Letters Sent
04/06/99 Visitor Centre Project
04/06/99 Letter about plans
11/06/99 To Site Management
20/07/99 Letter to Chris Smith MP
27/09/99 Letter to Sir Jocelyn Stevens
14/10/99 Losing Faith in Democracy
14/10/99 Letter to Salisbury Journal

Newspaper Reports
20/07/99 Stop Press (Archive #1)
23/04/99 Vision for the future
10/06/99 Amesbury Unites
03/06/99 Snarl-ups protest warning
17/06/99 No room for error
01/07/99 Flyover bypass
08/07/99 Stones anger
15/07/99 Traffic chaos
22/07/99 Confusion reigns
21/10/99 Plan faces two hurdles
14/10/99 Amesbury's hand forced
26/10/99 Amesbury clears the air!
28/10/99 Flyover will be built
13/07/00 Double Landmark
15/03/01 New Stones Group Meets
03/10/02 Eleventh Hour Bid
13/02/03 Residents Air Concerns
06/03/03 Front page Journal
01/05/03 SDC to Examine Parker Plan

Letters Published
17/06/99 It would be folly
21/06/99 English Heritage letter
15/07/99 Flyover may be favourite
21/10/99 Meeting notes - 21st Oct
21/10/99 A long way to go
21/10/99 Comments of the CRRG
26/10/99 Meeting notes - 26th Oct
18/06/01 Stones plan must be rethought
04/08/02 Stonehenge lifts a drivers spirits
11/08/02 Stonehenge does not need a tunnel
10/10/02 Benefits in Parker Plan

E-mails Received
26/04/99 Comments b y E-Mail
17/06/99 Not such a great idea

Letters Received
03/06/99 Stonehenge Lunacy
17/06/99 Nightmare could end
01/07/99 Sir Jocelyn's vision
01/07/99 Residents in the dark
28/03/01 Proposal: pt1
05/04/01 Proposal: pt2
22/05/01 Proposal: pt3

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.

Letters Sent
Stonehenge Visitor Centre Project: - 04/06/99
A Welcome aboard the Stonehenge experience tour

The project involves improvements to the A303, one of the main routes to the West Country, which passes Stonehenge, and the provision of a new, greatly enhanced, visitor centre. We agree in principle with the aims of the project - the A303 becomes grid-locked here during the summer period - and the present visitor facilities at Stonehenge have not been noticeably improved during English Heritage's 14 or so years of guardianship.
What we do object to is the way English Heritage is bulldozing its way with a project that is likely to blight the lives of those living in close proximity to it.
Yes, this is a case of 'NIMBY', but the possibility of a leisure complex comparable to a major theme park literally up to the edge of one's garden, and the destruction of a river environment of considerable natural beauty, fills us with despair.

English Heritage seems only to want 'the best heritage visitor centre in the world' regardless of where it might trample in the process.
This seems to be reflected in its publicity material, in which facilities and locations are presumed regardless of the planning and enquiry processes that remain to be addressed. Local authorities seem to be viewed as mere pawns in a game.

Siting the visitor centre at Countess East roundabout (the junction of the A303 and A345) seems to us to be the worst possible solution in terms of traffic congestion and noise. This junction is already grid locked during the summer period.
It is estimated that the centre will produce a 4-fold increase in visitor traffic at the roundabout. A grade-separated junction is proposed, with a flyover for the A303.
This will allow its traffic to proceed at full speed - with associated noise - to the disadvantage of the increased traffic on its feeder roads leading to and from the A345, the visitor centre and to the local town of Amesbury. The possibility of alternative siting for the visitor centre to the west of Stonehenge and the World Heritage Centre boundary, using a less sensitive archaeological area, has been totally ignored. A similar site, which would have avoided the added congestion, was approved by the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport; he was congratulated on the wisdom of his decision. Unfortunately, somehow he was 'got at' and produced New Labour's first but unheralded U-turn, approving the Countess site he had earlier discounted.

A free shuttle service is proposed, to take visitors from the centre to a drop-off point nearer to the monument - a round trip of about 16km. The last part of the journey to reach the stones requires a walk of about 1.5km each way - supposedly a 20minute walk each way. At present, coaches allow about 40 minutes for visiting Stonehenge; with the new visitor centre in place, a visit is likely to need a minimum of half a day.

The ability of visitors to roam freely and unrestricted over a natural down land landscape is featured. One envisages endless unfenced hectares of rolling down land rich it its natural gorse, scrub and trees. The reality appears more likely to be 'farming as usual' with ploughing, fences, and all the current restrictions of private land ownership. Some of the more remote archaeological sites will not be accessible without specific permission from landowners - unlikely for the visitor not familiar with the locale. Removal of roads in the vicinity of Stonehenge is one of the aims, and this will include tunnelling of the A303 tunnel past the monument, using the most environmentally and archaeologically damaging method of 'cut and cover', rather than boring.

In creating all this, English Heritage declares that it is promoting a safe natural habitat for birds, insects, butterflies, flowers and plants. It doesn't say that it is also destroying an identical habitat in order to build its visitor centre. A superb and unspoiled river landscape, part of an Area of Special Archaeological Significance, and including an Area of High Ecological Value, with historic water-meadows, archaeology and ancient hedges, will be swept away.

We are pleased to note that we are not the only organisation lacking in enthusiasm for the proposals; others much more influential seem to share our views. However, we do feel ourselves to be in a 'David and Goliath' situation.
We are only a small group of ordinary local people who will have to live with this monster on our doorstep long after everyone else involved has moved on. Something that does concern us is the speed with which English Heritage seems to be pushing this project along - to the extent that we wonder if there is some hidden agenda.

We notice, for instance, that in the proposals put forward by the Tussauds Group for the Stonehenge Millennium Park, the programme shows a 'Grand Opening' by Lord Stevens of Stonehenge. Could this be the clue to all the haste....?

We want to try and ensure that our modest environment is not ruined and the existing traffic problems for others are not compounded.

We have no funds to put up a fight, and we have no expertise to equal the professionals that will be employed to fight every objection.

We would welcome some similar help.

Peter Goodhugh
Countess Road Residents Group, Amesbury.

Letter from Mrs Ann Rudkin. Group Co-ordinator: - 04/06/99
Dear Sir,

We refer to an advertisement in your paper dated 28 April 1999 seeking tenders for The Stonehenge Visitors Centre by DTZ on behalf of English Heritage. We believe that you may be interested in, and even sympathetic to, the point of view of local residents who feel that the site of the proposed new Visitors Centre will, ultimately, prove totally unsuitable because of the extreme traffic problems that would result.

The main road through this area is the A303 which is a part of a designated European Trunk Route from Dover to the West, and Countess Roundabout, adjacent to which the English Heritage proposed to site the new Visitors Centre, is the first roundabout on this westbound route which carried 31,000 vehicles a day.

It is at this roundabout that severe congestion occurs at weekends and, particularly, at Bank Holidays. The proposed Visitors Centre will empty 1.8 million visitors onto the A345 and from there onto the roundabout.

We have made representations to the Prime Minister, the Deputy Prime Minister, the Minister for Culture, Media and Sport, and the Ministry of Transport and Regions. The Chair of English Heritage knows of our concerns but chooses to ignore them.

We are sufficiently concerned to have had a demonstration on the A303 on Saturday 29th June when traffic was at a virtual standstill for several miles. I enclose a sample of the 2000 leaflets that we handed to drivers.

We feel that Commercial Operators, who may consider the Tender Offer, should be aware, as soon as possible, of the problems.

Yours faithfully, Mrs Ann Rudkin. Group Co-ordinator

Copies to : Rt. Hon John Prescott Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for the Regions and Transport Rt. Hon Chris Smith Minister of Culture, Media and Sport.

Proposed Stonehenge Visitor Centre at Countess East
Letter to Lady Gass - Chair, Stonehenge World Heritage Site Management Group - 11/06/99

I am writing to you on behalf of the Countess Road Residents' Group (CRRG) to express our concerns about the siting and detail of the proposed Visitor Centre and the lack of discussion on these matters at Management Group or Topic Discussion Group meetings. We feel that the concerns of ourselves and others should be addressed without undue delay. It's probably too late for the meeting on 16 June, the agenda etc. having already been set, but a special meeting very soon after would be appropriate.

The overall project involves improvements to the A 303 and the provision of a new, greatly enhanced, visitor centre. We agree in principle with the aims of the project - the A 303 becomes 'gridlocked' here during the summer period - and the present visitor facilities at Stonehenge have not been noticeably improved during English Heritage's 14 or so years of guardianship. What we do object to is the way English Heritage is bulldozing its way with a project that is likely to blight the lives of those living in close proximity to the visitor centre. Yes, this is a case of 'NIMBY', but the possibility of a 'leisure complex' comparable to a major theme park literally up to the edge of one's garden, and the destruction of a river environment of considerable natural beauty, fills us with despair. English Heritage seems only to want "the best heritage visitor centre in the world" regardless of where it might trample in the process. This seems to be reflected in its publicity material in which facilities and locations are presumed regardless of the planning and enquiry processes which have yet to be addressed. Local authorities and inhabitants seem to be viewed as mere pawns in a game. For instance, to try and get a better insight into the proposal, we asked English Heritage for information on the detail made available to prospective commercial bidders; this was refused. We have also asked for information on the archaeology of the Countess East site; this has not been forthcoming.

Siting the visitor centre at Countess East roundabout (the junction of the A303 and A345) seems to us to be the worst possible solution in terms of traffic congestion, noise and general pollution. This junction is already gridlocked at times during the summer period. It is estimated that the centre will produce a four-fold increase in visitor traffic at the roundabout. A grade separated junction is proposed, with a flyover for the A303; this will allow its traffic to proceed at full speed - with associated noise - to the disadvantage of the increased traffic on its feeder roads leading to and from the A345, the visitor centre and to the local town of Amesbury. A site which would have avoided the added congestion was approved by the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport; he was congratulated on the wisdom of his decision. Unfortunately, somehow he was 'got at' and produced New Labour's first but unheralded U-turn, approving the Countess site he had earlier discounted.

A free shuttle service is proposed, to take visitors from the centre to a drop-off point nearer to the monument - a round trip of about 16 km. The last part of the journey to reach the stones requires a walk of about 1.5 km each way - supposedly a 20 minute walk each way. At present, coaches allow about 40 minutes for visiting Stonehenge. With the new visitor centre in place, a visit is likely to need a minimum of half a day.

The ability of visitors to roam freely and unrestricted over a natural downland landscape is featured. One envisages endless unfenced hectares of rolling downland rich it its natural gorse, scrub and trees. The reality appears more likely to be 'farming as usual' with ploughing, fences, and all the current restrictions of private land ownership. Some of the more remote archaeological sites will not be accessible without specific permission from landowners - unlikely for the visitor not familiar with the locale and with limited time. Removal of roads in the vicinity of Stonehenge is one of the aims, and this will include tunneling of the A303 tunnel past the monument, using the most environmentally and archaeologically damaging method of 'cut and cover', rather than boring.

In creating all this, English Heritage declares that it is promoting a safe natural habitat for birds, insects, butterflies, flowers and plants. It doesn't say that it is also destroying an identical habitat in order to build its visitor centre. A superb and unspoiled river landscape, part of an Area of Special Archaeological Significance, and including an Area of High Ecological Value, the historic watermeadows, archaeology and ancient hedges, will be swept away.

Alternative sites to Countess East have been suggested. For instance, Countess Farm on the western edge of the A345 would be appropriate for a scaled-down version of what is proposed, although this would not entirely deal with the traffic problem at the roundabout. A new proposed leisure area at Folly Bottom on the eastern edge of Amesbury would have the space for a full development. Additionally, a site to the west of Stonehenge and the World Heritage Centre boundary, using a less sensitive archaeological area could be considered; this would reduce the traffic problem on the A303 and provide a site closer to the monument, reducing the cost of tramways etc.

We are pleased to note that we are not the only organisation lacking enthusiasm for the proposal; others much more influential seem to share our views. However, we do feel ourselves to be in a 'David and Goliath' situation. We are only a small group of ordinary local people who will have to live with this monster on our doorstep long after everyone else involved has moved on. Something that does concern us is the speed with which English Heritage seems to be pushing this project along - to the extent that we wonder if there is some hidden agenda. We notice, for instance, that in the proposals put forward by Tussauds Group for the Stonehenge Millennium Park, the programme shows a "Grand Opening" by "Lord Stevens of Stonehenge". Could this, we wonder, the clue to all the haste ÷.?

We want to try and ensure that our modest environment is not ruined and the existing traffic problems for others are not compounded. We have no funds to put up a fight, and we have no expertise to equal the professionals that will no doubt be employed by English Heritage and others to fight every objection. We would welcome some similar help. Your help in arranging a meeting to discuss and resolve our concerns will be welcomed.

Yours sincerely,

Peter Goodhugh

cc : Dr Kate Fielden : Wiltshire Archaeological & Natural History Society Dagmar Junghams : English Nature Robert Key MP John Lodge : Amesbury Town Council Professor Richard Morris : CBA Rt Hon John Prescott MP John Samuel : Holly House Consultancy Richard Sheard : Salisbury District Council Rt Hon Chris Smith MP : Dept for Culture Media and Sport P Stevens : Salisbury Civic Society Geoff Wainwright : English Heritage Dominic Watkins : Chris Blandford Associates

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

• 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.

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

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
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

Newspaper Reports
STOP PRESS
At 11.30 a.m. on Tuesday 20th July 1999 members of the Group attended a meeting at Antrobus House, Amesbury, with the Secretary of State to Culture, Media and Sport, the Rt. Hon. Chris Smith MP, accompanied by Sir Jocelyn Stevens - Chairman of English Heritage.

The meeting was called by the Secretary of State in order to discuss with representatives of the local authorities and the local community, progress on the development of the Stonehenge World Heritage Site, including the new Visitor Centre facilities and the routing of the A303.

After the close of the meeting the Group members handed the Secretary of State a letter setting out their concerns with the planning procedures, the decision to locate the Visitor Centre at Countess East, and the failure of the authorities to make any commitment to the implementation and timing of a grade separated improvement to Countess roundabout.

The meeting was told that a new planning brief would be considered by the Salisbury DC Northern area planning committee on the 23rd September and public consultation on the brief will precede the Committee decision.

The timetable for the Private Finance Invitation was discussed and the meeting informed that nine PFI bids would be shortlisted in September, and the chosen partner selected in December. It was stated that until Salisbury DC have endorsed the revised planning brief no PFI partner would be appointed. It is anticipated that the chosen PFI partner will submit a planning application in the summer of year 2000 and that a public enquiry might be held at the end of year 2000.

Sir Jocelyn Stevens said that both Countess East and Countess West sites would be factually assessed and the results discussed. There were said to be problems with Countess West in both access management, and in terms of development on part of the World Heritage Site.

Representatives of the Highways Agency said that they are currently appointing engineering consultants to develop the A303 preferred route scheme announced by Lord Whitty earlier this month. A likely start date for the scheme was 2005. No commitment was given however as to the form that the Countess roundabout's improvement, or to the timing of such improvement. It was said that grade separation of the roundabout was the preferred option, but that the new consultant would be asked to look at the issue of an interim improvement.

During a "questions and answer" session at the end of the meeting, the Secretary of State revealed, following a question from CRRG, that when the planning application for the Visitor Centre was submitted, there would be assessments of other site options and reasons for the final choice given.

At the close of the meeting, the Secretary of State was handed a letter, by representatives of CRRG, in which the concerns of the group were described together with a plea for consideration of all viable site locations.

The Group has now established a website on the Internet (address : www.stonehenge.crrg.org.uk) and a copy of the letter to the Secretary of State may be seen on this site.

Stevens has a vision for the future of Stonehenge
By David Mann - Eastern Gazette Interactive News - 23/04/99

Culture Secretary Chris Smith today announced that Sir Joceyln Stevens will continue as chairman of the executive group coordinating the Stonehenge project after he leaves English Heritage next year.

Sir Joceyln's eight-year reign as chairman of English Heritage comes to an end at the end of March 2000. Recently, he caused a storm of controversy in the GLA building selection race when he branded Will Alsop's plans for Victoria House as "fundamentally flawed".

His comments initially caused Blackfriars Investments to pull the Bloomsbury Square scheme from the running. Although Blackfriars subsequently re-entered the race, the Foster-designed London Bridge City scheme won.

Chris Smith said : "Jocelyn Stevens has made a magnificent contribution to our built heritage in many ways during his time as Chairman of English Heritage. He has displayed particular tenacity and enthusiasm for solving the long-standing problems which have dogged the setting and presentation of Stonehenge".

Welcoming this announcement, Sir Jocelyn Stevens said : "I am absolutely thrilled to have been offered the opportunity of pushing the Stonehenge Master Plan along - nothing could suit me more".

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.

Amesbury unites in strong protest
Salisbury Journal 10/06/99

AMESBURY risks being used to "rubber-stamp London's lunatic ideas for Stonehenge" unless it sticks up for itself, one of its councillors has warned. John Turner said that plans to site the new visitor complex at Countess East were being pushed ahead by London-based bureaucrats with no understanding of the area.

Maj Turner, who represents the town council on the Stonehenge steering group, won his fellow councillors' backing for a letter of protest against the plans. The letter, which will be sent to Chris Smith, the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, suggests that the visitor centre should be at Countess Farm. Maj Turner said : "We now have a timetable for the new visitor centre and the A 303 trunk road improvements showing the opening of the new visitor centre in 2003 with construction on the road starting in 2005 and continuing until 2008. "There could not be a more compelling argument for using Countess Farm and thus reducing the use of a bus shuttle to Fargo North, the more so as the round trip time has been estimated at 35 minutes - on a good day."

The land at Countess Farm, which lies within the World Heritage Site, has recently been acquired by the National Trust. Development on the land would be possible as long as the design of the building was not intrusive.

Welcoming Maj Turner's conclusions, Cllr Vernon Smith said : "Moving the visitor centre makes an awful lot of sense from a traffic management point of view. It would be a terrific advance". But other councillors questioned whether the town council could wield enough influence to persuade London to change the Stonehenge master plan. Cllr Jan Swindlehurst said : "We only have one stab at this it needs to be right first time. We need to keep stirring."

No room for errors over visitor centre
Letter to Salisbury Journal - Roy Dicker - Countess Road, Amesbury - 17/06/99

I must take issue with your concerning your article in last week's Journal which gave the impression that Amesbury Town Council, and John Turner in particular, are somehow championing the cause of Amesbury in respect of the siting of the Stonehenge visitor centre.

Amesbury Town Council, of which Mr Turner was a member at the time, supported English Heritage's Stonehenge Master Plan, which included the siting of the centre at Countess Road East, when it was presented to them as a planning brief some three years ago.

The fact is that the town council sold out the residents of Amesbury, and those in Countess Road in particular, in the hope that the scheme would bring about improvements to the layout of the Countess roundabout.

To portray Mr Turner as some sort of unifying figure is totally inaccurate. Mr Turner and his plan represents the views of no-one but himself and only serves to confuse the objections being raised by the community. His plan is no better than that proposed by English Heritage, since it will do nothing to solve the main issue - that of traffic congestion at the Countess roundabout.

The visitor centre needs to be sited at Fargo North or thereabouts. This is the site which received wide-spread public support when it was proposed just over a year ago. It is the site that Salisbury District Council, representing its population, should advocate in preference. The timetable for construction of the visitor centre at Countess East is dependent on Salisbury District Council granting planning permission. The Countess East scheme is contrary to the council's current ribbon development policy. If Salisbury DC genuinely represents the people who elect them, they will not be steamrollered by English Heritage into accepting their crazy scheme. Mr Turner would do well to listen to his electorate.

ROY DICKER Countess Road, Amesbury.

Flyover still a 'vital' part of stones bypass
By Rolan Batten - Salisbury Journal - 01/07/99

A FLYOVER across the Countess Road roundabout in Amesbury is not an option but a necessity.

This is the view of both Salisbury MP Robert Key and Amesbury Town Clerk John Lodge in the wake of the Transport Minister Lord Whitty's announcement on Friday about the Stonehenge bypass. Both are angry that Lord Whitty has put the flyover as one option to improve traffic conditions at the gridlocked roundabout but has firmly not made it a priority in the £130m A303 improvement project. The scheme includes the Stonehenge tunnelled bypass and the Winterbourne Stoke bypass, but does not stress the necessity for a By Roland Batten flyover at Countess roundabout. Lord Whitty unveiled details of the proposed new stretch of A303 dual carriageway past Stonehenge, the cut-and-cover tunnel, and the bypass route for Winterbourne Stoke which been given 'preferred route status'. Such a status will protect the route of the new road from future development while detailed plans are drawn up.

But his announcement brought an immediate response from Mr Key and Mr Lodge. Mr Key praised the Highways Agency for "listening to local people" and deciding to "nudge the Winterbourne Stoke bypass slightly to the north".

But he slammed the decision to make a flyover at Countess roundabout just one of the options to improve traffic conditions for local and through traffic. "It is imperative a flyover is built. It is essential for local people moving between Amesbury and Bulford" said Mr Key. He said that in April a firm of consulting engineers reported that it was clear a flyover is needed even if the Stonehenge Visitor's Centre is not built at Countess Road.

"We must now put pressure on Lord Whitty to provide the flyover. The quality of life for the people of Amesbury and the surrounding villages demands it. "I understand it is not just a question of money but requires an engineering solution". Mr Lodge said there was no question of whether a flyover could feasibly be built. "The space for the slip roads is already there and can be seen. The land is already protected and Amesbury Town Council has always understood a flyover could be built. It is a question of the will and the money. We will have to insist it is built." John Samuel, for the Countess Road Resident's Group said there was no commitment on the part of the Highways Agency that the grade separation of Countess will be part of the A303 improvement scheme.

"Regrettably the announcement on Friday by Lord Whitty of the preferred route status takes us no further forward. "Although the announcement made reference to improving the Countess roundabout for local and through traffic, there is no commitment to the form or timing of any improvement". Chairman of English Heritage Sir Jocelyn Stevens, who joined Lord Whitty for the announcement, said the proposals were an "acceptable and affordable" solution which recognised the "exceptional and environmental sensitivity of the Stonehenge World Heritage Site".

He said: "They combine the protection of the monument and the re-creation of the historic landscape with the much needed solution to the bottleneck on the A303". The 10.8 km route runs eastwards from the existing dual carriageway at Berwick Down to the north of Winterbourne Stoke avoiding a national nature reserve and a site of special scientific interest. It rejoins the line of the existing road on the approach to Stonehenge and has a to kilometre stretch by the stones hidden in a cut-and-cover tunnel eventually joining up with the Amesbury bypass.

A study in contrasts: queues on the A303 eastern approach to the Countess roundabout are shown in comparison with the few cars coming off.

Stones site anger "will not go away"
By Katharine Lawley - Salisbury Journal - 08/07/99

OPPOSITION to Countess East as the site for the Stonehenge Visitor Centre will not go away - whatever the National Trust or English Heritage think. So says Durrington district councillor Judy Greville, who has reacted angrily to letters from the two bodies dismissing Amesbury Town council's bid to have the centre switched to Countess West.

The town council has urged Chris Smith, Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, to support its bid. It hopes to have another chance to press the point when Mr Smith visits the area on July 20, possibly with Roads Minister Lord Whitty.

The visitor centre is possibly the largest issue that the district council has had to deal with, with estimates putting the full value of the development at £135 million. But virtually identical letters from monument custodians English Heritage and landowners the National Trust dated June 30 and presented to the district's northern area committee last week are scathing of plans to change the centre's location.

English Heritage's letter said that it had "evaluated a number of potential visitor centre sites before selecting Countess East, which lies outside the World Heritage Site. This site forms part of the "master plan" which all the agencies involved have endorsed, it says.

The trust's letter repeated an earlier statement that owning land at Countess West would help it protect archaeology, restore sensitive areas to traditional pasture and provide visitors with access to King Barrows Ridge and the henge itself while helping to spread the pressure over the whole site. "Countess West could give some exciting opportunities to complement the master plan proposals for visitor access via park and ride to Fargo North drop-off point" it said. "The trust supports the Countess East site for the new centre and does not consider Countess West as an alternative."

Mrs. Greville, chairman of the northern area committee, said simply dismissing the bid was just not good enough. Councillors supported her call to seek support from the council's planning committee in demanding an explanation. She said there was great concern locally about the amount of extra traffic that would be generated by a Countess East visitor centre and the effect on Countess Road roundabout. "We would appreciate a full explanation as to why the Countess West site is unsuitable and has been dismissed" she said. "They talk about a five-year gap between the centre being finished and a flyover for Countess Road. There will be traffic chaos.

Councillors said they wanted the A303 dualled and a fly-over for Countess Road before anything else was done. "A planning application for the visitor centre is likely to be submitted to the council next spring.

Stones visitor centre 'will lead to traffic chaos'
Salsibury Journal - 15/07/99

A CALL has been made by Salisbury councillors for more openness over plans for the multi-million pound Stonehenge visitor centre. English Heritage is aiming to build the complex on the Countess East site at Amesbury, which has outraged locals who say it will add to traffic chaos. Now district councillors are to seek assurances over measures needed to cope with traffic problems.

They are to ask that the visitor centre is not opened until a flyover and other road improvements are in place on the A303/345 Countess roundabout. They will also call on English Heritage to be more open and explain why it ruled out Countess West on the opposite side of the road as a site for the new centre. The moves are in line with action sought by the council's northern area committee, which covers the Amesbury district.

Northern area chairman Cllr Judy Greville said there had been talk of a possible five year gap between work finishing on the visitor centre and the flyover and other highway proposals coming into place. She said this would add to the chaotic weekend conditions which exist on the Countess roundabout during the height of the summer holiday season.

Mrs Greville said residents were already worried about the extra traffic that will be generated on the roundabout it plans for the Countess East site went ahead. "It is estimated that 60 per cent of traffic coming down the A303 from London is heading to the West Country and most of the rest to Stonehenge," she said. "If the visitor centre was sited at Countess East, it will mean Stonehenge traffic coming down to the roundabout in the queues and then having to double back round it into the centre. "And on top of that we will have buses taking people from the visitor centre to the stones every three minutes havng to keep going round the roundabout. It will be an absolute nightmare."

Confusion reigns over visitor centre -

Amesbury Journal - 22 July 1999
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".