21/12/06 Salisbury Journal
16/12/06 Western Daily Press
11/07/06 CRRG Press Release
25/05/06 MP does not speak for us
18/05/06 Big organisations not contributing
13/04/06 Tunne is the only scheme
06/04/06 Groups meet to agree view
06/04/06 Plans the same
30/03/06 Members back tunnel
17/11/05 Councillors urged to contest appeal
13/11/05 CRRG Press Release
04/08/05 Listen to locals
04/04/05 New Dawn
28/07/05 Council rejects planning application
28/07/05 Land Train Condemned
28/07/05 Dig tunnel for half the price
28/07/05 Tunnel gone to obliviion
28/07/05 A breath of fresh air
24/02/05 Work on VC may not start until 2006 24/02/05 Articly by Robert Key MP
24/02/05 Visitor Centre decision delay
29/01/05 Tunnel plans lost down black hole?
28/01/05 Tunnel fear
22/12/04 Unpublished Letter to The Times
22/12/04 On the back burner?
11/11/04 Stonehenge plan a "National outrage"
25/10/04 Town Council to submit objection
29/10/2004 EH Advisory Forum
14/10/04

We publish to our Web site any literature that helps the cause. Either E-mails, letters, magazine or newspaper reports and journals. We would appreciate your comments.
Please use the Have Your Say section. Thanks.

We publish to our Web site any literature that helps the cause. Either E-mails, letters, magazine or newspaper reports and journals. We would appreciate your comments.
Please use the Have Your Say section. Thanks.

We publish to our Web site any literature that helps the cause. Either E-mails, letters, magazine or newspaper reports and journals. We would appreciate your comments.
Please use the Have Your Say section. Thanks.

We publish to our Web site any literature that helps the cause. Either E-mails, letters, magazine or newspaper reports and journals. We would appreciate your comments.
Please use the Have Your Say section. Thanks.

We publish to our Web site any literature that helps the cause. Either E-mails, letters, magazine or newspaper reports and journals. We would appreciate your comments.
Please use the Have Your Say section. Thanks.

We publish to our Web site any literature that helps the cause. Either E-mails, letters, magazine or newspaper reports and journals. We would appreciate your comments.
Please use the Have Your Say section. Thanks.

We publish to our Web site any literature that helps the cause. Either E-mails, letters, magazine or newspaper reports and journals. We would appreciate your comments.
Please use the Have Your Say section. Thanks.

We publish to our Web site any literature that helps the cause. Either E-mails, letters, magazine or newspaper reports and journals. We would appreciate your comments.
Please use the Have Your Say section. Thanks.

We publish to our Web site any literature that helps the cause. Either E-mails, letters, magazine or newspaper reports and journals. We would appreciate your comments.
Please use the Have Your Say section. Thanks.

We publish to our Web site any literature that helps the cause. Either E-mails, letters, magazine or newspaper reports and journals. We would appreciate your comments.
Please use the Have Your Say section. Thanks.

We publish to our Web site any literature that helps the cause. Either E-mails, letters, magazine or newspaper reports and journals. We would appreciate your comments.
Please use the Have Your Say section. Thanks.

We publish to our Web site any literature that helps the cause. Either E-mails, letters, magazine or newspaper reports and journals. We would appreciate your comments.
Please use the Have Your Say section. Thanks.

We publish to our Web site any literature that helps the cause. Either E-mails, letters, magazine or newspaper reports and journals. We would appreciate your comments.
Please use the Have Your Say section. Thanks.

We publish to our Web site any literature that helps the cause. Either E-mails, letters, magazine or newspaper reports and journals. We would appreciate your comments.
Please use the Have Your Say section. Thanks.

We publish to our Web site any literature that helps the cause. Either E-mails, letters, magazine or newspaper reports and journals. We would appreciate your comments.
Please use the Have Your Say section. Thanks.

We publish to our Web site any literature that helps the cause. Either E-mails, letters, magazine or newspaper reports and journals. We would appreciate your comments.
Please use the Have Your Say section. Thanks.

We publish to our Web site any literature that helps the cause. Either E-mails, letters, magazine or newspaper reports and journals. We would appreciate your comments.
Please use the Have Your Say section. Thanks.

We publish to our Web site any literature that helps the cause. Either E-mails, letters, magazine or newspaper reports and journals. We would appreciate your comments.
Please use the Have Your Say section. Thanks.

We publish to our Web site any literature that helps the cause. Either E-mails, letters, magazine or newspaper reports and journals. We would appreciate your comments.
Please use the Have Your Say section. Thanks.

We publish to our Web site any literature that helps the cause. Either E-mails, letters, magazine or newspaper reports and journals. We would appreciate your comments.
Please use the Have Your Say section. Thanks.

We publish to our Web site any literature that helps the cause. Either E-mails, letters, magazine or newspaper reports and journals. We would appreciate your comments.
Please use the Have Your Say section. Thanks.

We publish to our Web site any literature that helps the cause. Either E-mails, letters, magazine or newspaper reports and journals. We would appreciate your comments.
Please use the Have Your Say section. Thanks.

We publish to our Web site any literature that helps the cause. Either E-mails, letters, magazine or newspaper reports and journals. We would appreciate your comments.
Please use the Have Your Say section. Thanks.

We publish to our Web site any literature that helps the cause. Either E-mails, letters, magazine or newspaper reports and journals. We would appreciate your comments.
Please use the Have Your Say section. Thanks.

We publish to our Web site any literature that helps the cause. Either E-mails, letters, magazine or newspaper reports and journals. We would appreciate your comments.
Please use the Have Your Say section. Thanks.

We publish to our Web site any literature that helps the cause. Either E-mails, letters, magazine or newspaper reports and journals. We would appreciate your comments.
Please use the Have Your Say section. Thanks.

Salisbury Journal 21 Dec 06
NEW STONEHENGE CENTRE ' WILL BE ON WRONG SITE'

ENGLISH Heritage chose the wrong site for its new visitor centre, and it will inflict misery on the lives of residents if plans go ahead, it was claimed last week.
Local people voiced their fears as they gave evidence on the final days of the public inquiry into the £67.5m project, planned for a site east of the Countess Road roundabout in Amesbury.
Chairman of the Countess Road Residents Group, George du Pre, agreed Stonehenge was of great national importance and its existing facilities were inadequate, but said the choice of site was a fundamental flaw in the proposal.
"Any visitor centre which is two miles away from the site itself has the problem of providing a transport system and the logistic baggage that goes with it," he added.
English Heritage want to transport visitors from the Countess Easter visitor centre to the stones by land train with four drop-off points which allow visitors to approach the stones from different viewpoints.
Judy Greville, district councillor for Durrington and Larkhill, spoke on behalf of residents at Fargo Road, which runs by the land train's route.
She said Countess East was chosen because it was the only potential site outside the boundaries of the World Heritage Site, but it made no sense not to build the centre within the world Heritage Site.
English Heritage have proposed screening between the train and properties to minimise the impact it has on the residents. But Cllr Greville said this would not be enough. "Even with screening you will see the train from upstairs windows, will hear it and be conscious of it at all times," she insisted.
Mr du Pre raised the Countess Road residents' key concern - increased traffic from visitors entering and leaving the centre's car park.
He said: "All those living locally will be adversely affected by the site itself or by the traffic it causes. One vehicle every seven seconds could be turning on to Countess Road from the visitor centre."
Mr du Pre said the noise of the vehicles entering and leaving, the exhaust fumes, additional traffic and light pollution would all adversely affect the amenity of residents on the eastern side of the road.
A concern raised by both groups of residents is how the visitor centre would affect the saleability of their houses. Mr du Pre added residents in Countess Road were already experiencing difficulties in selling properties because of the proposal.
Cllr Greville said: "It's a marvellous area to bring up children, but it will not be in the future. Would you want a land train passing your back garden 100 times a day?
"It's just not desirable for the residents."
The inquiry closed last Thursday, with planning inspector Philip Wilson due to make a final site visit today before then compiling his report, which will be published at some time next year.

Western Daily Press 16 Dec 06
HENGE CENTRE WOULD MAKE LIVES HELL

RESIDENTS have accused English Heritage of being blinkered and dogmatic over its plans to build a Stonehenge visitor centre nearly two miles from the monument.
the Countess Residents Association [should read Countess Road Residents Group] also said if the scheme got the go-ahead it would have a devastating impact on the quality of life for hundreds of people living near the centre.
The group estimated local families would have to put up with noise, dust and fumes from about 500 cars or coaches an hour. Association chairman George du Pre said: "There is no doubt that the residents of Countess Road will have their quality of life significantly and adversely affected."For my Army Major Mr du Pre, 58, was giving evidence on behalf of the association at the public inquiry into English Heritage's plans to build the centre on fields at Countess East, Amesbury.
The guardians of the stones insist that it is the only feasible site and aim to use a land train to ferry visitors from the centre to the area.
However, Mr du Pre told the inquiry at Salisbury that the site was manifestly in the wrong place.
He said: "English Heritage appears to be hamstrung as it persists with its blinkered, dogmatic view that this is the only site suitable."
This was because Countess East was outside the Stonehenge World Heritage Site and there can be no building within the site. But Mr du Pre said English Heritage was still prepared to sanction the construction of two enormous portal entrances on the site, as part of a separate scheme to bury the A 303 in a tunnel out of sight of the stones.
The visitor centre would also require the construction of the roadway for the land train, along with pickup and drop-off points.
"All of these would be within the World Heritage Site," he said .
Mr du Pre said an estimated one million annual visitors would have a devastating effect on more than 400 people who live in Countess Road.
The inquiry continues

CRRG Press Release 11 Jul 2006
STONEHENGE VISITOR CENTRE PLANNING APPLICATION

Last night the Planning and Regulatory Panel (P & RP) of Salisbury District Council voted by seven votes to two (with three abstentions) to approve the English Heritage planning application for a highly controversial new Stonehenge visitor centre at Countess East, just north of Amesbury in Wiltshire.

Despite the project being deeply resented and unpopular locally as it will be highly disruptive and intrusive, and almost all members of the P & RP saying that they felt the proposal sited the visitor centre in the wrong place, they nevertheless gave it their backing, claiming it did not violate any planning regulations.

The background to the situation is that at a meeting of the P & RP on 26 Jul 2005 the same application was rejected by the panel on the grounds that it did indeed violate planning regulations. A few days later English Heritage announced their intention to appeal against the decision, which is their legal right. (A right, incidentally, that opponents of a planning application do not have.) Following a further site visit by members of the P & RP in February 2006, English Heritage was invited to resubmit their application. This they did and put the appeal on hold. The application resubmitted was exactly the same down to the last comma as the application rejected in July 2005.

We believe this is an extraordinary and unprecedented way for a local council and a government department to operate, and that the circumstances and timing of the resubmission invitation and who issued it merit public and media examination.

We also believe that our councillors have acted in an unrepresentative manner that demonstrates a total lack of moral courage.

There are two other important issues in this case. First, as the law stands at the moment, opponents of a planning application do not have the right of appeal, as quoted above. Secondly, that residents’ loss of “amenity” – the planning term meaning well being and lack of intrusion seems to carry such little weight as a planning consideration

Salisbury Journal Postbag 25 May 2006
MP doesn't speak for us on the tunnel
Does our MP speak for constituents on Stonehenge? I think NOT.
I take issue with Mr Key regarding his letter to the Prime Minister reported and the Journal last week, in which he asks for the PM's support, "on behalf of my constituents..." for the tunnel for the A303 road improvement.
I suggest the vast majority of his constituents do not want the tunnel.
The tunnel is a scheme dreamed up by powerful minority groups such as English Heritage, the National Trust and others, for my own self-agrandisment, gratification and pockets, to the detriment (and future expense) of the vast majority of the people in Wiltshire and in the country, who gain so much pleasure from glimpsing Stonehenge when driving along the A303.
The cheapest, quickest and most sensible route from the dealing of the A303, which affects no people and destroys the least amount of beautiful Wiltshire countryside is a well-landscaped, unobtrusive, surface laid dual carriageway along, or close to, the current line of the A303.
With a tunnel, in 30 years time, only a few people will have ever seen the amazing sight of Stonehenge.
STEPHEN BUSH
Berwick St James

Salisbury Journal Postbag 18 May 2006
Big organisations not contributing

We learned last week that our MP, Robert Key,had written a letter to the Prime Minister supporting the tunnel scheme for Stonehenge. Not only that, Mr Key proposes that a toll be charged for its use!
It is interesting to note that, of all the bodies that support the construction of a £510m tunnel - English Heritage, the National Trust, Salisbury district council, various archaeological organisations and now our MP - not one of them has offered to contribute a single penny towards the cost of construction.
Perhaps their view would be different if they had to!
GEORGE DU PRE
Countess Road, Amesbury

Journal 13 April 2006
Cabinet agrees £510m tunnel is only scheme for Stonehenge
BY JILL HARDING

THE only solution to the traffic problems at Stonehenge should be the 2.1km, £510m tunnel the council's cabinet agreed this week.
In a bid to move the debate forward, councillors firmly backed the bored tunnel and removed their support for the cheaper but potentially more environmentally damaging, cut-and-cover tunnel, which has long been identified as Plan B.
The row over the future of the World Heritage site sparked again in January, when the government launched another consultation period, after the cost of the tunnel more than doubled.
Councillors who were asked to look at the options yet again, more than two years after a lengthy and costly public inquiry, found it hard to hide their frustration.
Environment and transport portfolio holder Dennis Brown said: "What we have is consultation overload. We are waiting to see some action from the government to resolve this once and for all, but I'm not holding my breath."
Labour councillor Steve Fear told the meeting: "I am bitterly disappointed by the government.
"This is a site of international importance and the only scheme that is appropriate is the tunnel.
"All the other options have been looked at and not one of them meets the bill."
In an interview with the Journal last year, transport minister Dr Stephen Ladyman said the tunnel would not be built unless a way could be found to "dig it for half the price".
However, English Heritage, which looks after the ancient monument, remains adamant that the tunnel is the only way to restore the historic landscape and protect the stones.
Councillors noted that they were not being given the option of an overland dual carriage-way, which was popular with many local people.
The meeting heard that motorists would resent losing I their view of the stones, whichhas been called the "gateway to the west country".
Deputy leader of the council Fred Westmoreland came up with an alternative scheme that would involve replacing the roundabout at Countess Road Amesbury, closing the A344 and providing a bypass for Winterbourne Stoke - leaving the rest of the A303 untouched.
"Yes, it would narrow to one lane, but it's the roundabout that causes the delays, and there are other single carriage-way sections of the A303," he said.
"What's the rush? Stonehenge has been there for 5,000 years.
"Maybe, in a few years' time, new technology will have been developed to find a way without destroying the archaeology forever, but in the meantime a partial solution is the only option."
But his cabinet colleagues, who were only faced with limited options, voted to back the tunnel, agreeing that supporting one option would send a clear message to the government.
Mr Brown added: "None of the options, apart from the tunnel, meets the aims of the project."

Salisbury Journal 6 April 2006
Groups meet to agree views on A303 scheme

TEN conservation groups have joined forces to call for a judicial review of the Stonehenge A303 improvement scheme - if the bored-tunnel emerges as the favourite option.
All ten organisations oppose the current options, claiming they lack a long-term vision for the World Heritage site.
And they are challenging the "reasoning and recommendation" of the 2004 public inquiry report, saying there could be grounds for a judicial review if the bored-tunnel scheme was approved.
The groups - the Ancient Sacred Landscape Network, the Campaign to Protect Rural England, Friends of the Earth, the International Council for Monuments & Sites UK, the Prehistoric Society, the British Archaeological Trust, the National Trust, Transport 2000 and the Wiltshire Archaeological and Natural History Society - have met to agree a common view on the highways agency review consultation.
In a statement after their meeting, they said they represented a large heritage and environmental constituency and reflected local, national and international views with a "diverse range of professional and public opinion".
They all 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.
These options should include above-ground, or mainly above-ground, routes within northern and southern corridors, together with tunnel options that avoid impacting on the site.
The statement said: "We all believe that the government should, in the short term, focus on the benefits of possible small-scale, interim improvements, notably closure of the A344/A303 junction.
•An on-line dualling of the A303 past Stonehenge will not be acceptable to government ministers as a solution to the monument's traffic problems, it was confirmed this week.
The proposal of a surface dual carriageway had been put forward by Liberal Democrat councillor Ian West and Colin Mills, as part of the government's latest consultation on improving the A303, and has the backing of the Stonehenge Action Group.
But, in response to a letter from John Ellis, of the Salisbury branch of the Association of Taxpayers, the Highways Agency has reaffirmed that such an option has already been ruled out by the government.

Salisbury Journal 6 April 2006
Visitor centre plans 'exactly the same'
BY DAVID VALLIS

FIERCELY OPPOSED plans to build a £67.5m Stonehenge visitor centre at Amesbury are back with councillors - less than a year after councillors threw the plans out.
English Heritage bosses resubmitted their planning application to Salisbury district council this week and said they felt confident their bid to site the controversial centre just east of the Countess roundabout would win through this time.
Heritage's Stonehenge director Peter Carson told the Journal: "The scheme was recommended for approval by the council's own planning officers last time and was approved by northern area committee councillors, before falling at the last hurdle when it went to the planning and regulatory panel.
"So, although there is no guarantee with these things, we are reasonably optimistic of success this time round."
The council planning and regulatory panel was cheered and applauded by Countess Road and Larkhill residents, after it refused permission for the controversial visitor complex last July.
But English Heritage later lodged an appeal against the decision and, after a detailed reappraisal of the scheme earlier this year, the district council announced in February that it had invited EH to resubmit its plans.
Mr Carson confirmed that this had now been done and that the appeal - which could involve the council in huge legal costs - was being held in abeyance.
He said the resubmitted plans were exactly the same as those put forward last time,including the proposal for a land train to take people from the new visitor centre to Stonehenge.
The land train would run close to the back gardens of homes at Larkhill and residents there are worried about the disruption it would bring to their lives.
However, Mr Carson said English Heritage would look at operation issues and work closely with the council to address residents' concerns.
He said English Heritage would also continue to work with the council to minimise the impact of the visitor centre on the lives of people living in Amesbury's Countess Road.
"We want to provide an attraction that everyone can be proud of," he said.
Mr Carson said English Heritage expected a decision on its resubmitted planning application by the end of July and, if successful, hoped to announce a construction timetable soon afterwards. But much hinges on the out-come of the government's latest review of improvements for the A303 past Stonehenge and how that affects long-standing plans for a Countess Road fly-over.
Mr Carson said: "We shall be awaiting the decision on the A303 review with bated breath."
English Heritage chairman Sir Neil Cossons said the visitor centre would transform people's experience of Stonehenge and create new opportunities for tourism and the local economy.
He added: "English Heritage is committed to securing planning permission for the scheme, and we look forward to working with Salisbury district council to ensure the best possible outcome for Stonehenge, its visitors and local residents and businesses."

Salisbury Journal 30 March 2006
Members back £510m tunnel
BY DAVID VALLIS

SALISBURY district councillors have again swung their support behind plans for a 2.Ikm bored tunnel solution to the traffic problems of Stonehenge - even though the scheme was shelved by government ministers last year after cost projections rocketed to a staggering £510m.
Members of the council's northern area committee, meeting in Amesbury last Thursday (March 23), voted to back the conclusion of their planning officers that the tunnel project remains the best way of solving traffic problems at the World Heritage site and restoring the dignity and isolation of the ancient stones.
They also endorsed the view of officers that, if the scheme is finally ruled out, the second best option would be to proceed with a £389m `cut and cover' tunnel - subject to the route minimising archaeological damage to the World Heritage site and the roof of the tunnel being sensitively con-toured to blend in with the landscape at Stonehenge Bottom.
And, if neither scheme is considered affordable, the committee suggested that ministers should consider the scheme of Liberal Democrat councillors Ian West and Colin Mills for an on-line dualling. of the existing A303 past Stonehenge and provision of a bypass for the village of Winterbourne Stoke.
All three recommendations, put forward as part of the government's latest consultation on options for improving the A303 past Stonehenge, will now go to next Wednesday's meeting of the council's cabinet.
Five schemes, including the bored tunnel and `cut and cover' option, are now on the table, with funding remaining the major stumbling block.
In a report to the northern area committee, council trans-port planner Geoff Hobbs said the bored tunnel remained `the best option to deliver both the critical infrastructure and environment improvements to Stonehenge.'
He said: 'Of the five options, it most closely meets the objectives of the World Heritage site management plan. It is accept-able to English Heritage and the National Trust. But ministers consider the cost of this option prohibitively expensive.'
Mr Hobbs reported that the `cut and cover' tunnel was the second best option. Even though it would cause 'significant disturbance and damage' to archaeology. Although removing the A303 from view of the stones, the top part of the tunnel would still form a visible manmade feature in the World Heritage site. He dismissed the ideas of northern and southern routes around the henge because the A303 would still be clearly seen in the WHS.
He said the remaining option of a partial solution would do nothing to meet the objectives of the World Heritage site management plan.
Conservative member Anthony Brown-Hovelt had urged councillors to defer any decision until they had had a chance to look a the latest proposal of the Association of Council Taxpayers for a visitors site at King's Barrow Ridge, "negating the need for the expensive Countess proposals and associated land train."

Salisury Journal 17 November 2005
Councillors urged to contest visitor centre appeal

District councillors have been urged to stick to their guns in their stand against the controversial £67.5m Stonehenge visitor centre.
The call came this week from the Amesbury based Countess Road Residents Group, which is fiercely opposed to plans to build the centre close to their homes.
Members of Salisbury District Council's planning and regulatory committee backed residents in July when they shunned officers advice and voted to refuse permission for the development east of the Countess Road roundabout.
But last week, English Heritage announced it had lodged an appeal against that decision - and the council now faces a costly public inquiry.
The Countess Road Residents Group, however, bas come out fighting and called on councillors to stick to their decision and to contest the appeal.
In a statement, the residents' group praised the councillors for making a "robust and common sense decision" in turning down the application for the visitor centre, claiming it "contained so much that was unspecified and uncertain and clearly would have an adverse effect on local amenities".
The group accused English Heritage of "heavy-handed" tactics in choosing to appeal, rather than submitting a modified proposal.
Residents complain that siting the visitor centre near the Countess Roundabout would exacerbate traffic problems and bring disruption and misery to their lives.
There is also anger over proposals for a land train from the visitor centre to the Stonehenge site that would run close to homes at Larkhill.

Press Release 13 Nov 2005

STONEHENGE VISITOR CENTRE PLANNING APPLICATION

On 10 Nov 2005, English Heritage (EH) announced that it intends to appeal against the very sensible decision of the Planning and Regulatory Panel of Salisbury District Council (SDC) to refuse the planning application for the Countess East visitor centre.
Faced with planning officers apparently already won over by the EH scheme, councillors made a robust and commonsense decision in turning down the application that contained so much that was unspecified and uncertain and clearly would have an adverse effect on local amenity.
By choosing to appeal rather than submit a modified proposal, it seems clear that EH is using its usual heavy-handed tactics and trying to intimidate a 'cash-strapped' council – the SDC recently announced that it is looking for £1.5m savings to make its books balance - with the spectre of appeal costs, seemingly in an attempt to coerce it into not contesting the appeal. We believe this is disgraceful and the message to the SDC councillors must be to stick by their decision.
We know that EH itself has a cash shortage, yet it still chooses to hire high priced consultants (Chris Blandford Associates – www.cba.uk.net) , to write a smooth PR letter to local householders announcing the intention to appeal and boasting about the proposed visitor centre scheme. True to form, its method seems to be to throw money at something to get its own way. It should not be forgotten that much of this money comes from the taxpayer.
Finally, for EH to say it is 'surprised' at the Council's decision just beggars belief and indicates how little is its grip on reality.

13th of November 2005

Salisbury Journal 4 August 2005
They should have listened to the locals

WHILE the inspector recommends approval of the Stonehenge tunnel for the A303, the minister has dismissed tunnelling for costs generated by impossible hydrological conditions.
Among others, I challenged the latter at the public inquiry, only to be told that, after exhaustive tests, everything was fine.
As to cost, the sum involved when the inquiry ended in May a year ago was £ 192m but it seems it had already reached £284m as the inspector went home.
Now, as the government rethinks the case, and not forgetting to add in the Highways Agency's admitted error factor of 20 per cent, it is more than half a billion.
In his report, the inspector seems to have lost his way during the five-month delay in its delivery.
Not surprisingly, all the alternatives are killed off, some blindly ignoring solid evidence presented to him - and that includes the ACT AR4 route among alternatives offered.
Now, other than driving a dual carriageway across the sensitive Stonehenge landscape in complete denial of the World Heritage Convention, what is left?
Only truly honest appraisal will discover.
A route must be found across a barrier of protected areas stretching from the ranges of Larkhill, down the Avon in the Woodford Valley to the Salisbury city boundary at Stratford.
It can only go south and there is little choice, but while such a route would be long, it would save miles of road and benefit thousands of local people.
JOHN ELLIS
For ACT, South Wiltshire
Hillcroft
Farley

Salisbury Journal 4 August 2005
New Dawn

SO, now there is a new dawn arising from the Stonehenge saga.
Well, well, after years of meetings, talks, investigations and possible inquiries, the whole thing looks like starting yet again!
Is it to be the north route, or the southern route, or is it to be the vocal air balloon route?
From the very beginning, there were endless site visits to make a final decision on the visitor centre, only for us to be told, "This is where it is going to be!"
Didn't we know that already?
There was a mini-hotel and filling station there waiting to be expanded upon - ideal spot really! Neighbours? Well, they'll moan for a bit, but they'll get used to it!
Now, surprise, surprise, deep in the bottom of 'Stonehenge bottom', the water table
is found to be a little high.
Well, there are steep hills on at least two sides, Mr Surveyor!
After all the sample holes they dug, you would have thought they would have seen
that one, wouldn't you?
The cost, time and trouble? You ain't seen nothing yet!
It will take this government, English Heritage and the rest of the hangers-on at least five years to think about it.
Next time, perhaps they will listen to us, the locals.

JOHN D WIGGLESWORTH
High Street
Durrington

Salisbury Journal 28 July 2005
Jubilation as council throws out plans for visitor centre

RESIDENTS at Larkhill and Countess Road, Amesbury, were jubilant this week, after Salisbury district council threw out English Heritage plans to build a £67.5m Stonehenge visitor centre.
The controversial proposal to develop the centre east of the Countess Road roundabout was narrowly recommended for approval by the council's northern area committee last week.
But in a shock decision on Tuesday, the planning and regulatory committee rejected the scheme.
The decision to refuse planning permission was exacerbated by government plans to review pro-posed improvements for the A303 - including putting the road in a tunnel as it passes Stonehenge,building a new bypass for Winterbourne Stoke and developing a flyover at Countess Road.
Councillors were also concerned by plans for a land train that would have run close to homes at Larkhill (see story right).
Leader of Salisbury district council Kevin Wren said: "This council has always supported the broad objective of improving the facilities for Stonehenge and finding a solution to the A303.
"But we also have a duty to our local residents and community, and that has led the decision taken on Tuesday night."
English Heritage can appeal against the decision and, if it does, there will be a public inquiry.

Salisbury Journal 28 July 2005
Residents condemn land train proposals

ENGLISH Heritage chiefs took a caning from the public last week, as -councillors met to consider controversial plans for a £67.5m Stonehenge's visitor centre.
During an emotion-charged three-and-a-half hour debate at Amesbury sports centre, local residents queued up to blast Heritage over its choice of site for the centre, and its plans to run a land train close to homes at Larkhill in order to transport visitors between the new development and the Bronze Age monument.
About 80 members of the public and representatives of various interest groups attended the special meeting of Salisbury district council's northern area committee, and not one spoke in favour of the scheme - although it ended up getting narrowly recommended for approval by a 5-4 vote of committee members.
Resident after resident spoke of the traffic problems, misery and disruption the centre would bring to people's lives by siting it two miles away from the monument - on a site east of the Countess Road roundabout.
Chairman of the Countess Road Residents Group George du Pre was cheered when he said: "There is no doubt in our minds that the centre is in the wrong place and will bring considerable disruption to our lives.
"We are unanimously opposed to the positioning and consider there are much better sites close to the monument and further away from populated areas."
Stephen Bush, of Berwick St James, complained that the scheme was hugely expensive and would be a "ludicrous distance" from the stones, which he claimed would make visits "extremely expensive" for tourists.
"It is something no one wants and, if this wasn't such a serious matter, the whole thing would be a scandalously expensive joke," he said.
Others fiercely attacked the land train proposals and the 20 journeys a day that would be made past the back gardens of homes at Larkhill garrison.
They claimed it would bring noise and annoyance to residents and pose a security threat.
Kate Fielding, of the Stonehenge Alliance (incorporating the Campaign for the Protection of Rural England, Friends of the Earth and Transport 2000), said: "We don't object to a new visitor centre in principle but we do object to the huge glass-sided shelters in the landscaped and some three-and-a-half kilometres of new roads needed for the land train."
None of the northern area committee councillors spoke in favour of the English Heritage plans but most felt there were no sound planning reasons for refusing consent and voted to recommend approval subject to conditions.
Members also agreed that more information was needed on the land train proposals and the materials to be used to build the visitor centre and have called for details of both to come back to them before the issues are resolved.

Salisbury Journal 28 July 2005
Stonehenge row: Dig for half the price or scrap it
By JILL HARDING

PLANS for the Stonehenge road tunnel will be scrapped unless "someone can dig it for half the price", transport minister Dr Stephen Ladyman told the Journal this week.
The government called for a review of the A303 improvement project after the price tag soared from about £200m to £470m.
"That works out at about £8 for every man, woman and child in the country, just for one road scheme," said Dr Ladyman.
"The government can't justify spending that kind of money.
"The only way the tunnel can be built is if someone can dig it substantially cheaper - about half the price."
With the tunnel project at a stand-still, the department of transport will investigate other ways of alleviating the bottleneck on the A303 at the World Heritage site.
"What we have to do now is look at all the options," said Dr Ladyman.
"These might include some of the alternatives presented to the public inquiry last year.
"Maybe we dismissed the idea of cut-and-cover too quickly.
"We will be keeping an open mind."
Last year, a costly three-month public inquiry into the tunnel scheme was held in Salisbury and planning inspector Michael Ellison eventually recommended that it be built.
"He accepted the scheme as it had been presented to him," said Dr Ladyman.
"He did not know the cost would grow to £470m."
The reason for the spiralling price is a combination of soft chalk and a high water table, which caused added and expensive complications to the scheme.
"There were a lot of organisations, which don't have to pay the bill, with demands about the length and depth, and this effected the cost," said Dr Ladyman.
"You can do anything with modern engineering but it comes at a price." The scheme included a bypass for Winterbourne Stoke and a flyover at the Countess Road roundabout, in Amesbury, with access to the proposed Stonehenge visitor centre.
Those two projects now hang in the balance.
"One option might be to look at building the bypass and the flyover and do some kind of traffic management to keep it flowing on the existing stretch," said the minister.
"But we shall have to see.
"I can't see how we can make theroad into a surface dual carriageway because of heritage concerns but it is time to look at all options."
Salisbury MP Robert Key has written to Tony Blair asking him to take "strong and decisive action".
"Stonehenge has defeated your administration - just as it has defeated the administrations of your predecessors," he wrote.
"What we are seeing is a failure of the machinery of government."
The leader of Wiltshire county council, Jane Scott, who backed the tunnel scheme, said she was "deeply concerned" about the implications of the review.
"We look forward to a quick resolution and emphasise that the solution must comprehensively address the question of Stonehenge and the preservation of one of Britain's most important landmarks," she said.
Kevin Wren, leader of Salisbury district council, said the authority would continue to deal with English Heritage's planning application for the visitor centre, despite the setback.
"The council is disappointed that the government has announced it is to review the Highways Agency scheme to dual the A303 and remove the roads around Stonehenge," he said.
"We have been told by our counsel that we can progress with our planning duties as planned."

Salisbury Journal 28 July 2005
Tunnel has rightly gone to oblivion

THERE is no doubt that the ludicrous idea of tunnelling the A303 past Stonehenge has rightly been consigned to oblivion.
The Highways Agency is to be congratulated on finally recognising the sheer scale of this massive engineering project and the damage it would have done to the water table in the area and the World Heritage site in general.
The problem of what is to be done with the A303 bottleneck remains.
There seem to be only two alternatives: we move the road or we accept the fact that it needs to be widened as a surface road.
The latter would be unpopular with archaeologists but the longer tunnel that they advocate would surely have done as much damage, or possibly more, to the area and would carry an astronomical price tag.
Taking the road elsewhere would solve the problems of the World Heritage site and Winterbourne Stoke, but if this best option is not open, the two priorities of closing the A344, to stop the carnage that this junction with the A303 creates, and the bypassing of Winterbourne Stoke must be realised now.
Since it is well recognised that, at holiday times, one carriageway can be gridlocked while the other is almost empty, there is another possibility that I have not heard discussed, and that is to widen the road by only one carriageway, which might make archaeologists a little happier.
This extra carriageway could be alternated between traffic going west and returning, as the flow dictated.
This would minimise further damage to the World Heritage site and could be financially acceptable to our government.

TONY MUNDAY
Countess Road
Amesbury

Salisbury Journal 28 July 2005
A breath of fresh air

WAS it not a breath of fresh air last week to see that the roads minister had decided to rethink this folly?
At £284m, this was already a scandalous waste of taxpayers' money, and no doubt by the time of its completion, the current estimated cost of £470m would have been exceeded by another £200m.
With regard to the visitor centre, I am sure there will be a sigh of relief from a number of Amesbury residents, and Winterbourne Stoke residents could still get a bypass if the current proposal for that section were retained and a dual carriageway created along the line of the existing road from where it currently finishes, just west of Amesbury, to the Longbarrow roundabout.
The benefits would be numerous - a massive saving in taxpayers' money, and minimal disruption to residents and current traffic while the new section was completed.
Finally, the fabulous view that you get of Stonehenge as you come over the rise from Amesbury would still be there for all to see for free.

JOHN GIBBS
Stapleford

Salisbury Journal 24 February 2005

A303 decision crucial:

Work on Stonehenge visitor centre may not start until 2006
Heritage: Decision on A 303 is crucial

By Roland Batten

Heritage bosses are putting the government under intense pressure to make a decision on the controversial £193m project to divert the A 303 trunk road away from Stonehenge.It had been hoped that work on the scheme, which includes putting the A303 into a 2.1 km tunnel where it passes the ancient monument, would have started this year.
But now English Heritage fears that with the public inquiry report still with the Secretary of State for transport and a general election looming, the government will be distracted into delaying a decision until later in the year.
English Heritage said the delay in making a decision was also holding up its own scheme to build a £67m visitor centre of Countess Road, Amesbury, a stone’s throw from the Stonehenge World Heritage site.
It is looking more and more likely that work will not start until 2006 at the earliest and an English Heritage spokeswoman said: “it’s crucial we have a decision on the roads as soon as possible.
“We have put an enormous amount of work into the planning application for the visitor centre.”
Plans for the visitor centre are currently being studied by Salisbury district council and a decision is expected sometime during the summer.
But even if the visitor centre gets the go-ahead, work cannot start until the government gives the green light for the new road system.
The Highways Agency plans include the tunnel, a new dual carriageway between Amesbury and Winterbourne Stoke, a flyover at Countess roundabout and a bypass the Winterbourne Stoke.
The new road system will provide access to and from the new visitor centre.
When the three-month public inquiry into the road scheme ended in May 2004, planning inspector Michael Ellison said he expected to have his report on the Secretary of State’s desk by September.
But Alistair Darling did not receive the report until January of this year, putting a 2005 start in jeopardy.
The government has already come under pressure from the National Trust to make a decision.
The Trust, which owns much of the land with the world Heritage site, has told Whitehall not to let the road project become “obscured in bureaucratic long grass”.

Salisbury Journal 24 February 2005
Robert Key MP

If you think things have gone very quiet on the Stonehenge front-you are absolutely right. So let me bring you up-to-date. They may just be mouldy old stones to you, but they really matter. First, the roads passed the stones remain dangerous, that traffic gridlock on the A303(T) get worse, conditions at Countess roundabout, Amesbury, remained unacceptable and everyone suffers in the villages north of the A303, as well as people living in Winterbourne Stoke and Chicklade.
A significant proportion of our thriving local economy depends on tourism. Stonehenge is one of the most visited sites in the UK. Back in 1997, visitor facilities at this World Heritage Site were described by a Commons committee as “a national disgrace”. I challenge the Prime Minister at Question Time on June 18, 1997. He replied: “It is obviously a national monument of great importance and we will do whatever we can to safeguard”.
I was present at the launch of the new English Heritage back in 1986. Its first priority would be to address the Stonehenge crisis. Since then, it has been round and round in circles in the search for a visitors’ centre location – and finally settled on the Countess Road site. The department for transport eventually signed up to a deep-bored tunnel, a flyover and new access roads for the visitors’ centre at Countess roundabout and a bypass for Winterbourne Stoke.
Following the public inquiry, the inspector delivered his report on January 31. Meanwhile estimates of the cost have been spiralling. In a clever wheeze that kicked the whole thing into the long grass, in December last, the Secretary of State for transport announced that a decision on the financing of the Stonehenge project would now be put to a “regional consultative body” and it will have to compete with funds for other road improvements the whole of the south-west.
The culture Secretary was furious – DCMS had not been told before DfT made the announcement.
The government office of the SW said this is an internationally important scheme that should not prejudice local funds. The Regional Development Agency has no idea what this regional consultative body would be or do.
On February 7, I was told in a parliamentary answer that the government is committed to the scheme and the removal of roads is a crucial element. They told me that the A303(T) Chicklade bypass is not yet in prospect after all and would cost £120m at 2001 prices – another candidate for regional prioritisation.
Then came the big one. The current approved budget for Countess flyover the 2.1km tunnel and the Winterbourne Stoke bypass stands at £223m.
You won’t be surprised to hear that unattributable sources close to the truth have whispered to me that the estimated (as opposed to the approved) budget is fast approaching £400m. I wrote to the culture minister on January 14 asking him to “tell me what is going on so I can reassure local people”. I’m still waiting for the answer.
Meanwhile, the closest I’ve got to the truth was in a lift in the House [of Commons].
With no escape possible, a transport minister admitted that the scheme would not proceed, whatever the inspector said, unless the Treasury coughed up more money. Back to the PM, eight years on? Watch this space!

Salisbury Journal 24 February 2005
Visitor centre decision put back to summer

A decision on plans for a £67.5m Stonehenge visitor centre will not be taken before the summer, it emerged this week.
More than 800 residents gave their views on the controversial plans during a 12-week public consultation last year, and Salisbury district council planning officers have since spent four months sorting through the mountain of post and e-mails.
A host of issues were thrown up by the consultation exercise and planners say they will be raising the ease with the applicants, English Heritage.
As a result, a special planning meeting to decide whether or not the partially submerged futuristic-look visitor centre should go ahead has been put back until July or August.
David Milton, the council’s case officer overseeing the application, said: “It is not unusual with major planning applications for issues to arise when the plans have been thoroughly analysed. When this happens, we go back to the applicants and request the additional information needed, so that we can take the application forward to the committee decision-making stage.
“Once the additional information has been supplied by the applicants, we shall notify the public and hold another period of consultation.”
It is expected that the additional information will be with the council by late spring or early summer. Another 21-day consultation will then be held, with a planning application going to the committee for decision soon afterwards.
Council portfolio holder for planning and economic development John Noeken said: “We appreciate that it has been some time since members of the public have heard about the progress of this planning application.
“I can assure everyone that work is still very much on-going.
“As soon as we receive the information we need from the applicants, the public will get their chance to have their say again.
“This is a major application – the biggest in the council’s history – and we are determined that everything will be in place before councillors are asked to make their decision.”
English Heritage is planning to build the centre about 1.7 miles from the ancient stones, on a site near the Countess Road roundabout, in the Amesbury. It is planned that the land train would take visitors from the visitor centre to the stones, via a series of drop-off points.
But the siting of the proposed centre is fiercely opposed by Countess Road residents, who say it will intensify local traffic problems and blight their lives.
There is also opposition to the land train idea from residents in Larkhill, who complain that it will run too close to their homes.

Western Daily Press 29 January 2005
Stonehenge: Have tunnel plans been lost down a black hole?
By Ed Witcomb

THE future of Britain's most famous monument is under threat because plans to divert traffic from the landmark are lost in "bureaucratic long grass", it was claimed yesterday.
The National Trust is calling on the Government to press ahead with a tunnel on the A303 in Wiltshire, but has admitted it fears the project might be shelved.
Fiona Reynolds, director general of the National Trust, has now written an open letter to the Transport Secretary Alistair Darling protesting against delays and confusion over the long-awaited road scheme.
The letter said: "There is now a real risk that final decisions will not properly address the international heritage and cultural importance of Stonehenge." Thousands of cars pass near the world famous site every day, and the National Trust insists a tunnel is needed so Stonehenge can be "free from the blight of traffic and reunited with its surrounding landscape".
A public inquiry into the complicated situation finished in May, but the report has still to be finished despite early predictions it would be completed by September.
The National Trust also fears a recent decision to designate the A303 a route of regional rather than national importance will mean Stonehenge becomes a lower priority in the Government's transport plans.
If the road is not built, ambitious plans submitted to Salisbury District Council by English Heritage for a new visitor centre at the monument may also be scrapped.
Planners want to build a 1.3mile tunnel which would pass close to the World Heritage Site at the cost of almost £200million. However, at the public inquiry the National Trust objected to the Government's proposals, arguing they did not go far enough and calling for a 1.8mile tunnel.
Salisbury MP Robert Key said: "It is a complete nightmare. Stonehenge ...is a major national project, but Alistair Darling has kicked it into the long grass and does not want to pay for it."
He has now written to Culture Secretary Tessa Jowell for clarification. A spokeswoman for the Department for Transport said that until it received the planning inspector's report "the ball is not in our court" and no further action can be taken
She added: "The decision to classify the A303 as a regional road makes absolutely no difference to the decision making process. We are not downgrading it in any way..."
The Planning Inspectorate, which is carrying out the report, promised that its completion was "imminent".

Daily Express Friday 28 Jan 05
Fear for Stonehenge
By John Ingham Environment Editor

Plans for tunnel to divert traffic may be scrapped

CONCERN was growing last night that plans to safeguard the future of Stonehenge were being stalled by ministers.
The National Trust, which owns a third of the World Heritage Site, said it was worried a £200million scheme to divert a busy nearby road down a tunnel might even be abandoned.
This would condemn the 4,000-yearold stones, which are ranked on a par with the Pyramids, to continue being blighted by holiday traffic hurtling past.
The charity's director general Fiona Reynolds yesterday wrote an open letter to Transport Secretary Alistair Darling urging him to honour the Government's commitment to Stonehenge.
She wants to know why an independent inspector's report on a public inquiry into the plans has still not reached ministers, despite being promised by last September.
Ms Reynolds is also complaining that last month the Department for Transport designated the road - the A303 route to the West Country - as being of regional and not national importance, leaving it vulnerable to local planning needs.
She wrote: "It is now nine months since the closure of the public inquiry into the proposed tunnel and as far as we are aware the inspector's report has still not been evaluated or published.
"We are asking you to honour the Government's commitment to the World Heritage Convention and issue the necessary instructions to move this project forward with the urgency we all agree it deserves."
At a London press conference she added: "It is emblematic that this monument to the ingenuity of our forebears will be made to compete with a traffic relief scheme.
"We fear that the plan might be further postponed or even abandoned. This is a world class site and deserves better treatment."
The debate on how to protect the historic site from the intrusion of traffic on the A303 has raged for more than half a century.
In May last year a public inquiry heard plans including one for a 1.3mile bored tunnel.
The National Trust favours an alternative scheme to extend the tunnel to 1.8 miles, adding tens of millions of pounds to the estimated cost.
The trust wants the cost to be borne by the Highways Agency and not subsidised from stretched heritage budgets.
A spokeswoman for the Department of Transport said: "We are awaiting the inspector's report. We are expecting it very shortly. Once we have received it we will be considering its recommendations."

22 December 2004
Letter sent to the Times newspaper, but NOT published

Rachel Campbell-Johnson has taken English Heritage’s well known faculty for Creative Journalism to uncharted heights in her support for their Stonehenge plans (Times Review 18th December).
If she had visited Stonehenge she would have known that there is no chain link fencing between the West bound traffic on the A303 and the Monument. This is found only between the A344 and the Stones to prevent unauthorised free access from the car park.
Neither would she have seen the sunlight “sparkling off the flanks of ranked Tourist Coaches” at any time unless she sat on one of the Lintels. The Car Park and the present Visitor’s Centre are not visible from the Stones at ground level.
She also would know, if she had done her homework, that the “entire cost of the project” is not £67.5M. That is just the cost of the proposed Visitors Centre. The tunnel, which she referred to in her previous paragraph, is another “mere” £200M+
The idea that when the A344 becomes “a byway” it will “perhaps create business opportunities for residents” is causing a good deal of merriment amongst the local population and, perhaps, more than a little consternation at The National Trust as well as English Heritage. Perhaps, however, she was not contemplating Cream Teas and Burger Bars.
In 2002 she had the temerity to say that the then Culture Minister, Kim Howells, should “stick to being a politician”, when he dared to criticize the entries for the Turner Prize. Could I suggest that she either double checks her sources or sticks to being an art critic?

Dr Tony Munday
92 Countess Rd
Amesbury
Salisbury
Wilts SP4 7AT

Onto the back burner?
The status of the Stonehenge tunnel has been thrown sharply into question by New Labour’s Transport Secretary Alistair Darling. It appears that the A303 is no longer part of a second strategic highway to the South-West. In a bid to save £90 million and avoid environmental damage the A358 from Taunton to Ilminster is to be upgraded instead.

Additionally, the various elements of A303 improvement – including the Stonehenge tunnel – seem to have been moved from central government control to the SW regional office and demoted to a new category of regional rather than national importance.

At a time when the Highways Agency is understood to be ‘reviewing’ costs of the Stonehenge tunnel project, budget restrictions and financial savings are given as critical to the A358 upgrade.

In reaching its decision, the government has overturned a public inquiry decision in favour of the A303 upgrade, and its own commissioned study that concluded the A358 offered fewer benefits.

If the government’s enthusiasm for cost-saving and environmental protection impacts unfavourably on the proposed A303 works at Countess and Stonehenge , the proposed new visitor centre is also thrown into doubt, as the projects are inextricably linked. Of course, one has to pose the question: what government, just before an election, would want to sanction major excavation through a sensitive world heritage site at a cost deemed unacceptably high …?

Salisbury Journal, 11th November 2004
Stonehenge Plan a "National Outrage"!
By Roland Batten,

THE government will face "international outrage" if the green light is given for the dual carriageway to be constructed near Stonehenge, according to a survey by the Save Stonehenge group.

The group claims that a new survey shows people from all parts of the world are opposed to the Stonehenge road scheme.

Group member Chris Woodford said: "Our survey suggests there is overwhelming international opposition to the British government's plans to construct a new section of dual carriageway - a four-lane highway - only partly in a tunnel, through the world-famous heritage site."

The group has been publicising the plans on a website, which also includes an interactive message board where readers can post their views.
The group claims that, between March 2001 and October 2004, readers from 18 countries have left more than 300 written comments, and only 12 have supported the plan.

Mr Woodford said: "Most of the comments express anger, shock, shame and outrage.

"Almost all call for the British government to explore other solutions that do not involve damaging road construction inside the World Heritage site.
"Stonehenge is not just a World Heritage site, it is a world icon.

"People throughout the world revere and respect this place. We believe transport secretary Alistair Darling is considering giving the green light to a road scheme that will bulldoze a new, four-lane highway right through the middle of it.

"If he does, as our survey very clearly shows, he will experience the full force of international outrage and concerted opposition every step of the way"

25 th October 2004
Amesbury Town Council wishes to submit a formal objection to application.

AMESBURY TOWN COUNCIL
Town Clerk - Howard Piner
18 Fairview Road , Salisbury , Wiltshire. SP1 1JX
Telephone/Fax 01722 417444 e-mail: amesburyclerk@btconnect.com

Mr David Milton,
Special Projects & Support Manager,
Salisbury District Council,
61, Wyndham Road ,
Salisbury ,
SP1 3AH.

Dear Mr Milton.

Planning Application S2004/001 Proposed Visitors Centre and Land Train.
Response by Amesbury Town Council.
Amesbury Town Council wishes to submit a formal objection to this application.

Please find attached the observations associated with that objection that have been reached by Councillors and approved at two meetings along with further personal consultations.

May we say that the vast amount of documentation submitted by English Heritage has been difficult for the Council to fully study. It is rather generalised, including a number of inconsistencies and gives more of a vision of what English Heritage wish to have rather than easily understood submission. Thus you may find some of our objections similarly couched in generalised terms.

Needless to say the Council is concerned, that if approved, there should be some beneficial gain to the town both in terms of visitor numbers, local business and the community as whole in the form of improvements to the local infrastructure.

Provision or retention and improvements to the pedestrian underpass under the A303 with a footpath to the Visitors Centre these to include suitable space for cyclists is an essential requirement. You will be aware that the planned improvements to the Countess Roundabout have a light controlled pedestrian surface crossing on both exit and entrance slip roads to the A303. The Council consider this to be a serious road safety issue that would deter tourists from visiting the town centre and become a serious hazard to people living to the north of the town needing to access the town centre for school, work and shopping. It cannot be over stressed that to have pedestrians and cyclists crossing slip roads between two major roads near to their junction would be a recipe for disaster, traffic lights or not.

Car parking is already at a premium in the town with traffic congestion doing nothing for the town centre, therefore every effort needs to be made to enable local people to access the town in comfort and safety without the use of motor vehicles.

There has been a long held wish of the Council and residents of Amesbury, Durrington and Larkhill that the footpath in Countess Road is extended from its northern ending point close to the parish boundary to the surfaced path close to Durrington roundabout. In addition the new path, together with the current footpath and that south of Countess Roundabout to the town centre to be upgraded to provide a cycleway alongside. This again is a road safety issue as there will be additional traffic generated by the Visitors Centre.

The Council sees an opportunity to link the Visitor Centre site to the town by way of a footpath from the centre to the River Avon then by means of a footbridge over the river and a connecting footpath under the existing A303 River Avon bridge walkway into Lords Walk.

Whilst strictly not a planning matter the Council felt that from a tourists’ perspective the chosen site of the Visitors Centre is too far from the Stones. In general it is felt such facilities should be close to the attraction itself.

The chosen site is the only one that is likely to create maximum disruption to Amesbury and surrounding villages, whilst there a number of sites closer to the Stones, it is the only one that is close to residential properties. It is also one that will we feel, create the greatest opposition.

Yours sincerely
Howard Piner, Town Clerk

Amesbury Town Council
Objections to Planning Application S/2004/001

The proposed main building and associated roadways are too close to residential properties in Countess Road . The impact on residents will be:

Noise pollution
Possible external lighting pollution
Emission pollution
Residential security
Land Train making journeys up to every 5 minutes
The site itself is close to the current Sewerage works and that of a proposed waste incinerator.
The site is not covered in the Local Plan as adopted in 2003 for any form of development and is mentioned under C18 referring to protecting the ‘visual quality and public enjoyment of a river or a floodplain’
The main design is not in keeping with both local agreed designs or its situation in an Environmentally Sensitive Area (The proposed site is next to a World Heritage Site and a Site of Special Scientific Interest coupled with the River Avon System being designated as an area of High Ecological Value)
It is noted the Visitors centre will have restaurant and shopping facilities both these could have impact on town businesses if the operating hours of the centre were ever extended to cover such functions as corporate entertainment, weddings etc. The type of use appears not to be defined.
There appears to be no design plans for the proposed structures for the drop off points within the World Heritage site. The limited drawings show buildings that would not be at all suitable for the area.
The egress onto Countess road is considered to be a road safety matter as the plans show a junction at right angles to the road. It is located at the narrowest point of the road; the site line when travelling from the north is obstructed as the road bends to the left. It is also some 80 Metres from the current egress from Countess Services.
It is noted that there is a proposal that this should be light controlled. It is also noted that there is a proposal that the pedestrian / cycle crossing point at Countess Crossing also be light controlled. The current proposed new junction on the A 303 / A345 is also to have light controls on roads. In effect there will be 3 sets of traffic lights in the space of 400 metres (¼ Mile) This may be suitable in a City location but not in a rural setting and will inevitably cause delays at busy time of the year.
Consideration should also be taken into account of the additional traffic that is likely to be generated by the Solstice Business Park when developed. The A345 Countess Road will provide the main route North and South both to and from this development.
An additional increase in traffic going through the Town, both coaches and cars by the close proximity of the centre together with the expected changes of visitor patterns are likely to create additional traffic congestion in the centre of the town.
The proposed Land Train (of which only examples have been shown) will require a special surfaced road, which will have an impact on the World Heritage site, Sites of Special Scientific Interest and Ecologically Sensitive Areas. It will also have a nuisance impact on both residents of Countess Road (especially close to Countess Crossing) Fargo Road and Strangways, where the proposal shows the train close to the rear of properties.
The application speaks of a LPG powered Land Trains but there seems to be no mention of where they will be refuelled and indeed where any storage of the trains or their fuel is likely to be.

There is little detail of proposal for access to the Stonehenge for the disabled, if as it appears to be suggested, this will be achieved by the use of motorised wheel chairs, there would be need to provide a hard surface from the Durrington Down Farm drop off point to the Stones. This again would impact on the World Heritage Site and runs contrary to English Heritage’s aim to remove all trappings of the 21 st Century.
The proposal makes reference to changing use of Bridleway 12 and to change the route and (it appears) to close part of Bridleway 39, this Council is opposed to any changes to by-ways in its area unless there are strong and robust reasons for so doing. This application does not meet these criteria.
The application for the removal of trees as the Northern end of Kings Barrow would severely impact on the landscape of the area and will not be in keeping with the rural nature of the area.

29 October 2004
English Heritage Advisory Forum 2004

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.

Absentees amounted to near 50%, which must surely give some message on how the forum is perceived. Presentations and reports were given by several project 'partners' and, generally, projected how well their individual schemes were progressing. The one receiving most attention explained an interactive website showing evolutionary aspects of the WHS; it will be viewable on-line in due course.

EH presented the most contentious report, describing their visitor centre and land-train planning application proposals. During this, a hostile atmosphere became quite perceptible; quite unlike the relaxed mode of the rest of the meeting. There were the usual mantras of involvement of the local community, and the widespread consultation that had taken place, but it was pointed out from the floor that EH's consultation is, in reality, nothing more than a presentation of their requirements. The land train seemed the most contentious element of the day. With its drop-off shelters 40m long, its trackway up to 6m wide, 5 trains spaced every 10 minutes, this was hardly the vision of melting unobtrusively into the landscape, of which they were made very aware.

The EH archaeology report for Countess east proved the most surprising. Hitherto, in their Master Plan and survey reports, EH has played down the potential of Countess east, likening it almost to a barren desert. We now learn that it contains - to date - at least 5 Anglo-Saxon sunken dwellings (grubenhausen), plus Romano-British building evidence, post-holes and other items. All of which adds significantly to the picture of Amesbury's evolution, even meriting the status of scheduled sites. This river-terrace settlement evidence stretches up to Durrington Walls, giving the area so far excluded from the WHS a new importance.

Salisbury Journal, 14th October 2004
Visitor centre plans savaged
By David Vallis,

TWO Salisbury Plain communities - Durrington and Larkhill - have given a resounding ‘no’ to English Heritage plans for a multi-million-pound visitor centre.

Residents unanimously rejected the plans at a packed public meeting at Durrington village hall last week --declaring that the chosen Countess Road East site was the wrong place for the proposed centre, which is expected to attract some 850,000 visitors a year.

And they fiercely opposed the proposal for a land train linking the centre to drop-off points within walking distance of the ancient monument. Speaker after speaker said the visitor centre scheme would intensify traffic problems in the Amesbury, Durrington, Bulford and Larkhill areas and bring disruption to their lives.

There was particular anger over the land train idea, with residents claiming the northern route for the train would pass too close to homes in Fargo Road, Larkhill - especially to the gardens of Steel Houses.

Residents said the trains would pose a threat to the safety of children, the security of their homes and property values. They also claimed that having the trains running every ten minutes at peak times would blight their lives.

The only part of the plan that appealed to them was aproposal to close the A344 running past the stones, as it would lead to the closure of the notorious Stonehenge Fork accident blackspot.

Earlier, the meeting had been given a presentation on the English Heritage planning application by David Milton, of the special projects department of Salisbury district council’s planning office.

Mr Milton said that, after 15 years, English Heritage had finally submitted firm plans for a visitor centre and the council was now conducting a comprehensive consultation exercise.

He said letters had been sent out to 13,000 households in the northern area of the district (some 33,000 residents) and to 120 statutory organisations, and all the views expressed would be taken into consideration before councillors decided whether or not to grant the scheme planning permission.

Durrington parish council chairman David Healing urged as many people as possible to make representations and to get them to the district co~mcil by the October28 deadline.

Immediately after the public meeting, Durrington parish council convened an extraordinary meeting and voted to oppose the English Heritage application.

Parish councillor John Todd said local people had made it clear they dislike