|
Letter to Chris Smith MP
- 20/07/99
Dear Sir,
Stonehenge - Proposed Visitor Centre and Countess East
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 "÷on the basis of analysis to date a flyover appears
to be the better option÷" 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,
Yours faithfully, N J Samuel On behalf of the Countess Road Residents
Group
c: Rt. Hon. John Prescott MP c: Robert Key PM c:
Sir Jocelyn Stevens c: the Editor Salisbury Journal
Road protest strengthened
by snarl-ups
Amesbury Journal 3 June 1999
By David Vallis
BATTLING householders protested alongside one of the country's
busiest trunk roads on Saturday as they stepped up their fight against
the planned siting of the new multi-million Stonehenge Visitor Centre.
About 20 members of the Amesbury Countess Road Residents' Group,
some of them with placards, handed out leaflets to motorists caught
up in an all-too-familiar Bank Holiday traffic jam on the A303 Countess
roundabout.
The leaflets warned Westcountry--bound holidaymakers and other
travellers, who regularly face summer weekend snarl-ups at the roundabout,
that far greater frustration could be in store for them if the visitor
centre is built on the site proposed.
The site chosen by English Heritage is Countess East, which residents
claim will mean visitors to the complex and the stones themselves
having to as many as four times.
Residents' group spokesman John Samuel said: "The new development
is expected to attract 1.8 million visitors a year to the area,
so just imagine the chaos it is going to create on the roundabout
and the misery it will cause for people living in Countess Road."
English Heritage and Government ministers have hinted at improvements
and alterations to the road layout to cope with the traffic.
But Mr Samuel, a traffic consultant engaged by Countess Road householders,
said they had seen no plans to that effect and remained sceptical.
He said residents recognised the need for a Stonehenge visitor centre
but that Countess East was the wrong choice of site. "It takes no
account of the people living in Countess Road and the extra traffic
and pollution it will bring to their doorsteps," he said.
Countess Road resident Peter Goodhugh said some people living there
were trying to sell their homes and move on before the development
goes ahead. "But the message from estate agents is that prices are
already beginning to fall" he said.
Confusion reigns over
visitor centre - Amesbury Journal - 22/07/99
By Sarah McQuillen
A MEETING called to calm anxiety over the siting of the Stonehenge
visitor centre at Countess East has left people more confused than
ever.
Culture Secretary Chris Smith and English Heritage chairman Jocelyn
Stevens presented contradictory versions of the way ahead to solve
the visitor centre row.
Countess residents, town councillors and Salisbury district councillors
heard Chris Smith promise on Tuesday that no final decision on whether
to build the visitor centre at Countess East had been taken an a
number of possible sites were still under review.
But after the meeting, Sir Jocelyn said that neither of the alternatives
- Fargo North or Countess West - was a serious or viable option.
He said: "We are not going back to Fargo. As for Countess West
- both the National Trust and I have given good reasons why it is
not a good site. "However, it is not clever to keep saying 'no'
to local people - we need to explain why.
"Countess East is still by far the favourite option. The only
people affected by it are the people of Countess Road".
Sir Jocelyn advised worried people to hold fire until detailed
bids from potential visitor centre operators become available at
the end of this month.
He said: "Their fear is founded on not knowing what is happening,
not on disliking the scheme.
"I think that when they see the final drawings they are going
to be very happily surprised. "Local people who think carefully
will realise that this visitor centre will be the best thing ever
to happen to Amesbury".
But Chris Smith described his discussion with local people as "very
constructive" and stressed that Countess East was still "no more
than a possibility".
He said: "One of the things I was glad to have the opportunity
to stress was that nothing has been set in concrete yet. Everything
will have to be justified to the planning authority. "Local people
will be fully involved in all our discussions and English Heritage
have joined us in making a commitment to that".
One subject on which all parties agreed was the need to address
traffic congestion on Countess roundabout.
Mr Smith said: "What we are seeking first and foremost is a solution
to the traffic so that there are not enormous gridlock queues throughout
the summer. "We simply cannot carry on with the status quo".
Amesbury town councillor Vernon Smith was disappointed with the
tone of the meeting. He said: "We have heard nothing new or fresh.
It was all very airy-fairy. I suspect that they still want to build
at Countess East but they are pretending that the other options
are still open to keep us happy."
Major John Turner, who represents the town council on the Secretary
of State's Stonehenge steering group, was more reassured by Chris
Smith's promises.
He has been responsible for trying to canvas high-level support
for Amesbury Town Council's new preferred site at Countess West.
He said: "I was pleased that it has become very clear that the views
of the management committee will be taken into consideration.
"We have taken a small step forward today but there is still a
lot left to thrash out."
Peter Goodhugh, of the Countess Road Residents' Association said:
"The National Trust representative said he did not want a 'massive
visitor complex' on the Trust's doorstep at Countess West.
"The residents of Countess East do not want a massive complex on
our doorsteps either".
Planning Committee Meeting
- meeting notes
Thursday 21st October 1999
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 Journal.
21st October, 1999
A long way to go in the battle of Stonehenge
THE recent 'Master Plan Newsletter' issued to 15,000 households
by English Heritage may lead many to think that Sir Jocelyn has
everything wrapped up, but the battle is far from over as many
questions need to be answered. Just why is it that Countess East
is fine to build the new Stonehenge Centre, close to private housing
owned by people who have invested their life savings into these
properties, but not at 'Strangeways officers' quarters' who are
not in the same position?
If you get your way, how on earth are you going
to ferry by rail across Countess Road hundreds' of visitors a
day? Is there to be an underpass or a bridge? Is there going to
be an opening and closing time for the centre? If so, is it to
be gated and have security, both for the centre and the residents
close by?
If Sir Jocelyn agrees that New or Old King barrows
present good views of the stones and are within easy walking distance
of them and that it's what Amesbury town councillors requested
in 1996, what's the problem? It's far away from the main housing
area and affects just three properties which I suspect the Trust
now owns.
The master plan issue two gives us a 'thought for
the day': "If it wasn't for the Stonehenge Master Plan, there
would be no road improvement." It is this very thought that worries
Amesbury Town Council, that all will be lost if we do not go along
with the proposals. But let us just look at what we have been
officially offered - nothing.
There are no offers or plans on the table that Amesbury
or Salisbury councils have yet. Sir Jocelyn has not the power
to give or make promises to anything. However, according to one
consultation brief, the mention of 'a flyover would be preferred',
although there may be other options. Dare I say traffic lights?
The Highways Agency now knows full well that something
has to be done at Countess roundabout and it has nothing to do
with Stonehenge visitors. This is for the traffic travelling further
west. It's just a matter of killing two birds with one stone.
Sir Jocelyn should really stop trying to make us
believe how well he is looking after our interests and how concerned
he is about people in Countess Road. And, if you still haven't
read the message, Sir, it's yes to a centre but not at the bottom
of our garden.
JOHN WIGGLESWORTH
Amesbury Town Councillor
Countess Road Amesbury
SO, Sir Jocelyn Stevens is now planning to increase
the number of sites for the proposed visitor centre from the existing
one to four: Countess East, Countess West, King's Barrow (the
most beautiful spot in the entire landscape) and Fargo North.
Does he really expect us to be happy about this?
JANE du PRä
Countess Road Amesbury.
I SHOULD like to heartily endorse Peter Goodhugh's
letter (Postbag last week) regarding Amesbury council's discussion
of the visitor centre planning brief.
I too was astounded that so many members admitted
to not having read it or seemingly knowing where to find it. As
far as I know, a leaflet was delivered to every door in Amesbury,
listing eight places where copies could be inspected. Admittedly
it was a vast document, some of it difficult to comprehend and
repetitive but do councillors expect to be spoon fed?
I can think of many past councillors who would be
saddened by the lack of commitment. Vernon Smith decries any suggestion
that the lowest forms of local government should be abolished.
On last week's showing in Amesbury would it make so much difference?
MARY UNDERWOOD
Earls Court Road Amesbury
THE JOURNAL. 21st October,
1999
MASTER
PLAN FOR MONUMENT TO BE SCRUTINISED
Stonehenge plan faces two hurdles By
David Vallis
MULTI-MILLION pound proposals to improve the setting of Stonehenge
and provide new world-class visitor facilities face a tough
test of public and council scrutiny over the next week.
The fate of the Stonehenge Master Plan, as it has been dubbed
by English Heritage and the National Trust, could hinge on what
is decided at two vital Salisbury District Council planning
meetings - tonight and next Wednesday. The council's northern
area committee will have first crack when members air their
views on the proposals at a meeting at Redworth House, Amesbury;
starting at 7pm tonight and expected to last up to two-and-a-half
hours.
Their recommendations will be taken into account when the Master
Plan goes before the council's full planning committee in Salisbury
six days later At both meetings the plan will be dealt with
as two separate issues -future management proposals for the
World Heritage site and a development brief for the visitor
centre, planned for a controversial site about a mile away front
the monument at Countess Road East.
Council officers are recommending endorsement - subject to
some amendments - of the management plan proposals, which include
the closure and grassing over of the A344 alongside the stones
and dualling and creation of a tunnel on the A303. Chief planning
officer Cliff Lane said this week that for the sake of planning
guidance they would also recommend endorsement in principle
for the visitor centre on the Countess Road East site. But the
hope was that an alternative site would be still be found.
The site is fiercely opposed locally, particularly by residents
of Countess Road, who fear it will add to the existing summer
time chaos on the A303/A345 roundabout. People are also worried
about the additional pressure that would be placed on local
roads if there was any delay between the opening of the visitor
centre and completion of promised highway improvements.
The English Heritage case is expected to be presented to councillors
tomorrow by the organisation's chairman Sir Jocelyn Stevens.
Northern area committee chairman Cllr Judy Greville has promised
to allow people on both sides of the argument longer than the
normally permitted time to put their views. "We want members
of the public to go away feeling that they were given a really
good opportunity to state their case," she said.
HOLLY HOUSE CONSULTANCY
N. John Samuel C.Eng, MICE, Dip TE
Holly House, 3 Watts Lane, Hullavington, Wilts SN14 6DZ
Tel/Fax: 01666 837 748
Sir Jocelyn Stevens CVO
Chairman of English Heritage
23 Savile Row, London W1X 1AB
27th September 1999
Dear Sir Jocelyn,
Re : Stonehenge Visitor Centre - Planning Brief
: September 1999
I write in connection with the recently released
Planning Brief for the Stonehenge Visitor Centre at the Countess
East site, Amesbury. As you may remember, I represent the Countess
Road Residents Group, who are opposed to the proposal to locate
the Visitor Centre at Countess East. Before going any further
I feel it important to repeat what has been said on previous occasions,
namely that the Group are not opposed to the provision of a new
Visitor Centre, and do not wish to be perceived as a "NIMBY" organisation;
the Group genuinely feel that the Countess East site is wrong,
both for them in environmental terms, and for the local and national
road systems in traffic terms.
My purpose in writing directly to you is to comment,
in greater depth, and in a less public fashion, about my uneasiness
at the manner in which the planning process seems to have become
disjointed, not to say distorted, in terms of the chronology of
certain of the major planning events related to the Visitor Centre.
The comments of the Group, in respect of the Planning
Brief of September 1999, have been sent to the Salisbury District
Council for consideration by the Planning Committee, and I enclose
a copy of these comments for your information. I would wish to
draw your attention to items 8. and 9. Of my comments, in which
I make reference to the various critical dates for Planning Committees
and PFI bids. It seems to me that the sequence of events is totally
wrong, and results in a situation which might even give rise to
legal challenge.
As I see it, the current process has a sequence
as follows:
-
1. The TIA which has been carried out is fundamentally
flawed because it was
a) based on assumptions for the scope and size of development
which cannot be known until a PFI bid is accepted, and the
details of the proposal known.
b) Based on estimates for future visitor numbers of between
1.0 - 1.2 million visitors p.a rather than the forecast 1.8
million.
-
2. The revised Planning Brief is no more than
a re-hash of the, in itself inadequate, 1996 version, and is
again formulated with no knowledge of the nature and scope of
the Visitor Centre which will emerge from the PFI process.
- 3. The selected PFI operator will have no opportunity to have
any input to the Planning Brief since it will have completed its
public participation process before details of the operator and
his scheme are made public. I respectfully suggest that the correct
sequence of events has to be:
- a) Selection of PFI operator, and the release of details of
the size and scope of the Visitor Centre proposal.
- b) Preparation of a Planning Brief followed by public consultation.
- c) Preparation of TIA based on the scheme proposed by the PFI
operator; possibly modified following the endorsement of a publicly
approved Planning Brief.
- d) Submission of Planning application - (stages C and D could
be concurrent).
As you will be aware, there is to be a public meeting following
the SDC Northern Area planning committee on the 21st October, to
discuss the Visitor Centre Planning Brief. On behalf of the Countess
Road Residents Group, I hope to be able to make representations
at the meeting. I would however rather discuss, what I see as a
fundamental flaw in the process, with you directly since I have
no wish to provoke acrimony or cause embarrassment needlessly.
I shall be grateful to receive any reply you may wish to make
in response to the above, and undertake to maintain confidentiality
in regard to this element of our discussions, should you so wish
it,
Yours sincerely, N. John Samuel
Cc: G. Allison - DTZ Pieda Consulting
NOTE: AS AT THE 18TH OCTOBER 1999, NO REPLY HAS
BEEN RECEIVED.
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.
Some examples which illustrate the above statement,
are listed below:
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 "÷ an efficient, environmentally sensitive, and sustainable
bus link÷
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 West÷ was unpopular due to access problems,
detrimental impact of congestion on residents of Countess Road÷"
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.
The sixth bullet point talks of "a range of ancillary
retail facilities".
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.
Conclusions:
- The Planning Brief is seriously lacking in detail in many important
areas.
- Some background facts are distorted, or just plain incorrect.
- Traffic implications and access arrangements are not clearly
stated, or justified.
- The form and content of the development proposed is vague and
ambiguous.
- The Brief which is the subject of this consultation is inadequate,
and lacking in sufficient detail to make it suitable to form the
supplementary planning guidance for the important Visitor Centre
proposal.
Article in The Journal, 14th October, 1999
'Amesbury's hand being forced'
on Stonehenge
AMESBURY is being railroaded into endorsing a vision of Stonehenge
which was drawn up and is being implemented behind its back. Town
councillors, at their meetings last week, accused London of forcing
them to accept Countess East as the site of the visitor centre by
presenting a package of measures which civil servants and English
Heritage already regard as a fait accompli.
Just three votes were cast in favour of approving
the document which will serve as the blueprint for the detailed
planning application, with councillors still expressing serious
reservations about the choice of Countess East. But members shied
away from rejecting the plan outright, saying that rejecting the
worrying parts of the plan could cause the whole scheme to fall.
Cllr John Haywood urged acceptance of the document
on pragmatic grounds. He said: "If we do not endorse this we will
lose everything we have fought for all these years, including the
dualling of the A303 and the improvements at Countess roundabout.
"The gains for the area if the plan goes through must outweigh the
disadvantages. We have got to look at the pay-out we are going to
get for supporting this site." But other councillors said that they
had yet to be persuaded that the government would honour its road
improvement promises.
Cllr Allan Peach said: "The details of the road are
still too up in the air. Until we get that sorted out, I am not
prepared to endorse anything". Cllr Fred Westmoreland said: "English
Heritage have tried to railroad this proposal through time and time
again. Once this document is agreed, Amesbury Town Council will
have signed up to Countess East."
Salisbury District Council's head of development services
Cliff Lane urged Amesbury to commit to something rather than miss
the opportunity to comment on the plan. He said: "We have all been
discussing this for nigh on ten years. The sooner we can get behind
a visitor centre site the better. "The traffic issues are an integral
part of any plan. Substantial monies Substantial monies are coming
to this district and it is up to you to say whether you want them
or not."
The town council grudgingly accepted the Countess
East plan by just three votes to one. The rest of the council abstained.
The document will now go forward for consideration by the district
council's northern area committee on October 21. Stonehenge will
then be the subject of a special planning meeting on October 27,
when the fate of the plan will be decided.
Letter to the editor of The Journal, 14th October,
1999
Losing faith in democracy
I HAVE been a long-time advocate of parish and town councils as
the first line of representation for the ordinary person, but I
am now revising my view.
At a time when the future of parish and town councils is under
scrutiny, the performance of Amesbury Town Council in considering
the latest visitor centre planning brief on October 5 leaves, in
my mind, much to be desired. The council's chosen meeting date fell
outside the generous time given for consultation by the district
council, so a dispensation was acquired in order to respond. Eleven
town councillors attended the meeting.
Although the brief had been made available to them via their clerk
and to the public for several weeks, only two councillors had seen
the full 70+ page document. The rest had a two-page report prepared
by a councillor who was not at the meeting.
Councillors complained of not having had access to the brief. One
councillor spoke against the brief. He later withdrew his views.
One councillor spoke for it - passionately and, we would say, misguidedly
as we understand he had not read the full brief.
His views seemed to be that improvements to the A303 at Amesbury
are essential, with which we would agree, but they would only be
obtained if English Heritage's Stonehenge visitor centre can be
built at Countess East - a ploy we feel is being adopted by English
Heritage to try to create some viability to its project.
The final vote was one against and three for the town council's
endorsement of the planning brief - subject to examination of details.
The rest of the councillors, seven in number, sat on their hands
and said nothing.
On this showing, the extremely contentious brief was accepted in
just a few minutes and a great deal of public opinion and concern
was thrown out of the window. Such is democracy.
PETER GOODHUGH
Countess Road Residents' Group
Countess Road, Amesbury
AMESBURY CLEARS THE AIR!
Planners and English Heritage were left in no doubt whatsoever
on Amesbury residents' views on the Stonehenge Visitor Centre proposed
for Countess East.
At the Northern Area Planning Meeting on 21 October an above-average
public attendance kept the questions and comments flowing as the
Draft Stonehenge Management Plan and the visitor Centre Planning
Brief were discussed. Cllr Greville, chairing the meeting, strove
to maintain order as peoples' concerns and emotions poured out.
Attempts by English Heritage representatives to dismiss Countess
East as an area of little relevance were met by robust reaction
from the floor. Questions were pressed as to why the eastern boundary
of the World Heritage Site followed the river Avon except for the
Countess East area when it conveniently follows the centre of the
road. Coincidentally with the inception of the WHS in the early
1980s, the first plans for siting of the visitor centre were being
laid, and it was perhaps that Countess East was conveniently available
which has led to its natural and historical character being rubbished
in an attempt to provide a 'blameless' site for a centre totally
out of character for the area.
A distinct feeling also emerged that local people had been hoodwinked
over the siting of the visitor centre; in spite of all the paraded
alternatives, Countess East had been English Heritage's long-standing
favourite for commercial reasons rather than more laudable desires.
Concerns ranged through the policy of returning the WHS central
area to grassland - this was criticised by farmers, WHS boundaries
- should include Countess East, the site desired by locals and recommended
by Chris Smith - Fargo North to the timings of A303 improvements
and visitor centre opening. All these aspects produced less than
satisfactory responses from English Heritage and Council Officers.
A particular point made was that of visitor centre opening hours
and effect on the nearby residential area; opening hours of 9am
to 7pm were proposed from the floor, but again there was no useful
response from councillors or English Heritage.
One councillor made the constructive point that the visitor centre
should not be commenced before the Countess roundabout flyover is
complete; an eminently sensible suggestion as the combination of
visitor traffic, normal traffic, transit buses and site traffic
will combine to produce a chaotic situation. Considerable concern
was expressed over the possibility that the visitor centre might
be completed before the roundabout improvements were commenced and
would haemorrhage its benefits onto the existing road layout. English
Heritage, however, stuck to their tunnel vision view (no pun intended)
that the visitor centre will be started but won't open before the
roundabout improvements are completed. It seems impossible to get
them to see sense. Unfortunately the councillor's proposal got lost
in the chaos of the meeting, but it must not be forgotten. Meanwhile,
English Heritage avoids reality and proceeds along its visionary
path of open fields, abundant wildlife, and idyllic expanse of downland
and an eternally grateful Amesbury.
The debate by councillors was a washout, with the majority abstaining
and the Chair vacillating in trying to determine the final recommendation,
which from the public viewpoint seemed somewhat confused. It seems
that the Planning Brief was accepted with reservations or caveats
that will be compiled by the Council Officers as it was clear that
by the time a vote was taken councillors were wanting to get home
to their slippers and cocoa after an evening of pure theatre!
Planning Committee Meeting
- meeting notes
Wednesday 26th October, 1999
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.
The Journal, 28th October
1999
Heritage says flyover will be built before visitor centre
By Duncan Craig
A firm pledge has been given to the people of Amesbury that the
proposed multi-million pound Stonehenge visitor centre will not
be opened until a flyover across the countess Road roundabout has
been built. The promise was given by English Heritage chairman Sir
Jocelyn Stevens at an emotion-charged meeting of Salisbury District
Council's northern area committee in Amesbury on Thursday night.
At the end of a three-and-a-quarter hour meeting, councillors endorsed
English Heritage plans to site the visitor centre at Countess Road
East. They also gave their approval to the future management proposals
for the Stonehenge World Heritage Site, which include the closure
and grassing over of the A344 alongside the stones and the dualling
and creation of a tunnel on the A303.
"English Heritage are committed to attaining from the Government
a promise that the flyover will be built", said Sir Jocelyn. "We
are obviously concerned about those living in the area, but purely
from a commercial point of view, long queues of visitors would be
counter-productive to our aims. We will stay at the present visitor
centre until that flyover is built".
But many councillors expressed concern about whether or now the
Government would honour its road improvement promises once a new
visitor site had been constructed. John Samuel, highway consultant
for the Countess Road Residents' group said: "We've had verbal commitments
to a flyover before, but there is still no certainty.
"There should be no development constructed before the completion
of a flyover at Countess Roundabout. Then the traffic and environmental
impact surveys could be accurately conducted". Throughout the lengthy
consultation process, much indignation has centred on the perceived
view that the people of Amesbury have been issued with a fait accompli
over the Countess Road East site.
The opinion that the promised A303 road improvement scheme was
being used as currency to encourage acceptance of the plans was
not helped by Sir Jocelyn's comments which were greeted with cries
of "blackmail". "Amesbury can benefit tremendously from this if
it chooses to do so" he said. "I've got you £125m for your roads,
but if you want that money to be taken away then throw away this
historic opportunity to save Stonehenge once and for all".
Issues raised by the public and comments made by councillors on
the northern area committee, were due to be considered at a full
planning committee meeting in Salisbury yesterday.
Proposal:
pt1
DATE: 28 March 2001
TO: Wing Commander A J Munday RAF (Retd)
STONEHENGE
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.
Yours sincerely,
Neil Cossons
English Heritage
Proposal:
pt2
DATE: 5 April 2001
TO: Mrs Ann Rudkin, CRRG Co-ordinator
Thank you for your letter of 30 March.
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.
Yours sincerely,
Neil Cossons
English Heritage
Proposal:
pt3
DATE: 22 May 2001
TO: Wing Commander A J Munday RAF (Retd)
STONEHENGE
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.
Yours sincerely,
Neil Cossons
English Heritage
Stones
plan must be rethought - Letter to Salisbury Journal
NOW that local and county councillors can see that the
new, wonderful upgrading of the A303 seems to be 'coming good',
perhaps the time is opportune for them to reconsider their abject
tacit approval for the Stonehenge visitor centre at Countess East
site.
It was always incomprehensible to us, who could foresee the traffic
chaos that would ensue at Countess roundabout and the A345 leading
to it, that the councillors had such a 'blind spot.
The clue, if any were needed, was given to me in a conversation
with a local councillor who said the only reason it was approved
was because that was the only way to get A303 improvements.
How pathetic! Road improvements in some form or other had to come.
How could the main artery to the West Country remain as the first
bottleneck from Dover to Land's End?
It remains to be seen whether the 'cork' produced by a tunnel past
Stonehenge will make the situation easier.
In passing it has to be said that, despite the claims that the
'Parker plan' has come too late as a cheaper and better alternative
to the present Highways plan, it is never too late to correct nonsenses.
It would, however, take councillors of vision to say 'perhaps we
were wrong', but is there such an animal? If there is, perhaps they
will come out of hibernation now that elections are imminent.
It matters not a jot that English Heritage has paid an obscene
amount of money for the Countess East site. That is their problem
not ours.
EH will find that traffic problems were always Sir Jocelyn Stevens's
'blind spot' which clouded his unswerving dedication to having HIS
visitor centre just where HE wanted it.
If Countess East is developed, I really do not want to be around,
even to say 'we told you so'.
I remain ever the optimist, even if I am the only person in Wiltshire
to believe that Countess East visitor centre can never be built.
A. J. MUNDAY
Countess Road
Amesbury
Daily Telegraph
4 August 2002
Stonehenge lifts a driver's spirits
The diversion of the A303 away from Stonehenge, as reported in
The Daily Telegraph on August 1, would be a sad move for the country.
Every day hundreds of vehicles pass within sight of the stones.
While some drivers may curse the road, a large proportion must experience
some uplifting of spirit or feeling of awe.
Over the years we have seen its grandeur against a blood-red sunset,
in snow, ice, fog, moonlight, and with thick black storm clouds
framing it. It is never ignored.
Once Stonehenge is out of sight of roads, who will view it at such
odd unexpected times? Who will pay to see it when the weather is
imperfect? Who will see it more than once in their lifetime? Who
will see it in isolated splendour as evening road-users can see
it now, without attendant crowds? It will become yet another nine-to-five
historical site with a few special openings.
Before our heritage is taken away and sanitised forever please
think again!
Sue Prideaux
Taunton, Somerset
Daily Telegraph
11 August 2002
Stonehenge doesn't need a tunnel
Sue Prideux's letter (August 4) gives an imaginative and appealing
reason for retaining the view of Stonehenge from the A303.
The current proposal to cut off the view by burying the road in
a tunnel would be a complete waste of money. Tunnels are very expensive
due to the need for complex drainage, firefighting, ventilation,
and lighting installations.
The reasons given for concealing the road are to restore the remote
nature of the place. This will not be achieved, as it is already
overshadowed by the industrial buildings of Boscombe Down airfield
and the housing at Larkhill. Surely it is not proposed to waste
even more money moving those!
Adrian Siddall
Iver, Bucks
Amesbury Journal 10
Oct 2002
Many benefits in Parker Plan for Stonehenge
AT last! A public airing in last week's Journal of the Parker Plan
for Stonehenge, which cannot he ignored by our district council.
Amongst other benefits, it would provide a new visitor centre for
Stonehenge, obviate the need for a flyover at Countess roundabout
and provide the Salisbury bypass link that has been awaited for
so many years.
Now that the National Trust is pushing for a bored tunnel at a
cost of around £350m, surely this visionary and all-embracing solution,
which could he achieved at a fraction of the cost, must be considered.
GEORGE DU PRE,
Countess Road Amesbury
Front Page, Amesbury
Journal, Thursday March 6th 2003
Countess Road residents pack meeting to oppose
Stonehenge proposals
Visitor centre plan ‘will blight our lives’
by David Vallis
WORRIED Countess Road residents packed out a meeting at Amesbury
last week and spoke of their fears of increased traffic and tumbling
house prices if the green light were given to current plans for
the new multi-million- pound Stonehenge visitor centre.
They claimed that the proposal to build the complex on their doorsteps
off the A303 roundabout at Countess East would blight their lives.
The concerns were made plain when between 80 and 100 of the residents
attended a meeting hosted by English Heritage and the National Trust
at the George Hotel in Amesbury to give residents an overall view
of the latest plans for the visitor centre and access scheme for
Stonehenge.
It was a private meeting, but afterwards, a spokesman for the Countess
Road residents Peter Goodhugh said: "If the English Heritage
and National Trust Stonehenge project team had any preconceptions
about a cosy relationship with local residents, they were swiftly
dispelled."
The project team gave a presentation on the styling and layout of
the proposed visitor centre and how the 800,000-or-so visitors per
year would access the building and the wider world heritage site.
But Mr Goodhugh said there was considerable scepticism among residents
and deep-rooted concerns about the impact of the project.
Principal among those was the extra traffic that would be imposed
on Countess Road by siting the centre in what was, viewed by residents,
as the wrong place - a traffic hotspot and a residential area.
A peak-period 5,000 visitors a day could result in 200 vehicles
an hour coming on to Countess Road, claimed residents, and they
said the situation would be further aggravated by the introduction
of traffic lights at the roundabout, causing tailbacks northwards.
Residents felt they were already experiencing extreme difficulty
entering and leaving their homes, without this additional congestion.
Another significant concern was the effect of the project on property
values.
Mr Goodhugh said: "English Heritage said property values would
be enhanced as a result of the visitor centre, but it was quickly
pointed out to them that local estate agents with considerable experience
of the area, were already saying that property prices were falling
as a result of the proposals."
English Heritage public and community affairs manager Jane Danser,
who chaired the meeting, said: “We felt this was a really constructive
meeting and we were pleased to have an opportunity to try to address
some of the key concerns of all Countess Road residents.
`We had a team of experts from the project on hand, who were able
to deal in detail with specific aspects of the scheme and also listen
to the major concerns of residents.
"We fully understand that many residents are worried that the
proposed visitor centre and access plans will affect their quality
of life.
We want to reassure everyone that we are listening to their views
and concerns and that we want to work with them to ensure our scheme
has the minimum impact on their daily lives and enjoyment of the
area.
"We are preparing to put on a mobile exhibition at the end
of this month, to ensure as many people as possible in the Amesbury
and Salisbury areas are able to discuss our latest plans with us.
'We look forward to talking to as many people in the area as possible!'
Meanwhile, English Heritage said it believed a flyover planned
for Countess Road would offer a much-needed solution to traffic
problems, and claimed that comments attributed to it about house
prices had been taken out of context.
It said the meeting was told that English Heritage would be commissioning
experts to look into the effects on property prices in Countess
Road, following concerns raised by residents, and the impact was
therefore not yet known.
|
