Featured: Friendly specialist tours to ancient, mystical and historical sites in the UK and beyond

Friendly specialist tours to ancient, mystical and historical sites in the UK and beyond

Visiting the Past: Finding and Understanding Britain's Archaeology

Visiting the Past: Finding and Understanding Britain's Archaeology

Who's Online

There are currently, 524 guests and 4 members online.

You are a guest. To join in, please register for free by clicking here

Sponsors

<< News >> A Monumental Enquiry for Stonehenge

Submitted by Alun on Wednesday, 07 April 2004  Page Views: 27581

Stonehenge
Stonehenge aerial 0418
Stonehenge aerial 0418 submitted by JJ : Aerial photo copyright JJ Evendon (Vote or comment on this photo)
The Highways Agency has started to outline controversial Government plans to reroute roads around Stonehenge. The proposed scheme costing £192 million aims to remove the busy A303 from the World Heritage Site and instead bore a 1.3 mile tunnel underneath Salisbury Plain.

Objectors believe the tunnel should be longer to "conserve and enhance" the Neolithic site. The road currently gets clogged with traffic during the tourist season.

Some 200 people packed Salisbury's Guildhall on the first day of the public inquiry into the issue, expected to last until April 30.

Independent Inspector Michael Ellison will decide at the end of the inquiry whether or not to recommend the orders to the secretaries of state with or without modifications.

Opening the Highways Agency's case, barrister Charles Calvert said the plan was "no ordinary road scheme". He told the hearing how the site's current setting had been described as a "national disgrace" and the proposed solution was thanks to an "innovative approach" by the Treasury allowing the Department for Culture, Media and Sport to contribute towards the scheme.

Monument keeper English Heritage supports the project while landowners the National Trust, though in favour of a tunnel, want it to be longer in order to better preserve the area.

Objectors due to give evidence include representatives from the Prehistoric Society, the Council for British Archaeology, the Stonehenge Alliance and the British Druid Order.

Chris Jones, project director for the multi-million pound scheme, told the inquiry that the work would take three and a half years to complete and the earliest possible starting date was spring 2005.

Source: The Telegraph

Note: Blue Badge guide calls for raised dual carriageway instead of tunnel - see comment below.

<< Protection plan for ancient sites

Bronze Age discovery finest in Borders >>

Please add your thoughts on this site

Seahenge

Seahenge

Sponsors

Auto-Translation (Google)

Translate from English into:

"A Monumental Enquiry for Stonehenge" | Login/Create an Account | 19 News and Comments
  
Go back to top of page    Comments are owned by the poster. We aren't responsible for their content.
Re: Apollo and Stonehenge by Anonymous on Tuesday, 07 March 2006
Stonehenge is geodesy survey clock
geodesy lines:
St.Mount Michel
Chartes
Salisbury
Paris
Rouen
Amiens
Aachen
etc. gothic catedral's
greetings: K.K. krzychkizier@o2.pl
[ Reply to This ]

Re: Apollo and Stonehenge by Anonymous on Tuesday, 18 January 2005
APOLLO = HORUS=MARDUK
HI!
K.K.
[ Reply to This ]

Re: Apollo and Stonehenge by Anonymous on Wednesday, 10 November 2004
APOLLO = MADRUK
[ Reply to This ]

Re: Newgrange and Stonehenge by Anonymous on Monday, 19 July 2004
Hi!
Winter solstice sunrise line of Newgrange cutting
stone circle Stonehenge.
krzychkizier@o2.pl
[ Reply to This ]

Re: Apollo and Stonehenge by Anonymous on Friday, 16 July 2004
Stonehenge is Apollo ( Phoibos ) construction.
Line summer solstice sunrise:
Stonehenge-"Heel-Stone"-Taberg ( rock 343m) Sweden
Line equinox sunrise
Stonehenge- Wasser- Kuppe(850m)-Gerlach(2655m) Slovakia
Line winter solstice sunrise
Stonehenge- Paris-Mont Blanc (4807m)!!!!!!!!
krzychkizier@o2.pl
[ Reply to This ]

Apollo and Stonehenge by Anonymous on Friday, 02 July 2004
Hi!
Stonehenge,Newgrange,Aggersborg,Fyrkat is Apollo(Phoibos)
constructions!
krzychkizier@o2.pl
[ Reply to This ]
    Re: Apollo and Stonehenge by Anonymous on Monday, 05 July 2004
    Ancient technology:Stonehenge,Newgrange,Avebury,Fyrkat,Aggersborg,
    Eskeholm,Trelleborg,Delphi.....is Apollo ( Phoibos ) constructions!
    Apollo ( Phoibos ) god of the SUN.
    Creates crossing line points; equinox,sunrises and sunsets.Solstice and
    equinox lines cut cross in the centre point of the circle which creates
    cardinal of the:
    1. Summer solstice sunrise
    2.Equinox sunrise
    3.Winter solstice sunrise
    4.Summer solstice sunset
    5.Equinox sunset
    6. Winter solstice sunset Hi! krzychkizier@o2.pl
    [ Reply to This ]

Comment from Save Stonehenge by Andy B on Thursday, 03 June 2004
(User Info | Send a Message)
1. Public Inquiry ends
The Highways Agency (the road-building wing of the British
government and one of the the main-movers behind this scheme) issued
thousands of pages of documents about the proposed new highway...
and a wide variety of objectors scrutinized them and pointed out the
problems. The Inquiry ran for about 12 weeks and finally ended on
May 11.

There was worldwide press coverage of the Inquiry. You can read a
selection of the articles on our website here:
http://www.savestonehenge.org.uk/stoneh.html

Kate Fielden of the Stonehenge Alliance has written a great summary
of the Inquiry (thanks Kate!), which you can find here:
http://www.savestonehenge.org.uk/inquirysummary.html

In its closing statement to the Inquiry, the Stonehenge Alliance
summed up many people's grave concerns about the road plan:

"Having followed closely the evidence brought to the Inquiry, the
Stonehenge Alliance's view remains unchanged: the Published Scheme
would inflict severe and permanent damage on the Stonehenge World
Heritage Site [WHS] and ought not to be allowed. This exceptional
place has already been much damaged in the past. New 'improvements'
at Stonehenge should not include a road scheme that English Heritage
describes as no more than 'the best we have on offer' and falls far
short of protection and conservation of the WHS.

On the contrary, we believe that the WHS is of such outstanding
international importance that only the right thing should be done in
terms of roads or anything else - even if that means we must wait
until such as this may be achieved.

It is the Alliance's view that the road scheme would be so damaging
to the WHS that it should be rejected. Like ICOMOS-UK, we do not
feel that we should support the scheme for the benefits it would
bring - for those benefits would be gained at too high a price:
substantial and irreversible damage to the WHS and its setting. We
would prefer to see nothing done rather than the damage the scheme
would cause. We would, however, be glad to consider a scheme that
would do no further damage to the WHS and aimed to protect and
rehabilitate the WHS as a whole.

That is why we are here - to argue against the appalling threat that
hangs over this WHS, all the more shocking because those who have
responsibility for its protection are those who would damage the
place and its setting for ever, apparently through lack of full
understanding of the value that is to be placed upon it.

Our message to the Secretary of State is simple. We plead, logically
because of the planning framework that should safeguard it, and with
heartfelt enthusiasm because of its acknowledged significance to
mankind, for the preservation of the Stonehenge WHS for future
generations. We respectfully ask for a stay of execution until a
better solution may be found and we would naturally be glad to
assist in any effort to achieve such a solution."

You can read the Stonehenge Alliance's closing statements in full
here:
http://www.savestonehenge.org.uk/allianceclosingstatement.html

-----------

2. What happens next?

The Inquiry inspector (effectively, a kind of judge who hears and
sums up the evidence) will now go away and write a lengthy report
about the arguments for and against the road scheme. He is expected
to send his report to the Secretary of State for Transport, Alistair
Darling, by September. Mr Darling, the Minister whose own Hi

Read the rest of this post...
[ Reply to This ]

Green Party: 4.5km tunnel or nothing by PaulM on Wednesday, 14 April 2004
(User Info | Send a Message)
SALISBURY Green Party has demanded `all or nothing' to solve Stonehenge's traffic problems.

Supporting Alternative Route Five, which asks for a 4.5 km tunnel through the World Heritage site, Hamish Soutar said his party would prefer that no new roads be built near the monument, but a long tunnel would be the best option if any construction were to go ahead.

Mr Soutar also slammed plans for the Countess Roundabout flyover and a dual-carriageway bypass at Winterbourne Stoke, saying that more time was needed to consider the impact of the schemes.

"The Green Party does not advocate any road construction at Stonehenge," he said.

"Our preferences are, firstly, for Stonehenge to be protected from traffic by the closure of the A303 and A344 through the World Heritage site, secondly, a minimum that only closes the A344, implements safety and traffic restraint measures on the existing A303 and does not involve the construction of a new trunk road, and thirdly, for any new trunk road through the World Heritage site to be entirely in a long bored tunnel."

The party called for the Highways Agency's plans for a 2.1km tunnel to be scrapped.

"The published scheme will convert a large area of downland into the A303," said Mr Soutar.

"The road cutting would become the most prominent monument within the World Heritage site."

Mr Soutar also questioned whether the capacity of the road should be increased at all.

"The nature of the road and the peak-period traffic using it does not create any need for a dual carriageway," he said.

"On the A303, congestion is largely caused and endured by people making optional leisure trips of questionable economic value.

"It would hardly seem in keeping with adopted plans and policies to spend a vast amount of money on a dual carriageway that will do untold damage to the landscape of the World Heritage site, just so that weekenders from London can get to their country cottages a few minutes quicker."

Green campaigners also dispute the need for a dual carriageway through Winter-bourne Stoke, arguing that any bypass should be single carriageway.

"In the meantime, there should be a comprehensive programme of traffic-calming," Mr Soutar said.

"I point out the irony that the bypass would enable people to cross the road safely to get to the village shop, but the loss of passing trade means that the shop is almost bound to close.

"What people need in order to cross a busy road in safety is a pedestrian crossing, which would cost one-10,000th the estimated cost of the published scheme."

Mr Soutar also criticised plans for the flyover at Countess Road roundabout, in Amesbury, saying there was likely to be strong local opposition to the proposed visitor centre.

"The published scheme has a massive impact on the Stonehenge bowl and the World Heritage site," he said.

"Investigation should continue into a long tunnel that would afford genuine protection.

"In the meantime, we should do the minimum to avoid any more damage and leave all options open for the next generation to come up with a more sensible solution.

"Even if this means leaving things largely as they are for 20 years, that is the blink of an eye when measured against the lifetime of Stonehenge and its unique landscape."

Source: Salisbury Journal
[ Reply to This ]

Short-bore "catastrophic" by PaulM on Wednesday, 14 April 2004
(User Info | Send a Message)
PROPOSALS to allow for a longer tunnel under Stonehenge by scrapping the junction of the A303 with the A360 from Devizes were put forward at the inquiry on Thursday last week.

Dr John Moon said the shorter tunnel proposed by the Highways Agency would have "catastrophic" archaeological consequences in the area of Longbarrow and for the barrows near Winterbourne Stoke, suggesting the tunnel should pass through the area without an interchange.

"I believe that this amazing landscape deserves much better treatment than it is going to receive under the proposed scheme," he said.

"In particular, I am appalled at what it will imply for the western side of the World Heritage site.

"The crux of our proposal is that the interchange at Longbarrow be abandoned and the A360 be allowed to pass over the A303 without any junction."

In introducing Alternative Route Eight, Dr Moon said the Bronze Age barrows were "spectacular and important" but their setting would be ruined by the planned double roundabout junction and A360 sliproads.

Dr Moon was also concerned that construction work might disturb previously undiscovered remains and the ambience of the beauty spot would be spoiled by the increased noise of the dual carriageway.

The idea of restricted access from the A360 to the A303 has alarmed residents living in nearby villages but Dr Moon argued that most use the A360 to travel from Devizes to Salisbury, and alternative routes on to the A303 could be found.

"These alternatives are already well used, particularly in the summer," he said.

"This interchange will be largely unnecessary once the visitor centre is relocated, and the amount of inconvenience caused to local residents by the removal of the interchange is, in our opinion, considerably outweighed by the financial and environmental benefits of not providing it.

"The removal of the A360 and A303 interchange from the plans opens the way to consideration of a long-bore tunnel, with its western entrance outside the World Heritage site and causing less disturbance to this historic landscape.

"Such an extension to the tunnel would considerably improve the setting of the features of Longbarrow, would remove traffic noise from a much wider area of the World Heritage site and would help fulfil the UK's commitments to conserve the outstanding cultural heritage assets of the site and improve their setting."

Salisbury Journal
[ Reply to This ]

Re: Stonehenge Alliance by Vicky on Wednesday, 07 April 2004
(User Info | Send a Message)
From today's Salisbury Journal online (07/04/2004):

"Tourists": protect little barrows

STONEHENGE should remain visible from the A303 and the improved visitor facilities built in their current location, argued Blue Badge guide June Robertson.

Promoting another alternative to the controversial tunnel, Mrs Robertson said the A303 should be turned into a dual carriageway, with part of the road raised over important archaeological remains.

In her plans, Mrs Robertson suggests emergency access and additional visitor facilities, including an archaeology museum that could be housed in arches under the raised road, which would protect a series of barrows.

"I speak on behalf of the tourists who have no collective voice but who provide Stonehenge with its income," she said.

"My plan considers the extra bits at Stonehenge.

"There is a little cluster of round barrows enclosed under the road at the moment.

"If we start digging, they will not be safe.

"I have proposed that a covering be provided over the top, so the little round barrows are safe underneath.

"There will be a tunnel under the dual carriageway, so the byway can go through and a little excavation museum be built."

Mrs Robertson said her plan would keep Stonehenge visible from the road and give tourists more time to visit, as they could park near the monument in an improved car park and enjoy an enlarged visitor centre, without having to travel several miles on a land train, as English Heritage has proposed.

"The site is perfect.

"It is completely invisible from the monument," she said.

"It is just that the buildings are so inadequate - they should have been replaced by English Heritage ages ago.

"We are all tourists at one time or another.

"We all have an interest in being able to move around safely and efficiently and view those things we hope to see.

"I wonder how people would react if they went to London and found they were no longer permitted to look at the Tower of London (because) millions of pounds had been spent on erecting a barricade, so that it was invisible and to visit you had to park at Greenwich and catch a special ferry boat five kilometres away?

"Stonehenge was built to be seen, so why disguise it?

"Why hide it away and cut out all the views?"
[ Reply to This ]

Stonehenge Alliance by Vicky on Wednesday, 31 March 2004
(User Info | Send a Message)
From the Salisbury Journal 31/03/2004:

Alliance: Tunnel plan is short-term

PROTEST group the Stonehenge Alliance has made an impassioned case against the plans for a dual carriageway and 2.1km tunnel through the World Heritage site, branding it "short sighted" and "short-lived".

The organisation, which is a collaboration of environmental and archaeological groups, said the proposals would leave a deep scar on the landscape and divide the world-famous site in two.

They argued that less than 20 per cent of the new road would be hidden in a tunnel, while the remainder of the busy stretch would be bulldozed at ground level or in deep cuttings, causing damage to other significant monuments.

Last week, the campaigners urged public inquiry inspector Michael Ellison to recommend the shorter tunnel be shelved until funds could be raised for an alternative scheme that hid the road completely.

Opening their case, George McDonic said the Highways Agency proposals were in breach of planning guidance and policy because they did not protect the integrity of the site.

He added that the tunnel was unlikely to solve the traffic problems near Stonehenge that make life a misery for motorists.

"The transport benefits of the published scheme are likely to be short-lived and the short-bored tunnel would, in due course, become a new bottleneck," he said.

"The government's transport policy since 2002 recognises that congestion will not be solved by road building alone."

Despite reassurances from the Highways Agency that the environmental impact of the scheme has been fully investigated, the protesters remain unconvinced.

"The visual and sensual damage to the World Heritage site and the nearby countryside and their settings would be unacceptable," said Mr McDonic. "This length of road would be a substantial barrier between those parts of the World Heritage site lying to the north and those to the south of the A303.

"The decision-makers need to recognise the importance of not accepting a solution that seems affordable today but within a short period of time would be seen as seriously damaging the area it sought to protect and enhance.

"With the right scheme, it would be possible to restore the integrity, tranquillity, settings and unification of the whole site.

"The Stonehenge Alliance believes the government should reject this scheme and produce one which meets its international obligations and conforms to its own policies."

Stonehenge expert Dr Kate Fielden urged the inspector to recommend that ministers be patient.

"The government has rejected the longer tunnel, which was the earlier agreed best heritage road option for the Stonehenge World Heritage site, on the grounds of cost," she said.

"The balancing exercise has clearly been got wrong.

"More weight should be given to heritage considerations than to economic considerations.

"We must get things right at Stonehenge.

"If it is too expensive to do that now, we must wait until the money is available, or raise the money needed from other sources."


[ Reply to This ]

Archaeologists say 2.1km tunnel is inadequate by Vicky on Friday, 19 March 2004
(User Info | Send a Message)
From this week's Salisbury Journal and Avon Advertiser (17/03/2004):

Archaeologists: 2.1km tunnel is inadequate

ARCHAEOLOGISTS have branded the government's £200m plans for a 2.1km tunnel under Stonehenge "inadequate", claiming it would bring "irreversible damage to the World Heritage site".

At the inquiry this week, representatives of many of Britain's most respected archaeological organisations echoed the National Trust's demands for a longer tunnel to remove traffic from a larger section of the world-famous beauty spot than the iconic stone circle.

"The proposed road severs the spatial plane, depriving visitors of the ability to experience its connectedness," said Susan Denyer, of the International Council on Monuments and Sites UK.

"Stonehenge was inscribed on the World Heritage list as an entity that has integrity.

"Some parts of the site cannot have greater value than others."

Speaking for the Council for British Archaeology, the Prehistoric Society and the Wiltshire Archaeological and Natural History Society, Brian Davison claimed the joint funding arrangement between the department of media, culture and sport and the Highways Agency for the 2.1km tunnel was a quick-fix solution.

"Our objections to the published scheme concern its long-term adverse effects on the Stonehenge World Heritage Site," he said.

"We are also concerned that the much-vaunted cross-departmental funding for the scheme could create an unwarranted and, in our view, dangerous precedent for the future, not just for heritage interests but for almost any other environmental issue.

"We view with horror the prospect, in the event of the scheme being implemented, that the biggest single visible monument in this 5,000-year-old landscape of world value will be an early 21st Century roadway, primarily designed to relieve traffic congestion, the benefits of which cannot be projected beyond 30 years."

Stonehenge expert Michael Parker-Pearson added: "The length of the proposed tunnel is not satisfactory because of its impact on particular elements of the World Heritage site, notably the group of burial mounds on King Barrow Ridge.

"The design for the road scheme also seriously compromises the setting of the burial mounds at Longbarrow Crossroads.

"Furthermore, the proposals represent a missed opportunity to reunite the now sundered Stonehenge Avenue.

"We consider that the construction of a long bored tunnel, either on the present line or on the green route, is the only acceptable solution.

"Only such a tunnel will preserve and present the World Heritage site as an intact and integrated landscape.

"Rather than execute the proposed scheme for a short tunnel, it would indeed be better to do nothing until it is possible to do better.
[ Reply to This ]

Summary of NT evidence on Stonehenge road inquiry  by Anonymous on Wednesday, 10 March 2004
The National Trust today finished presenting its evidence to the Stonehenge Roads Improvement Scheme Inquiry.

The Trust has objected to the proposed 2.1km road tunnel scheme on landscape, archaeological and ecological grounds. During its evidence, the Trust highlighted that four key modifications - including lengthening the tunnel by 800m - would appear to offer significant advantages over the existing scheme in terms of landscape character, noise and visual impact.

The Trust's evidence emphasised that the Stonehenge World Heritage Site and its setting comprise a landscape of extraordinarily high significance for its archaeology and its spirit of place. However, during the past century, human activity and intervention have gravely damaged the prehistoric landscape, and the spirit of place has been spoiled by roads, dismal visitor facilities and the cultivation of crops.

While applauding the government for its desire to pursue a scheme that would rescue Stonehenge from its present predicament, the Trust does not believe that the current scheme proposed by the Highways Agency is the right solution for Stonehenge or delivers the objectives of the Stonehenge Management Plan. The Trust's objection relates principally to the failure of the proposed scheme to reunite the stone circle and its associated monuments with the rich historic landscape surrounding it.

However, the Trust highlighted that four modifications to the proposed scheme would do much to reduce or avoid the adverse impacts on the site and would have material advantages over the existing scheme in terms of landscape character, noise and visual impact. These modifications are:

* Moving the proposed western portal approximately 200 metres westwards.

* Moving the proposed eastern portal 600 metres eastwards

* Using a tunnel boring machine for the construction of the tunnel instead of the presently proposed sprayed concrete lining method. This would significantly ameliorate the potential impacts at Stonehenge Bottom.

* Creating a bridleway instead of a byway along the course of the former A303.

Locating the proposed tunnel portal further out at either end of the tunnel would produce significant benefits for six archaeological sites, five of which are scheduled and four of which are acknowledged on behalf of the Highways Agency to be important. One of these four sites is part of the Normanton Down Barrow Group and two of the others are adjacent to it.

The relocation of the proposed eastern portal would also enable the reconnection of the Avenue. The Avenue constitutes a ceremonial monument of great fame and rarity but it is currently severed by the A303 and would remain so under the proposed scheme. In presenting its evidence, the Trust points out that this treatment is inconsistent with the objective of the Stonehenge Management Plan to enhance the features of degraded archaeological features where appropriate. Furthermore, the Highway's Agency's own longer tunnels report recognises that real landscape and cultural heritage benefits would flow from a longer tunnel.

The modifications suggested by the Trust might result in some delay to the construction period. But the Trust believes that in the circumstances pertaining to this uniquely important site, delay would be amply justified.

The Trust’s remit does not extend to assessing the relative economics of one scheme against another. In its curatorial remit, the Trust remains focused on doing what it can to ensure that the chance is not lost to reunite the stone circle with the rich historic landscape surrounding it. In the end, the issue of cost must be a matter for government, having regard to its responsibilities under the World Heritage Convention.

Source: The National Trust 05/03/2004

Vicky
[ Reply to This ]

Deja vu as fog of argument engulfs Stonehenge tunnel inquiry by Anonymous on Thursday, 19 February 2004
Maev Kennedy, arts and heritage correspondent
Wednesday February 18, 2004
The Guardian

Fog buried Stonehenge yesterday. The nose-to-tail drivers grinding past one of the most famous prehistoric sites in the world could barely see the stones, lapped in grey Wiltshire mist. Just down the road in Salisbury, a fog of paper and arguments rose around the monument, as the public inquiry opened into one of the most bitterly contested road development plans in the country.

"This is an opportunity that quite simply must not be lost," Charles Calvert, counsel for the Highways Agency, said in his opening statement. There was a barely audible sigh: most of the battle-scarred veterans in the room have been hearing that for 20 years.

More: The Guardian
[ Reply to This ]

Heritage Link's take on the enquiry by Andy B on Wednesday, 18 February 2004
(User Info | Send a Message)
Heritage Link reports that the cost of man-hours spent on the Stonehenge Inquiry could well equal the cost of the road proposals itself given the huge commitment of numerous organisations including many voluntary groups which have been working on the proposals for over two years. The Inquiry into the A303 Improvement Scheme opening on 17th February in Salisbury could run until 30 April, with the ministerial outcome being sometime after this. There will be a separate Inquiry on the proposed Visitor Centre.

By the second pre Inquiry meeting held on 26th January, over thirty proofs of evidence had been received by the Inspector, Michael Ellison. Apart from the main parties - the Highways Agency, English Heritage and the National Trust, these include the Council for British Archaeology, The Prehistoric Society, the International Council on Monuments and Sites (ICOMOS UK), the British Druid Order, as well as a wide range of regional and local bodies, the Wiltshire Archaeological and Natural History Society, Wiltshire County Council, the Friends of the Earth, Wiltshire, the Amesbury Action Group, the Countess Road Residents’ Group, and the Stonehenge Alliance which acts as an informal umbrella group for Ancient Sacred Landscapes Network, CPRE, Friends of the Earth, RESCUE, The British Archaeological Trust, the Pagan Federation and Transport 2000. Individuals have also registered their intention to give evidence in person.
[ Reply to This ]

Re: A Monumental Enquiry for Stonehenge by Anonymous on Wednesday, 18 February 2004
I read in my paper today that Stonehenge was to have both roads going passed it removed by using a tunnel and that there is a dispute over how far that tunnel should extend. Any outer laying links should be preserved, but more importantly there should still be paths going along the same tracks as before. Not congested roads, but simple tracks that would have been used for a long number of years by travellers. My feeling is that the flow of energy going passed the site is important and must be maintained or Stonehenge will be stifled.

Does anyone else feel this?

Anon 18/02/2004
[ Reply to This ]

Re: A Monumental Enquiry for Stonehenge by Andy B on Sunday, 15 February 2004
(User Info | Send a Message)
More: The National Trust's input to the enquiry
[ Reply to This ]

Stonehenge Public Inquiry starts on Tuesday by Andy B on Sunday, 15 February 2004
(User Info | Send a Message)
A public inquiry into the planned redevelopment of roads around Stonehenge is due to open on Tuesday.

Under the proposals, the A303 would be widened and re-routed under the stones in a 2.1km bored tunnel, a scheme supported by the government.

The National Trust says it supports the tunnel idea, but wants it to be longer.

It is concerned about plans to site exits on "archaeologically sensitive ridgelines" and says the landscape would be impacted by traffic.

Martyn Heighton, from the Trust, said: "The inquiry needs to consider whether the proposed tunnel is long enough to conserve and enhance Stonehenge's spirit of place, landscape and archaeological interest."

Under the proposals, a Bronze Age earthwork which formed the ceremonial approach to the stones would be severed by the A303, claims the Trust.

Work will start by 2005 if the scheme is approved.

Story from BBC NEWS
[ Reply to This ]

Your Name: Anonymous [ Register Now ]
Subject:


Add your comment or contribution to this page. Spam or offensive posts are deleted immediately, don't even bother

<<< What is five plus one as a number? (Please type the answer to this question in the little box on the left)
You can also embed videos and other things. For Youtube please copy and paste the 'embed code'.
For Google Street View please include Street View in the text.
Create a web link like this: <a href="https://www.megalithic.co.uk">This is a link</a>  

Allowed HTML is:
<p> <b> <i> <a> <img> <em> <br> <strong> <blockquote> <tt> <li> <ol> <ul> <object> <param> <embed> <iframe>

We would like to know more about this location. Please feel free to add a brief description and any relevant information in your own language.
Wir möchten mehr über diese Stätte erfahren. Bitte zögern Sie nicht, eine kurze Beschreibung und relevante Informationen in Deutsch hinzuzufügen.
Nous aimerions en savoir encore un peu sur les lieux. S'il vous plaît n'hesitez pas à ajouter une courte description et tous les renseignements pertinents dans votre propre langue.
Quisieramos informarnos un poco más de las lugares. No dude en añadir una breve descripción y otros datos relevantes en su propio idioma.