The Times 22nd Dec 04)

DECEMBER 2004
The A303 – Stonehenge saga…
Confusion has been generated by the Government’s decision not to upgrade the A303 between Ilminster and Honiton on grounds of cost and environmental protection, to demote the road from a trunk route of national importance to one of only regional importance and to farm it out to the Government’s regional office, possibly delaying upgrades until funds are available. Just what is going on?

NOVEMBER 2004
Late entry! The annual meeting of EH's WHS Advisory Forum met at Antrobus House, Amesbury, on 29 October 2004. It was notable for the large number of absentees, a presentation of an innovative interactive website, the horror expressed at EH's proposals for the visitor centre and WHS landscape, and the amazing revelations on the archaeology at Countess east. (View précis of meeitng)

NOVEMBER 2004
Popular author and anglophile Bill Bryson is a recent addition to English Heritage's impressive band of commissioners. In his book 'Notes from a Small Island' he records his thoughts on his visit to Stonehenge: "...Impressive as Stonehenge is, there comes a moment somewhere about eleven minutes after your arrival when you realise you've seen pretty well as much as you care to..." If this is the view of an EH commissioner, why on earth is EH spending so much effort throwing so much public money at this grandiose and misplaced visitor centre project?

OCTOBER 2004
Amesbury Town Council wishes to submit a formal objection to application.
25 th October 2004 (Text of objection)

OCTOBER 2004
Local Parish Councillors unanimously rejected the plans for a new Visitors Centre, at a meeting at Durrington on 6th October. (View article, Journal 14th October).

The third stresses that people should realise that paying a quick visit to see the Stones will be impossible if the plans are accepted. The writer is generous when he suggests that every visit would take a minimum of 2 Hours. EH are planning a visit of 3.5 hours. (View letter).

The planning application for the proposed Stonehenge Visitors Centre has
been received by Salisbury District Council, who obviously knew it was
coming because they have had time to produce paperwork for a "Public
Consultation".

This, we are told, has been distributed to 15000 homes to reach 33000
people. SDC has suggested that people tell them what they think of the
plans so that they can properly consider the application.

The cost of the VC has now climbed to £67.5 million of which over £39
million will come from Government and Heritage Lottery funds. Another way
of looking at it is that we will be paying for it.

More controversially the route of the land train across the WHS taking
visitors to the Stones still passes close to military property and still
drops off visitors nearly a mile away from the monument itself. All except
the disabled will have to walk this distance and back again to be returned
to their cars or buses.

The short visit to see Stonehenge that the majority have enjoyed will be no
more if this scheme comes to fruition. The whole experience will occupy
nearly three hours. You will not get back in time for tea!

The A303 Public Inquiry Inspector had lodged his recommendations with the
appropriate Minister. It is likely to be some time before we are told what
they are and what the Government will do about them.

The Sunday Times of 13th June carried an article which stated that Gordon Brown “goes to war” on Labour waste.

Tessa Jowells various projects came in for criticism from Paul Boeteng. Among them, her plans for Stonehenge were said to be “not affordable”.

This is exactly what “the man in the street” in South Wiltshire has been saying about the ludicrous tunnel past Stonehenge ever since it was designed!

MAY 2004
Yet another damning article against the monstrous Stonehenge Tunnel plan has appeared in Wiltshire Life June 2004 edition (Leave Stonehenge alone)

APRIL 2004
EH continues with the delusion that overseas visitors will be happy with the enormous problems posed by a Visitor's Centre so far away from the Monument.

A group of US travel agents visited Stonehenge and were shown around by the Operations Manager for Stonehenge.

The travel agents have been contacted and have been told that the 30 minute visit that US visitors presently enjoy, will become a 3 hour visit which will include a 1 mile walk each way from the Land Train drop-off point. It was pointed out that very few US visitors will be physically able to do this easily.

It comes as no surprise that neither Elm Grove Travel nor Turner Trichel have deigned to reply to our messages.

OPPOSITION TO TUNNEL
At a meeting on 3rd February, Amesbury Town Council voted unanimously their opposition to the Stonehenge Tunnel. By a majority vote they agreed to support the rest of the HA scheme. (Partial report “Tunnel Proposal Causes Concern” 16 Feb 04 )

Salisbury Green Party has stated that they are against new roads in the WHS but if the Government proceeds with the present scheme “the only solution is a long tunnel” (Report “Safety Action Will be Better” 16 Feb 04)

The first day of the Public Inquiry was told that the Wiltshire Fire Services have withdrawn their objection to the tunnel. It is assumed that they have been promised greater safety precautions.

CLIFFHANGER
We believe that EH and NT are trying to avert a cliff-hanger situation by the adoption of a compromise, or ‘dispersed’ access route across the WHS. We understand that it embodies parts of the earlier northern and central routes and is supposed to alleviate undue wear and tear on the landscape. There will be multiple tracks to Stonehenge from a drop-off point at the Seven Barrow Cottages site, and Byway 12 will be used from a western drop-off point north of the Cursus.

Drawbacks seem to be that although multiple and variable pedestrian routes are proposed, they will inevitably come to a focus near Stonehenge, where wear and tear could be significant. Additionally, the character of Byway 12 could be irrevocably lost by hard surfacing, and changes to the landscape could take place by archaeology protection measures and land-train requirements. Also, the route may not be totally compliant with WHS objectives.

The route will run immediately behind the Fargo Road residential area at Larkhill, much to their displeasure, with the potential for pollution by noise and dust. It may also be a threat to wildlife habitats. The proposed prominent drop-off point, and its associated land-train traffic at the site of Seven-Barrow Cottages, will be visible for miles around; particularly to the nearby Strangways estate, to most of the houses on the east side of Countess Road, and to the large residential area to the south-east of Amesbury leading up to Boscombe Down.

Last, and by no means least, the route would require a swathe of MOD land, which could suggest a potential security issue. The MOD rejected the last proposal.

HERITAGE LOTTERY FUND
Following recent government pressure on the Heritage Lottery Fund to speed up the dispensing of its £billions, it seems to have issued an invitation to EH and NT to get their act together over WHS access or lose the money earmarked for the Stonehenge project. This clearly produced a focussing of minds within those bodies, with the result that an access route has been agreed. However, with the secretive approach now seemingly typical of EH, they are not sharing the information with the likes of us. We will keep you informed as further gems drop our way!

MEETING WITH EH ON 12th NOVEMBER
New doubt thrown on visitor centre future..
At a meeting with English Heritage on 12 November we were told that the planning application submission date has slipped again, to January 2004. The Public Inquiry for the A303 improvement scheme - an integral element of the Stonehenge Project - will be held on 17 February 2004 and could run until 30 April, with the ministerial outcome being sometime after this.

Tunnel fails to please:
The 'other' tunnel, the one taking the visitors' land-train under Countess Road (A345), was criticised because its western portal and steep banking is too close to houses. With land-trains running every 10 minutes or so, this could be a very intrusive arrangement. A request for the portal to be moved a few yards further to the west met with refusal on grounds of cost and intrusion into the World Heritage Site. Both arguments are considered specious on the grounds that cost would be minute compared with the huge amounts that EH is throwing at the project, and the fact that they support the published A303 road scheme that will gouge a kilometre or so out of the WHS to the dismay of many.

Coach park reconfigured:
Plans have been redrawn to move the coach park to the south of the site, reducing its visibility from the residential area. The parked vehicles will be 140m from houses. Good news at first sight perhaps, but not so good when we learned that the vacated area would be used for 'bus and coach traffic, giving a potentially constant flow right in the sight-line of houses. All we need is the extra bit of constructive thought to complete a useful suggestion.

Parking charges:
There is still no decision about parking charges at the proposed new visitor centre. Kevin Brown said that the Salisbury District Council are in favour of charges because they would "reduce the need for spaces", the reasoning being that visitors would choose alternative transport means. What alternative means?! Present arrangements could end up making a visit to the Stones a whole day affair! Charging is likely to mean in practice that cars will park at roadsides, causing more congestion.

Drop off point almost decided:
It now seems more likely that passengers will leave the land-train even further away from the Stones. The drop off point in favour with EH at the moment is at Seven Barrow Cottages (where there are no cottages!) and, as the crow flies this is .93 miles(1.5km) from Stonehenge. Since, however, we are not able to fly, the walk will be well over a mile!

ADVISORY FORUM MEETING, 10th NOVEMBER
What takes a year not to be achieved? Answer - provision of an organisation chart for the Stonehenge project. EH was actioned to produce one at the Nov 2002 meeting, but has failed to do so. Perhaps this is part of EH's 'confusion marketing' technique - the less people who know, the less accountable it has to be! So, if they won't tell us how its organised, what hope is there for us mere mortals?! According to the Chair, Lady Gass, it will be done when things 'have settled down'. Just how long does that take?
A lot of the meeting was taken up with 'workshops' on the threat of burrowing animals, and the application of monitoring indicators in the WHS. Needless to say, there were about as many suggestions as participants!
Principal participants presented their activity reports for the year. Each was given five minutes, producing rushed reports laced with professional jargon and unreadable slides. It was noted that it was just all too much for one delegate, who rapidly 'faded' in the warm environment...!
Questions had been submitted by delegates. Strangely, no time was allocated to deal with them. Why?

WHEN WILL THEY LEARN...?
So, Heritage Minister Lord McIntosh of Haringey visited Stonehenge on 18 September to explore the issues surrounding future access to the Stones. Interestingly, when away from the Media and PR frenzy, he confessed to thinking that Larkhill would have been a better site for the new visitor centre.

That makes two senior politicians, two nationally prominent archaeologists, a senior tourism and trade academic, and Parker Plan protagonists, who have all expressed similar sentiments. How many more before it can happen...?"

AMESBURY TOWN COUNCIL MEETING ON 9 SEPTEMBER 2003
Amesbury Town Councillors are to scrap their funding towards the Stonehenge World Heritage Site. This was decided at a 'tense' town council meeting on 9 September 2003 (see p11, Amesbury Journal dated Sept 11, 2003) They have withdrawn it because of wrangling over the plans for the Stonehenge Project. They considered it was not for Amesbury ratepayers to subsidise a national organisation and its projects, particularly as the Council was about to enter into long and protracted negotiations with EH. It was thought that the donation would not be appropriate. There was heated discussion about the future of Stonehenge, and the controversial visitor centre that has angered people in Countess Road. Councillors were particularly concerned about traffic issues, road diversions and access to the Stones.

FOUR TUNNELS AND A DIVERSION!
Life gets complicated for the A303 improvement scheme! The Parker Plan gets a thorough airing. What does the National Trust really want? What does English Heritage really think about it? A Public Inquiry to start on 17 February 2004, with a 'pre-inquiry' on 17 November 2003, both in Salisbury.

Highways Agency Public Liaison Meeting – 9 September 2003
Below is a précis of and comments on the meeting’s content.
Programme of published scheme (2.1km bored tunnel):
Orders have been published. The objection period has just closed. Public Inquiry starts on 17 Feb 04. Preceded by pre-PI starting on 17 Nov 03. The pre-PI will be at Salisbury Guildhall. The PI will start at Salisbury Guildhall and then move to other venue. PI may take about 2 or 3 months. If there are no problems, a governmental decision for the published scheme could be given by the end of 2004, and construction could start early in 2005. The work would take about 3.5 years.

Just over 1300 objections were received. Most agreed that a problem exists that needs to be addressed. The range of views embraced a longer tunnel, no tunnel and an alternative route for the A303. The vast majority of objections used preformatted letters from websites, all saying the same thing. This was defended from the floor on the basis that the geographically wider audience recognised a problem but didn’t have sufficient knowledge to make a detailed objection.

Alternatives considered:

The Parker Plan
2.3km bored tunnel
2.7km bored tunnel
2.9km bored tunnel
4.5km bored tunnel.

The Parker Plan received a lengthy presentation by the HA. Its route, benefits, limitations and problems were discussed. The latter included railways, bridges, SSSIs, a school and skirting the southern boundary of the Boscombe Down airbase. Parker made the point that it was the only alternative that removed the A303 totally from the Stonehenge WHS.
A map of the Parker Plan is given in the HA’s Environmental Statement.

The four tunnel options incorporated the following changes from the published scheme (2.1km tunnel):
2.3km: western portal shifted 200m to the west
2.7km: eastern portal shifted 600m to the east
2.9km: contains both the above modifications
4.5km: western portal shifted 1.8km to the west, the eastern portal 600m eastwards.

Each received initial engineering, environmental and economic assessments. The three shorter tunnels could be constructed using a spray concrete method. The 4.5km tunnel would need to use a tunnel boring machine, and would be of larger diameter. This tunnel would also need enhanced ventilation and smoke extraction systems. It would also not require the controversial ‘door frame slab’ at Stonehenge Bottom. It would produce substantially more spoil, which would have to be treated, temporarily stored and then distributed by landscaping. If the 4.5km tunnel were chosen it might be necessary to go through the statutory process again and retendering. This could delay work and opening.

All schemes will perform less economically than the published scheme.

On advice from English Heritage, the Government have approved a 2.1km bored tunnel scheme. Thus EH must be considered as advocating this scheme, which is a volte-face from its earlier desire for a long bored tunnel! EH’s impartiality was questioned as they are also a ‘client’ in the scheme, through their new visitor centre. Thus it was considered that they cannot be offering fully independent advice. The development and curatorial elements of EH are also thought to be divided in their views.

The need for cost-benefit analysis was mentioned. The HA said that this doesn’t carry the same weight today as in previous years. Environmental aspects now have increased importance, and these benefits are difficult to determine in monetary terms.

It was reported that the National Trust was not ‘fully persuaded’ on the benefits of the published scheme. This seems to be interpreted as meaning that they don’t want it! The views of the NT Council will emerge in due course, but they may wait for the Inquiry outcome. NT could resist a compulsory purchase order for their land, but a special parliamentary procedure would be necessary to overcome this.

During construction of any tunnel option, through traffic would be retained along the existing A303. None would be diverted onto other local roads. During normal use, one tunnel bore will be closed at night once a month for maintenance ie, two closures a month. During these, traffic will be diverted along local roads. This ideas has met with strong disapproval from local and county councils.

The next meeting was proposed for when the public inquiry had been completed, the inspector’s report issued and a project accepted. (Which could be quite a wait if the proposed scheme doesn’t win the day!)

Highways Agency - A303 and Stonehenge Road Improvement Plan
A public exhibition of the above scheme was held in Amesbury from 12th to the 14th of June in the Antrobus Arms Hotel in Amesbury. Whilst this exhibition was comprehensive, it has raised many concerns and there will be objections forthcoming from many quarters. A major concern is the expenditure of at least £130M on a bored tunnel, the sole purpose of which is to act as a sight and sound shield for Stonehenge itself.

It has recently been announced that a Public Inquiry will start in February 2004.
Details of the scheme can be found at http://www.highways.gov.uk/news/press_releases/a303/10_12_2002.htm
This site contains useful links for fuller explanation also.
Visit http://www.savestonehenge.org.uk/actparker.html

SDC To examine the Parker Plan
In an article in the Salisbury Journal, dated 1st of May 2003, it was announced that the Salisbury District Council is formally to examine the Parker Plan road scheme. This is an all embracing and far sighted proposal that aims to solve the traffic problems of Stonehenge, Salisbury, Wilton and the Wylye and Bourne valleys This article is reproduced in full on the publications pages of this site. It is hoped to be able to provide a clearer diagram of the scheme here in the near future. In the meantime one should refer to the article in the Salisbury Journal.

More recently the Save Stonehenge organisation has become more active regarding the roads plan and its web-site now includes some detail of the Parker Plan.
Visit http://www.savestonehenge.org.uk/actparker.html

As you will have heard, new routes are now proposed for getting the public to Stonehenge. These are the 'Northern Route' and the 'King Barrow Ridge Route'. Below is a picture of the Northern Route drop-off area. From here you walk to the Stones, only threequarters of a mile! But where is the monument?
Trust us, it's in the centre of the picture, hidden from sight, just a 15 or 20 minute walk away. If this route is adopted it's likely to be only a matter of time before this ancient trackway disappears under a layer of tarmac and its lonely solitude is lost forever.

How about the King Barrow Ridge option?This drop-off point is a similar distance from the Stones, but this time over farmland with a deep valley to cross. The picture here shows the drop-off area. If you look very carefully you can see Stonehenge in the centre of the picture, in the far distance, just above the fence.

The Great Wiltshire Roadshow!
(or, the English Heritage mobile exhibition)
The exhibition visited 10 sites in the Salisbury Plain area during March 2003. Our Chairman, Tony Munday, followed it round, helping those who called in to acquire a more balanced view of the EH/NT proposals for the new Stonehenge visitor centre and access to the world heritage site. At one location he manned the exhibition single-handed until the EH crew turned up. Thus he was able to discuss with visitors the scheme’s shortcomings, that they wouldn’t normally hear about!

21st March 2003
Here is some more good news! Previously we reported that visitors would have to spend a minimum of about half a day to visit the Stones, with a 1 mile / 1.8 km walk each way. The good news is that new routes are under consideration that have a 15 minute journey in a land train and only a 0.75 mile / 1.2 km walk each way. So you won't get quite so wet or muddy, the children won't get quite so fractious, and the buggy won't feel quite such a drag! We need to know what you think about this. Please tell us, on the 'contact us' page, your views about having to walk this distance, in all weathers, with a minimum visit of about 2 hours if one includes getting from your transport, going through the visitor centre, the shop, toilets and café (not necessarily in that order!).

17 March 2003
EH/NT have a mobile exhibition in the area around Salisbury between 17 and 28 March 2003 called "Stonehenge. A New Dawn". It has not yet dawned on them that what they propose does not have public support. They now tell us that coach operators will not now have an opportunity to take coaches to hard standing to the west of Stonehenge from where their tourists could walk. This is a new thing because, at their meeting with local councillors on the 25th February, it was stated that coaches would use hard standing at Fargo North. All coaches will now remain at the VC and tourist will travel by land train from there. Consequently all overseas tourists will require, at the very least a 2-3 hour visit instead of the 30 minute visit which schedules currently allow.

We were also told that there will be no free car parking at the VC for visitors who wish to go to the WHS without the cost of using the VC.

26 February 2003
EH/NT held a meeting at The George Hotel in Amesbury to present their latest proposals for the Stonehenge visitor centre and access to the world heritage site. About 140 people attended. Obviously far fewer were expected because 50 chairs had been put out. Another 50 seats were brought in and eventually, it was standing room only. The audience was visibly unimpressed by the lecture provided and it was obvious that EH/NT were equally unimpressed by the stories of hardship that residents said they would have to endure. If EH/NT had any preconceptions about their relationship with residents it was quickly dispelled as residents expressed their deep concerns on having the visitor centre and all its resulting problems on their doorstep.The meeting included a ' free and frank exchange of views' on how residents viewed the proposals.

On asking why the visitor centre had to be so close to houses, we were told "...that identification of the site had come from the Council in its Planning Brief..." WRONG!!! The planning brief was drawn up by English Heritage after they had chosen the site. There is nothing to prevent EH choosing another site and creating another brief. This was confirmed by Salisbury District Council. Another example of EH's misinformation strategy which, this time, went sadly wrong if the expression of public derision was
anything to go by! This meeting produced a front page article for the Salisbury/Amesbury Journal on 6th March (LINK to press cuttings)

25 February 2003
EH/NT put on 2 meetings for Local Councillors at Antrobus House to bring them up to date with newest thinking. We asked for permission for one person to attend as a non-participating observer. It was, as expected, refused. We produced a leaflet which was given to all councillors as they arrived telling them of this refusal. Almost unanimously they questioned the reason for it. We think it fair to say that the consensus of opinion after the meetings was that, at the rate of present progress, EH/NT would not be ready to submit planning application in September 2003. In fact one Councillors bet £10 from the floor of the meeting that they would not be ready.

1) A new Visitors Centre (VC) for Stonehenge
2) Creation of a World Heritage Site (WHS) around the monument
3) Alterations to the A303 the major route to the West, with tunnelling through part of the WHS as it passes Stonehenge.

All three elements are interdependent and contain controversial aspects that have caused local, national and even international concern and condemnation. We live in the midst of them and are likely to suffer serious traffic congestion, pollution and loss of amenity if the present scheme goes ahead.

1) Update on the A303
The plan is to upgrade the road to provide dual carriageway across the WHS, build a graded junction (flyover) at Countess roundabout at the eastern boundary of the WHS, and to bypass Winterbourne Stoke, to the west of the WHS.
The most controversial part of this is the proposed tunnelling as the road passes Stonehenge. The choice has actually been to re-route or to tunnel, and the latter seems to be winning the day, but it is not without its problems.
The Government originally agreed to a 2 km ‘cut and cover’ tunnel, requiring a huge trench to be excavated across the newly created ‘unique’ world heritage site, thus negating the inherent principles of care and conservation. The archaeology lobby went incandescent, which prompted a rethink.
The tunnel version favoured by the thinking populace is a 4.5 km bored tunnel. National Trust, which owns the land around Stonehenge, concurs with this idea. The Government, pushed into another decision, has approved a 2.1km bored tunnel – clearly a compromise.
The International Council on Monuments and Sites (ICOMOS) sets the standards in conservation philosophy throughout out the world, and is official adviser to UNESCO on cultural world heritage sites. The UK branch has special responsibilities for WHSs in this country. ICOMOS UK has also stated that the long bored tunnel is the only acceptable option. The Council for British Archaeology, The Stonehenge Alliance and Save Stonehenge will all press for a longer tunnel at Public Inquiries
English Heritage, presumably keen not to enrage its paymasters, has said, in effect, that any tunnel will do.
Meanwhile, the Highways Agency and their contractors continue to design the Government’s latest preferred version – the 2.1km bored tunnel. In May 2003 an Environmental Statement and Draft Orders are to be published, followed by a consultation period, with the Public Inquiry early in 2004. Clearly, a potential battle is in the making: Government v The Rest. Watch this space, it could be interesting!

2) Update on the Visitor Centre
Elsewhere on this website you will read about the previous version of the visitor centre, the controversy it aroused, what a disaster it was viewed as, and its eventual demise as a commercial millstone.
Undaunted, English Heritage have pressed on with yet another iteration, still at the ridiculous location of Countess east. This time they deserted British architects and went for an Australian company. The result is certainly different than hitherto, and has caught the eye of the press mostly, it seems, by its grassed roof. Whilst perhaps innovative to the English eye, anyone who has walked over the roof of Australia’s parliament building will realise that it’s ‘old hat’ over there. Indeed, this feature has been traced to British emigrants who went there to seek a better life… but I digress!
The latest version is certainly smaller than previously, but still generates all the problems we are concerned about, namely traffic congestion, pollution and loss of amenity. EH promises consultation, but presents faites accomplis. We ask about points of detail but are presented with vague responses. With a planning application supposedly being made in late Spring 2003, the lack of detail is unbelievable!

3) Getting Visitors to the Monument
EH plans to build a tunnel under Countess Road (A345) to take a land train from the VC at Countess East to the NT land at Countess West. The tunnel has been designed to be 4.5m high and wide and will need to be 5m below the road level. There was much discussion in 2002 on the logistics of this project. EH wanted to buy adjacent property to give their builders "elbow room". They met with opposition and we have now been told that such a purchase will not be necessary and that the engineering can be achieved in the confined space presently available.
There is also talk about pedestrians walking across Countess Road if they do not wish to use the transport facilities. We doubt whether many more than at present will do this because the Stones are 3Kms away but if there is an increase, it will put further strain on an already overburdened road..
NT is still dithering about which parts of the World Heritage Site to harden over to carry the land train.

TIMING OF THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE VC AND THE A303 "IMPROVEMENTS"
From the very beginning of this saga, Sir Jocelyn Stevens, the previous Chairman of EH, stated that the VC could not be built unless the A303 was redesigned. The final design of the tunnel is still in considerable doubt, as is therefore, the whole highways project. Despite this, EH is feverishly trying to speed up its planning application date with the intention, of course, of getting the VC build under way to save them from a massive loss of face. They tell us, with tongue firmly in cheek, that, even when built, it will not FULLY open until the highways project is complete.

NEW POST AT EH
A new Public and Community Affairs Manager was appointed in Jan 2003 with an office in Salisbury. Jane Danser who has been appointed to this task will have to tread very carefully in the minefield that EH has laid down. We wonder why this new post was considered necessary.

EH SURVEY "PUBLIC OPINION"
The EH publication "Stonehenge Vision" dated March 2002 stated that "Research shows strong support for proposals" This extraordinary statement was made following a market research survey of a mere 1300 visitors leaving the site (0.16 % of annual visitors). It goes on to say that "the distance of the planned visitors centre from the Stones was not seen as a problem by most people". Although the survey included an information sheet which stated that "You disembark (from the transit system) at King Barrow Ridge where, for the first time, you see Stonehenge on the open plain about 1/2 mile in the distance" it is doubtful whether any people surveyed realised that the true distance of 1.2 Kms was not easy terrain and would be expected to take 20 mins walk each way. Families with young children, and the elderly would find it very arduous or frankly impossible.
It must also be said that overseas visitors on a tight schedule would find a visit quite impracticable. It is quite certain that, should the present scheme go ahead, commercial interests will dictate that Stonehenge be removed from coach itineraries. How will this be received in the USA and Japan?. It is unthinkable that one of UKs greatest visitor attractions will not be available to the very people who, at the moment, give the site the greatest support.

ARCHAEOLOGICAL OPINION
Ian Baxter and Christopher Chippindale in their paper entitled "Sustainable Solution" argue that, instead of taking up a tranquil greenfield site far from the Monument, facilities at the present site should be developed and improved.
This would provide lower cost facilities, giving a lower budget and brownfield alternatives to the present expensive greenfield option.

'ARCHIVE'
Proposal: pt3
DATE: 22 May 2001
TO: Wing Commander A J Munday RAF (Retd)

Thank you for your letter of 26 April. I am afraid that there is little I can add to my letter of 28 March at this stage.

I was, of course, an English Heritage Commissioner and advisory committee member while much of the debate about plans for Stonehenge took place and I can assure you that the search for the right site for the Visittor Centre was real. We bought the land based on the advice of many studies, including the Ove Arup traffic analysis which contained projections for visitors to Countess East and the impact on all the local roads. We are now assembling a team to work up the detail.

I am sorry that the short notice for our visit last Friday did not allow an opportunity to introduce our architects to Countess Road residents. However, John Vimpany will be trying to arrange another date in three to four weeks time and there will no doubt be further meetings when a scheme has emerged.

I will indeed be visiting Amesbury in the near future and would be very keen to meet you and other members of the Countess Road Residents Group. It is likely that my visit will be during the early summer and I have asked John Vimpany, Stonehenge Project Director, to contact you to make the necessary arrangements.

We have recently appointed the architects Denton Corker Marshall to the project and I enclose a copy of our press release for your information. it may be that Denton Corker Marshall will arrange a preliminary meeting with you before my own visit.

Separately, I have been assured by Ove Arup that your Traffic Consultant, John Samuel, has a copy of the traffic impact assessment report. Indeed, Mr Samuel has commented on the report in some detail both to Ove Arup and ourselves. If you require a further copy I would be happy to arrage this.

Thank you again for writing and I look forward to meeting you later in the year.

Thank you for your letter of 25 February about the proposals for a new Stonehenge Visitor Centre.

The selection of the Countess East site followed an exhaustive review of the options available and reflected the need to balance a wide range of considerations. Wiltshire County and Salisbury District Councils endorsed this choice in the successive planning briefs for the site in 1996 and 1999.

As I think you know, we have undertaken a careful assesment of the traffic conditions in the area, as well as independent traffic surveys at peak times. These assessments were carried out for us by Ove Arup and Partners, who are widely respected engineers in this field, and they have been made available to the Countess Road Residents Group. Our analysis and proposlas have been reviewed and accepted by the Highways Agency and their consultants, and by the County and District Councils. They have agreed the principles of access and egress for the Countess East site.

Further assessments and detailed planning and design will be required. This information will be included in a planning application for the new Visitor Centre and will be available for examination by the public. When we have the scheme designs available as a basis for discussion, we would like to take the opportunity to review these with the Countess Road Residents Group. This may not remove your personal objections, but where there is the opportunity to modify the designs to address residents' concerns, we would wish to do so.

I understand that our Project Director, John Vimpany, intends to hold regular meetings with the Countess Road Residents Group as the scheme develops, which will allow an opportunity to provide you with further information as it becomes available.

A meeting of the Salisbury District Council Planning Committee was held at 6.00pm at the City Hall, Salisbury on Wednesday 26th October, 1999, the purpose of the meeting was to consider endorsing the English Heritage documents:

- The Stonehenge WHS Management Plan (Agenda Item 5) and,
- The Planning Brief for a new Visitor Centre at Countess East (Agenda Item 6)

The importance, and local interest in, the Planning Brief was acknowledged by the Chairman in that this Item was considered first on the Agenda. The Item was introduced by the Head of Development Services for SDC, who stated that endorsement of the Planning Brief does not rule out sites other than Countess East, but then went on to say that English Heritage had carried out a site assessment procedure on other likely sites - and concluded that Countess East was the best site, and also stressed the fact that Countess East was outside the World Heritage Site.

At this stage the Head of Development Services made reference to a paper circulated to the meeting which set out updated recommendations to the Planning Committee. These recommendations appear to have been based on the recommendation from the Northern Area Planning Meeting held the previous week, in which five "provisos" had been included: however each of the Northern Area "provisos" had been seriously diluted in terms of impact and effectiveness, and two of the five were not recommended for inclusion in the Planning Brief. The updated Recommendation is reproduced below:

Recommendation
1. Dualling/flyover/opening of Visitor Centre
(a) That the Brief be amended to include the following additional planning criteria: As part of the planning application for the new Visitor Centre, the applicant shall submit full details of proposed improvements to Countess Road roundabout which shall be agreed by the Local Planning Authority in consultation with the highway authorities prior to the commencement of any development unless otherwise agreed in writing. Such details as are agreed should be implemented in accordance with a programme to be similarly agreed by the Local Planning Authority.

(b) That Salisbury District Council as Local Planning Authority make strong representations to the Stonehenge Masterplan Steering Group and Government Ministers requesting the A303 improvements and a flyover at Countess Road roundabout are progressed to fruition as a matter of urgency.

2. Egress
That planning criteria (vii) of the Brief be enhanced by substituting after (T) . . .
Egress shall be onto the A345 Countess Road subject to a physical prohibition of right turn movements and measures to mitigate traffic congestion and conflict.

3. Rat running
(a) That the brief be amended to include the following additional planning criteria: The applicant as part of an accompanying Traffic Impact Assessment should consider the issue of potential rat running arising from the development.

(b) That the Masterplan Steering Group also is requested to consider the issue of potential rat running as it deliberates on the dualling of the A303 and the provision of a grade separated junction.

4. Residential authority
No further action, the HDS considers the issue of impact on residential amenity is satisfactorily covered in the Brief, e.g. 7.1 (iv), (v), (viii), (vix), (xviii), (xxi), (xxii).

5. A344
That representations be made to the Masterplan Steering Group and Ministers requesting the Highways Agency/County Council not to close the A344 until arrangements satisfactory to Salisbury District Council are put in place in conjunction with the dualling of the A303.

Representation from the Countess Road Residents Group (CRRG) stressed that the Group was totally opposed to the Countess East site as a venue for the Visitor Centre, but that, given the Planning Brief was based on this choice of site, there was strong concern that the improvement, to grade separated standard, of the Countess roundabout should be secured by "negative planning condition" before the Visitor Centre opened (preferably before construction commenced!). The updated recommendation now reduced this requirement to an obligation for the developer to submit, and agree, full details of proposed improvements to Countess roundabout - no mention here of grade separation, or even construction of an improvement!

Concerns were similarly expressed about the lack of any mention of hours of operation of the Visitor Centre - an issue which is of vital interest to the residents of Countess Road. This matter was, again, deferred until a planning application when, it was said, the Environmental Impact Statement would address the problem.

It was noted also that the recommendation (2) stated that the Brief should be enhanced by adding a reference to subjecting the egress from the site, onto Countess road, to a physical prohibition of right turn movements. This is an interesting excursion into detail, when other important issues have been left vague, and it will be of some concern to adjacent householder as to how this is to be achieved without limiting their freedom to turn into and out of their houses.

In general the feeling of many members of the public was that the endorsement of the Planning brief by the Local Planning Authority has left the residents of Countess Road in a far weaker position than before. The Brief now proceeds to become Supplementary Planning Guidance, and as such will be material in determining a future planning application. To this extent the Planning Committee has already begun to fetter some of its discretion in the event that there are aspects of any planning application with which they are not happy; the applicant has only to show that the elements in question conform to the vague and generalised requirements of the Brief in order to quash such concerns.

Such is the system! The battle now moves on to await the first sight of environmental, and transport impact statements in support of an application. Perhaps, at this stage, we shall at last see some detail on which to base objective argument; we await this phase with interest.

Comments of the Countess Road Residents Group concerning:
" A new Visitor Centre for Stonehenge at Countess Road East, Amesbury" : Stonehenge Visitor Centre Planning Brief, August 1999

General Comments:
The Planning brief, as currently drafted, contains a number of distortions of fact, evasions and inconsistencies; there are also omissions of information and a lack of detail which makes the draft document of dubious value as supplementary planning guidance.

Executive Summary:
1. Para ES.3 - The earlier Planning Brief of 1996 is stated to have been endorsed by both Salisbury District Council (SDC) and Wiltshire County Council (WCC). This paragraph makes no mention however, that SDC qualified their endorsement of the Brief as follows :

RESOLVED :-
"(2) The Council wishes to make clear to all parties concerned that critical factors in the consideration of the detailed planning application will be : (a) the dualling of the A303 from Custodians Cottage to Longbarrow and other measures to improve the better flow of traffic including ; a flyover at the Countess Roundabout, slip roads at Folly Bottom, and the bypass of Winterbourne Stoke".

As regards the endorsement by WCC, the Environment & Transport Committee, as recently as February 1999, received a Report (A303 and the Stonehenge Master Plan) and resolved [13 (iv)] that the Committee:-
"Urges the Highways Agency to include the grade separation of the A345/A303 interchange at Countess roundabout in the overall scheme."

There therefore was not the unqualified endorsement of the 1996 Planning Brief, by the two Planning Authorities, which this statement seeks to imply.

2. Para ES.4 : This paragraph states that " A free, environmentally acceptable, and sustainable transport link between the new centre and the viewing/drop off point at Fargo North is to be provided."

At para 6.17 however, this statement has changed to read "Ö an efficient, environmentally sensitive, and sustainable bus linkÖ

It is difficult to imagine that anybody would agree that a bus link (with headways of 2 - 3 minutes in peak times) is environmentally "sensitive", let alone "acceptable".

In terms of "sustainability" it will be important to know the distribution of visitor trips prior to making a judgement on this issue, and the Planning Authority is given no guidance in this regard. What is clear however is that all visitor trips originating from the west, north, and much of the south, of the Country will incur additional mileage to reach a Visitor Centre at Countess East. By the same token visitors from the east will save mileage; depending on what proportion of visitors use the shuttle bus service however, there will be a significant daily number of 16 Km round trip bus movements, and it has not been demonstrated that the bus link would be either environmentally sensitive or sustainable.

Introduction:
3 Para 1.3 - In this paragraph it is stated that : "The Master plan delivers the improvements to the A303, including a Winterbourne Stoke bypass, that have been long sought by Salisbury District Council, and these works are dependent upon the new Visitor Centre (my emphasis) and its associated financial contribution from heritage sources".

This statement looks very much as if its sole purpose is to exert crude pressure on the Planning Authority! If indeed the A303 works are dependent on a Visitor Centre - and nowhere in the various Highway Agency statements is this ever made clear - then they are most certainly not dependent on any specific location for a Visitor Centre.

4. Page 3: para 1.6: This paragraph purports to give the planning history to the Visitor Centre project and says: "Fargo North was later considered in April 1998 but rejected as it also required substantial development within the World Heritage site".

This is being economical with the truth! The site was actually chosen as the preferred Visitor Centre site in April 1998 by the S.O.S for Culture until, in July 1998, it was abandoned (with no explanation) in favour of the Countess East site.

5. In the same paragraph Countess West site was discussed and it was stated: "Countess WestÖ was unpopular due to access problems, detrimental impact of congestion on residents of Countess RoadÖ"

Although details differ a little, and this site would have a greater adverse impact on the A303, these comments are also equally applicable to the Countess East site, where the impact on the A345 would be more severe.

6. Page 7: para 2.3: It is reported that there are around 700,000 visitors annually, and these are predicted to rise to 1.80 million visitors for a "stabilised year".

The recently published Information Pack (Section 4) states that there are currently 800,000 paying visitors a year, plus 250,000 non-paying visitors i.e. a 50% discrepancy on figures which should be factual! It is however, good to see that the 1.80 million visitors a year is now the predicted figure for visitors at some unspecified future date for a "stabilised year".

7. Page 11: para 2.16: States that improvements to Countess roundabout are included in the A303 scheme; two options are said to be under consideration by the Highways Agency; "on the basis of analysis to date a flyover appears the better option. Further detailed assessment is in progress".

From this statement there is still no guarantee that, even if the flyover is said to be the best option, that a flyover will form part of the scheme. If this Planning Brief is to have any credibility at all it must surely commit to the provision of a grade separated junction at Countess within a specified timetable.

8. Page 15: para 2.8: A "short list" of PFI bidders will have to make full proposals by the 8th November, the preferred operator will be selected in December.

With the time scales given at Page 6: "Planning Brief Timetable", it appears that the Planning Brief will be approved by the full Planning Committee (17th November) after the PFI bids have been received (8th November).

9. Page 15: para 2.9: It is stated that the revised Planning Brief will form part of the brief to the commercial operator.

If this is so, then it must be the case (see 8 above) that the operator will be given the Brief as it currently stands, and before public consultation can have had any input! An explanation of this situation is necessary.

10. Page 17: WHS Objective One: The objective states, inter alia, that it seeks to minimise disturbance to .... the lives of the people who live in the area.

Whilst this Objective sounds very laudable, none of the "specific objectives" which follow make any reference to this issue; the message to the PFI bidders is therefore pretty clear.

11. Page 22: The Current Proposals: The paragraph states that, as a minimum requirement, proposals will be expected to provide the following: the fifth bullet point describes "a range of catering outlets, including fast food, restaurants, and other beverage outlets".

By some definitions a beverage outlet could be construed to be a public house. It is clearly of great significance to local residents if it is intended that proposals could include public houses, or licenced restaurants.

It is important to know what "range of retail facilities" would be considered appropriate at the Visitor Centre site, and even more important to know what their impact on the commercial viability of Amesbury town centre would be.

12. Page 31: para 5.16: The SDC Local Plan Inquiry commences on the 12th October, and it is stated that: "Following discussions with SDC it has been decided not to pursue the Visitor Centre proposals at the Local Plan Inquiry".

The Local Plan Inquiry could, and should, have been the opportunity for local residents to make their views known in respect of the choice of the Countess East site for the Visitors Centre which had previously been endorsed by SDC, albeit with qualification, via the original Planning Brief.

13. Page 35: para 5.27: Says "If retail facilities (other than those ancillary to the new Visitor Centre) are proposed on Countess East, strategic and local retail policies will apply".

What is the justification for excluding the Visitor Centre facilities from the constraints of strategic and local retail policies. The word "ancillary" is subjective, and could permit retail facilities of a substantial nature; such uses should not be unfettered, which would be the case if this paragraph remains unchanged.

14. Page 37: para 6.3: States that the Countess East site does not contain any significant archeological remains.

This does not agree with the contents of the letter of the 3rd September 1993 to the SDC Planning Department from the Wiltshire County Archeologist.

15. Page 40: para 6.13 Describes the site access slip roads, and says there is the possibility of a shared access arrangement with the Granada facility.

The Stonehenge Information Pack (Supporting Document 10: Traffic Impact Assessment) shows an illustrative access and egress arrangement (Fig. 3) in which the access slip road into the Visitor Centre is just some 60m East of the existing slip road access; likewise the egress slip road is shown as being only 40m North of the existing egress. The proximity of the proposed slip roads to the existing is worrying, and is likely to pose accident problems in both cases. In the absence of traffic information it is not possible to verify that this arrangement will meet the required standards; thus it would be unwise to endorse such an access/egress layout. The mention of the "possibility" of a shared access arrangement with Granada is not relevant; "possibilities" should not form the basis of a Planning Brief for an issue as fundamental as that of access to a development site.

16. Page 41: para 6.16: Refers to an appropriate interim solution (to Countess Roundabout) being the partial signalisation of the existing roundabout plus minor changes to the roundabout geometry. Makes reference also to the flyover being the better option. This statement still does not clarify what form the improvement of Countess roundabout will take, but strongly suggests that the partial signalisation of Countess roundabout will be the interim solution prior to grade separation as part of the A303 improvements. The problem with this approach is that there is no guarantee that grade separation at Countess is part of the A303 improvements, and there is currently no assessment of what the expected life of the signalisation will be in the absence of the grade separation. Table 6 of the TLA for the Information Pack shows that, at 2008 the roundabout has one arm (the A303E) seriously over capacity, but all other arms are below capacity; for the partial signalisation option however, all approach arms, and all the circulatory arms are over capacity for both 1.0 and 1.2 million visitor scenarios. Clearly there is still a great deal of traffic assessment work to be done before statements in paragraph 6.16 can be used to formulate supplementary planning guidance.

17. Page 46: para 7.1 (iv): Says the Visitor Centre must include design mitigation measures to ensure neighbouring residential properties are respected e.g. siting buildings towards southern end of the site, screening, landscaping and planting.

It is not (necessarily) the building which will create the worst environmental conditions; an estimated 1,800 parking spaces on the central and North part of the site will give rise to considerable problems of noise, fumes and visual intrusion. Landscaping and planting obviously are going to take a number of years before they mature, and even when they are, the noise attenuation and fume limiting capacity of such works is debatable.

18. Appendix 2: para A2.4: This paragraph states that, following public consultation, the Edward Cullinan eight site options exercise of 1993 led to the identification of the Countess Road East site as the preferred development option.

This statement is clearly incorrect since Countess Road East site was not one of the eight sites assessed and was not therefore subject to public consultation, and Fargo North was in any event chosen as the preferred site in April 1998.

On Thursday, 21st October at 7.00pm at Antrobus House, Amesbury, the Northern Area Planning Committee of Salisbury District Council, made special provision for public debate of two Committee Agenda items:
Agenda Item 9 : Stonehenge WHS Management Plan - consultation draft,

Agenda Item 10 : Planning Brief for a new Visitor Centre for Stonehenge at Countess Road East - consultation draft.

As well as County, District and Parish Councillors, the meeting attracted many members of the public, as well as the Chairman of English Heritage, and senior advisors.

Whilst Item 9 resulted in some public debate, it was quite clear that most of this was actually relevant to the Planning Brief. Public discussion of Item 10 (the Planning Brief) was allotted 30 minutes in the programme, but could in fact have carried on for considerably longer. Debate was lively, and was almost (but not quite) unanimous in opposition to the choice of Countess East as the preferred location for the Visitor Centre.

Chairman Judy Greville explained that it was for English Heritage, the originators of the Planning Brief, to propose the site location, and that the consultation had to be based on the current document. Discussion revealed that English Heritage had in fact submitted a revised version of the Planning Brief and that few, if any, of the public had seen this version; further discussion however showed that few major changes to the original had been made.

English Heritage made clear their sense of achievement at getting the Government to include a grade separated junction improvement to Countess roundabout into the programme for the overall A303 scheme. To the annoyance of many present, English Heritage also declared that without a Visitor Centre there would be no A303 improvement scheme; this was seen by many of the public to be no more than crude pressure, and cries of "blackmail" were heard!

Representatives of Countess Road Residents Group (CRRG) emphasised that schemes could, and are, removed from Roads Programmes, and pressed the Planning Authority to secure absolutely the Countess grade separation scheme by placing a negative ("Grampian") condition on any planning permission for a Visitor Centre; in this way the Centre could not be open and operating until such time as the Countess grade separation scheme had been constructed and was open to traffic. Similarly grave concerns were expressed as to the environmental impact, on residents, of the Visitor Centre and all its associated commercial activities. It was stressed that such a Centre would, for commercial reasons, need to be open to the public for far longer hours than the existing arrangement. A request was made for a further condition to be imposed on any permission such that the operating hours of the Centre should be strictly limited to the period 09.00 - 19.00 hours; in this way the Countess Road residents might still enjoy parts of the day free from the impact of the Visitor Centre.

Notwithstanding the request for conditions to ameliorate the effects, on local residents, of the proposals contained in the Planning Brief, CRRG representatives stressed that they continued to oppose the location of the Visitor Centre at Countess East as being entirely inappropriate. Many other speakers also objected to the Countess East site, and the common themes running through their comments were: access arrangements, traffic construction, and environmental impact on adjoining properties.

The meeting concluded with the Northern Area Committee agreeing to the recommendations of the Report at Agenda Item 10, but bringing to the attention of the full Planning Committee, the representations that had been made at the meeting that night.

A further, albeit more limited opportunity, to make representation in respect of the Planning Brief, will arise when this single item is considered at a Special Meeting of the Salisbury District Council Planning Committee to be held at:
6.00 pm on Wednesday 27th October at the El Alemaine Suite City Hall, Salisbury.

Anybody with an interest in the Stonehenge Visitor Centre issue is strongly encouraged to attend this meeting, and to continue to make your views known to the Committee; it is not too late to exert an influence on these important events.

The Countess Road Residents Group (CRRG) is a group of concerned residents who have all the gravest doubts about the wisdom of the English Heritage proposal to locate the new Visitor Centre complex at the Countess East site. For your information, and consideration, I describe below some relevant history of the current situation and an outline of some of the reasons form the Group's concerns.

By virtue of the rapid u-turn by English Heritage, between April and September 1998, when the proposed Visitor Centre location was changed from Fargo North, to Countess East, CRRG have been deprived of the opportunity to object to the Salisbury District Local Plan (Replacement Draft for Deposit - June 1998.) The plan contains no Policy relating to the location of the Visitor Centre, but during the "objection period" Fargo North was stated to be the chosen location. As a result of this decision CRRG raised no objection to the absence of a location Policy for the Centre in the Draft Plan. Some time after the close of the Plan "objection period" the change to Countess East site was announced; by that time however, CRRG had missed the opportunity to register an objection to the Draft Local Plan.

It is reprehensible that, having endorsed a Planning Brief (5th September 1996) which recommended that Visitor Centre site be located at Countess East, the Local Planning Authority failed to include, in the Draft Plan, a Policy giving a location for one of the largest developments in the Plan area. It is even more reprehensible that (Information Pack - para 6.6.3) English Heritage and Salisbury District Council have decided "not to pursue the new Visitor Centre complex proposals at the forthcoming Local Plan Inquiry" Within the Development Plan process therefore, CRRG has been excluded from mounting democratic opposition to the English Heritage proposals.

I should stress that the Group is not opposed to the provision of a new Stonehenge Visitor Centre, indeed it is accepted that modern interpretative facilities are badly needed for his internationally important monument. The really surprising aspect of the whole process is that a site, with obvious disadvantages of Countess East, should have been considered at all!

The residents of Countess Road feel that the problems with the Countess Road East site are best considered under the two headings of traffic, and the environment. It is not our intention to ask you to read through pages of detailed argument in respect of these issues; indeed even at this late stage, very little detail is available on which to mount a full assessment of the site location. Some limited facts are however beginning to emerge, and from these it is possible to outline some of the Group's concerns.

Traffic: It is widely accepted by all that the A303 Trunk Road is currently over-capacity for much of the time during the Summer months. Extremely long queues of traffic on the Countess roundabout approaches each Summer week-end testify to this fact. Access to the Visitor Centre via the Countess roundabout (as proposed) will ensure that all traffic, from all directions will be forced to use this one congested junction. In addition to traffic attracted to the Visitor Centre, it is proposed that onward movement to the monument should be by means of 60-70 seater buses leaving the Centre at 2-3minute intervals during peak periods; all bus movements using Countess roundabout twice in the course of the round trip.

The Traffic Impact Assessment (Supporting document 10-para 2.2) to the Information Pack, bases future traffic impact on annual attendences of 1.0 million visitors p.a. The same document however, gives current attendences as 1.05 million p.a. (Section 4-preamble), and later (Section 5-para5.1.1) talks of future attendences being 1.8 million p.a. Clearly such discrepancies will need to be discussed at some future forum.

Certainly one solution to the traffic problem currently being designed into the system, would be to remove all "through" Trunk road traffic movements from the roundabout by means of the construction of a grade separated junction; allowance was made for such an improvement in the layout of the present day roundabout. If it is proposed to press ahead with the planning for a Visitor Centre at Countess East, it is evident that the construction of the Centre must be contingent upon the completion of the grade-separated junction at Countess roundabout. To date, notwithstanding the A303 Preferred Route announcement of the 25th June 1999, no commitment has been given as to the implementation, and timing of a "flyover" improvement at this junction; phrases such as "Improvements to Countess roundabout should be part of the scheme", and "Öon the basis of analysis to date a flyover appears to be the better optionÖ" just will not do!

The Environment: Of equal importance to the traffic issues is the environmental impact, particularly on the residents of the east side of Countess Road. Placing such a large development immediately adjacent to residential properties will be disastrous. Such layout plans for the Visitor Centre as have been seen to date, indicate the need for some 1,800 parking spaces for cars, caravans, and coaches. The noise, fumes, run-off and dust generated by the daily numbers of vehicles implied by this level of parking provision will be highly detrimental to residents in the locality, and will have lasting effect upon their amenity and properties.

It is well understood by CRRG that the Visitor Centre complex has to be financed by a private sector partnership arrangement. This situation however brings additional problems in respect of the Countess East site and, whilst it is clear that details will not be known until a PFI partner is selected, the requirement for a significant element of commercial development to generate income is apparent to all. The details of such commercial elements will need to be assessed in some depth before the implications of the traffic and environmental impacts on residents can be commented on.

In the light of the above, the residents of Countess Road urge you to re-examine the suitability of the Countess East site for the development of the Stonehenge Visitor Centre complex. It is not our purpose to promote other sites for the complex, however it does seem to us that at least two other possible sites have such clear advantages over Countess East that they must be worth further assessment.

Fargo site: Already chosen once as a preferred site; has very clear advantages in traffic and environmental terms.

Folly Bottom: Close to Amesbury, but not adjacent to any residential properties. The current junction, in association with adjacent development is to be improved to an all movement junction, and could provide good direct access to the A303.

The members of the Group hope that you will understand the frustration that they feel regarding a system which seems designed to prevent them from voicing their genuine concerns, both at the way that decisions have been arrived at, and in the choice of the site for the Visitor Centre. The Group is made up of responsible and sensible people who do not resort to protest lightly. It is our intention to continue to protest the choice of the Countess East site for as long as it is possible for us to do so, but we greatly fear that by the time that the planning application for the Visitor Centre is considered, the possibility of objecting to the choice of site will be limited both by practical/timing considerations for the project, and by the resource constraints of the Group.

Thank you for taking the time to read this letter; we hope that you, and your officials, will give it the consideration, which we feel it deserves,

c: Rt. Hon. John Prescott MP c: Robert Key PM c: Sir Jocelyn Stevens c: the Editor Salisbury Journal

VISITOR CENTRE ARCHITECTS SELECTED
Denton Corker Marshall, a highly respected international architectural practice, has been selected by English Heritage to design the new Stonehenge Visitor Centre at Countess East, Amesbury. Established in Melbourne, Australia in 1972, the firm has eight offices in cities around the world including London. Its projects have included museums, exhibition centres, embassies, retail facilities and a number of prestige public buildings, as well as transport links.

NEWS UPDATE: SEPTEMBER 2000 to JUNE 2001
At the time of writing, mid June, we are still waiting for meetings with English Heritage and their architects, and with the Highways Agency and their contractors. Both will be important occasions for us as we will learn more detail of current proposals and be able to press home our concerns. A synopsis of our activities since September is given below.

10 January 2001: Meeting with Highways Agency
The HA and their contractors are currently only considering the Government-approved route and 'cut-and-cover' tunnelling.

Baseline data is being gathered. Included in this is a 'geotech' survey along the A303 past Stonehenge, to determine geological characteristics for tunnelling.

A 'scoping report' will be produced, outlining the intentions for environmental assessment.

It is noted, with concern, that the geotech survey boreholes past Stonehenge ran well to the south of the A303 and to the HA preferred route.

25 January 2001: Meeting with English Heritage
EH is now 'going it alone' on a new Visitor Centre project. A detailed Visitor Centre Development Brief will supersede the existing controversial and open-ended Planning Brief so eagerly grasped by local planners.

We note that EH is still only considering Countess East as a site for the visitor centre. We remain opposed to this. Earlier argument suggesting that alternative siting might put archaeology at risk, has been diminished to the point of extinction by Government resolve for the massive 'cut and cover tunnel' ditch across the World Heritage Site, violating its fundamental principles.
EH has commissioned MORI polls relating to Stonehenge, its proposed visitor centre and local roads. We asked for details of questions put to the public. The request was refused. This is disappointing in view of the suggested new 'open' relationship, and can only leave the thought that secrets still exist.

Our next meeting with EH was planned for April 2001 but has been moved to June or July so that we can meet the new architects and EH Chairman. We have requested information from the architects relating to the new visitor centre in time for a next meeting, but understand it is unlikely to be forthcoming.

28 February 2001: Local Liaison Group meeting
This was a meeting of representatives of all organisations with an interest in the A303, Stonehenge WHS or Visitor Centre projects.

Although not part of the formal consultation process, this meeting was useful in that it brought involved people together and allowed concerns to be expressed, noted and taken back to principals and government offices. The principal topic was the proposed tunnelling of the A303 past Stonehenge. The meeting outlined the contractor's procedures and timescale. Of particular note was the concern expressed by some interested parties present about the favoured 'cut and cover' tunnel method. If used, it would be considered a violation of World Heritage Site principles, and would produce "the biggest demonstrations seen in Europe"!

Correspondence
A considerable amount of correspondence has occurred since September 2000. A summary is as follows:

Letter to Sir Neil Cossons (Chairman, English Heritage) from CRRG member Tony Munday: This expressed concern about the disastrous problems with traffic that will occur through siting a visitor centre at Countess east, and requested Sir Neil to reconsider the controversial scheme produced by his predecessor.
Response from Sir Neil Cossons: Indicates that the Countess East site was chosen following considerable study and research. An Ove Arup traffic analysis is cited which we feel did not adequately address the effect of visitor centre traffic at Countess.
Letter to Sir Neil Cossons from Ann Rudkin (CRRG Coordinator): this requested a meeting to acquaint him directly with our concerns. We hope for a meeting in late Spring (now likely to be summer).

Reports:
The Mott MacDonald Scoping Report (January 2001): This is the first stage in the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) process required by European Union Council Directives 85/337/EEC and 97/11/EEC, and leads to an Environmental Statement (ES).
The report identifies subjects and issues that the ES will address and demonstrates how potential impacts will be assessed.
We commented on the scope and methods of data collection, assessment methodologies and definitions of significance. We felt that in some instances there was insufficient explanation, a lack of sensitivity to this particular situation and location, and inadequate reference to the residential area affected.
National Trust Land Use Plan (May 2001): This outlined NT proposals for the area of Stonehenge Down in its ownership. In general, the document produced more questions than answers and some aspects gave cause for concern. Our comments and queries covered proposals for the A344 and for public rights of way, the conservation and 'enhancement' of archaeological remains, tree removal, the provision of trackways and routing of visitors, and the free access policy. Once again, this was a document with little or no concern for local residents.

The Way Ahead:
We remain opposed to the siting of the Visitor Centre at Countess East. We continue to monitor the plans for the Centre as presently proposed, and to fight for an alternative site.

An important new concept is the 'Parker Plan' being promoted by Salisbury District's Association of Council Taxpayers (ACT). The Plan, created by ACT member Graham Parker, re-routes the A303 from east of Amesbury, taking it south of Boscombe Down and across the Woodford Valley, eventually joining the A36 on westward. This concept removes the A303 from the Stonehenge World Heritage Site, allows for re-siting of the Visitor Centre, and also forms part of a Salisbury bypass. All at a considerable financial saving compared to the present 'cut and cover' tunnel. The Plan seems to be gaining recognition. The regional Government Office recently called for a presentation, so we await further developments with interest.

Recent analysis presented to Amesbury Town Council suggests that a combination of increased housing stock, commercial development and tourism is likely to produce a quadrupling of Amesbury's traffic level by 2019, an increase in local traffic between Folly Bottom and Countess roundabout, and increased use of the A345 as a preferred route, particularly by HGVs. All of this will be further aggravated by the Visitor Centre traffic which will also focus on Countess roundabout, and is considered a disaster waiting to happen. However, local councillors having achieved in their minds a solution to local A303 shortcomings, seem to remain oblivious to the potential problems posed for Countess residents - their electorate.

A further meeting of the Local Liaison Group is scheduled for August. This will be a useful opportunity for the future problems for local roads caused by Stonehenge, its Visitor Centre, the World Heritage Site and local development to be fully aired.

NEWS UPDATE : SEPTEMBER 2000
Following a joint news release by English Heritage (EH) and the Highways Agency (HA), dated 10 July 2000, it looks as though a 'quiet period' will exist for a while whilst plans for the Stonehenge Visitor Centre and A303 are reviewed and developed.

The EH news release indicates that the current visitor centre procurement process is being closed down; that EH was originally "working towards the submission of a planning application this summer and a target opening date of 2003" and, "...it has become clear that it would be counter-productive to rush to meet this schedule, since the opening date will not now be before 2006". However, the bad news is that EH is still looking to purchase land at Countess East as a site for the new Stonehenge Visitor Centre, and the Dept of Culture, Media and Sport has agreed in principle to fund the purchase. Plans for the new centre will be available for. public consultation in 2002. So, around £5 million spent so far, and nothing useful to show for it!

In spite of this apparent 'new approach', a request made in May for a meeting with the new EH Chairman has so far not met with success. Subsequent to the news releases and the new information they provided a further request for early and ongoing dialogue with EH and HA was made. A response is currently awaited.

The Highways Agency news release indicates that a flyover at the Countess roundabout is the preferred option for coping with present-day congestion. Thus, "the flyover will be added to the existing 10km A303 improvement scheme being studied by the Agency, which includes a tunnel past Stonehenge and a by pass for Winterbourne Stoke" .

The HA statement goes on to say that the project will meet he needs of local residents and motorists. We shall see! It's interesting to note also that the flyover is only referred to as the solution for "present- day congestion". We know from previous HA statements that traffic on the A303 is increasing, so we wonder for just how long a flyover will remain effective. With the addition of traffic from the visitor centre, its likely shuttle systems, and from proposed commercial and leisure developments nearby, all focussing on the roundabout, a flyover's useful life might appear very limited. We feel that if the visitor centre and its traffic were moved to another location, the flyover's effectiveness would in all likelihood be considerably extended.

There is also no indication that the 'cut and cover' tunnel past Stonehenge has been dropped in favour of the bored tunnel preferred by those truly concerned about conservation aspects of the Stonehenge World Heritage Site (WHS).

We have written to the HA and its contractor about the proposed flyover, indicating that its location would be adjacent to or within the following areas:

We made the point that the design of a flyover should be sympathetic to these special environments and to the nearby residential area by being unobtrusive, aesthetically appropriate, and by possessing good acoustic reduction qualities. A similar observation would be appropriate to the picturesque Winterbourne Stoke landscape.

The approximate timescale for the A303 project appears to be that detailed proposals will be completed during 2002, following which the HA will publish Draft Orders. These could be followed by a public inquiry. Construction is not likely to start before 2005.

The CRRG recently conducted traffic and visitor surveys at Stonehenge. At the time of writing the results are still being analysed. Following our survey, one was also conducted by the HA on the 17th and 19th August, to examine patterns of traffic movement during the peak summer conditions.

So, as soon as anything new comes to light, we will let you know! Stay 'tuned' and please keep lobbying!

STONEHENGE VISITOR CENTRE: IS IT VIABLE?
Commercial viability of the new visitor centre has been linked by English Heritage with reaching a 1 million annual visitor target. One wonders how realistic this might be within a developer's acceptable timescale. Available figures for visitor numbers suggest that this could occur between 2011 and 2025. True, there may be an initial surge of interest, but when that subsides, what thenÖ? Already there are reports of plummeting visitor numbers at the Millennium Dome so, if that enterprise is failing, what hope is there for the Stonehenge visitor centre in the longer term?

THE WAY AHEAD: THE PLANNING APPLICATION
or, WE NEED YOUR HELP!
The next significant move in the process will be English Heritage's planning application for a visitor centre to Salisbury District Council. There is no firm date for this, but it is expected later this year (2000).

We need voluntary help from someone conversant with and skilled in the planning process to help combat the slick and expensive protagonists that we expect to be fielded by English Heritage and National Trust, particularly if the process goes to Appeal.

If you feel you could help, please contact the person below in the first instance:
Peter Goodhugh, 34 Countess Rd, Amesbury, Salisbury, Wiltshire, SP4 7AS