Featured: Current Archaeology Book of the Year 2019!

Current Archaeology Book of the Year 2019!

Random Image


Har Rakhama

Monuments and Landscape in Atlantic Europe, Scarre

Monuments and Landscape in Atlantic Europe, Scarre

Who's Online

There are currently, 491 guests and 3 members online.

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

Sponsors

<< Sites under Threat >> Stonehenge road plans

Submitted by andyworthington on Monday, 23 July 2007  Page Views: 18254

StonehengeCountry: England County: Wiltshire Type: Stone Circle

Internal Links:

Stonehenge.
Stonehenge. submitted by SteveMinett : Stonehenge Steve Minett (Vote or comment on this photo)
On Monday, 23 January 2006, the Highways Agency announced the start of a public consultation on the options for road improvements at Stonehenge.

They stated that: ‘Following a Public Inquiry in 2004 into our proposals for improving the A303 past Stonehenge, the Inspector recommended a new dual carriageway should be built, along with a 2.1km long bored tunnel to remove the effects of the road and traffic from Britain's most famous prehistoric site. However, the cost of the new road has risen significantly since then and so Government Ministers have asked us to undertake a review and identify lower cost options.

Over the coming weeks we will be holding exhibitions to illustrate our identified options and are looking for your feedback, using the enclosed questionnaire, on the best way forward. You are invited to attend an exhibition at the White Hart Hotel in Salisbury on:
Thursday 9th February 2006 from 10 am to 8 pm
Friday 10th February 2006 from 10 am to 8 pm
Saturday 11th February 2006 from 10 am to 4 pm
or in London at The Society of Antiquaries, Burlington House, Piccadilly
on:
Friday 17th February 2006 from 10 am to 8 pm
Saturday 18th February 2006 from 10 am to 4 pm
Representatives of the Highways Agency and their consultants will be on hand to answer your questions."

Full details and the online questionnaire for responses are available here

The options on offer via the new review are:

1. Short bored tunnel (2.1km) – the scheme that went to Inquiry in 2004, which was supported by English Heritage and the Highways Agency, but which was criticized by almost all other interested parties, including the National Trust, the Council for British Archaeology, Save Stonehenge, ICOMOS-UK (representing UNESCO), and the Stonehenge Alliance, which includes Friends of the Earth, the Campaign for the Protection of Rural England, Transport 2000, RESCUE and the Pagan Federation.
2. Short cut and cover tunnel (2.1km) – a scheme almost universally derided since it was first proposed in 1994 because of its devastating environmental impact.
3. A southern route through the World Heritage Site – unlikely, as there are grand houses to the south.
4. A northern route through the World Heritage Site – even more unlikely, as this is MoD land.
5. A flyover for Countess, a bypass for Winterbourne Stoke and the closure of the A344 junction at Stonehenge Bottom – which might result in more pressure for the creation of horribly destructive surface-level dual carriageways.

To download the leaflet, click
here

What’s particularly noticeable is that the longer bored tunnel option, which start and ends outside the borders of the World Heritage Site, is not included – because it’s too expensive. What’s also true, however, is that this is the only option that truly fulfils the government’s obligations to UNESCO – to ‘ensure the protection, conservation and preservation of the site, to the utmost of its resources’.
The long struggle continues.
Discuss.
All the best,
Andy

Andy is the author of Stonehenge: Celebration and Subversion (Alternative Albion, 2004), described by SchNEWS as 'by far the best bit of modern British social history I've seen', and the editor of The Battle of the Beanfield (Enabler, 2005), described by Professor Ronald Hutton as 'probably the definitive work on its subject, something very rarely achieved in practice'.
www.andyworthington.co.uk



Note: The Sunday Times is reporting that delays and inaction may cause the entire tunnel and visitor centre scheme to be scrapped - see latest comments.

<< Reward for Yuma Petroglyph Boulder Stolen

Group issues list of endangered Peruvian artifacts, urges public to be on alert >>

Please add your thoughts on this site

Stonehenge Landscapes Book and CD-ROM

Stonehenge Landscapes Book and CD-ROM

Sponsors

Auto-Translation (Google)

Translate from English into:

"Stonehenge road plans" | Login/Create an Account | 13 News and Comments
  
Go back to top of page    Comments are owned by the poster. We aren't responsible for their content.
Re: Stonehenge road plans by TheCaptain on Sunday, 22 July 2007
(User Info | Send a Message)
Latest on the Stonehenge roads fiasco here, including words from Sir Neil Cossons, the outgoing chairman of English Heritage.
[ Reply to This ]
    Re: Stonehenge road plans by Andy B on Monday, 23 July 2007
    (User Info | Send a Message)
    THE government is set to reject a £500m road scheme which is seen as vital to preserving the status of Stonehenge as a World Heritage site.

    A tunnel more than a mile long would have taken the A303 trunk road under the extensive prehistoric landscape in which the stone circle stands. A new visitor centre had also been planned.

    Despite 20 years of work by English Heritage, which manages Stonehenge, and several planning inquiries costing £25m, a senior government source said last week that the scheme was “simply far too expensive”.

    Instead, the culture and transport departments are planning a far cheaper scheme for a new bypass road.

    The decision will be a blow to Sir Neil Cossons, the outgoing chairman of English Heritage. He said in a valedictory interview this weekend: “If this road project fails we shall have to wait many more years before there is another solution.”

    Cossons, who has spent seven years in the job, added: “The new tunnel, the closure of other roads in the area around Stonehenge and the visitor centre should have been ready for 2012. It was timed for the Olympics. After all, an image of Stonehenge was used in the video that in 2005 helped us to win the Games.

    “Stonehenge is international currency, known throughout the world.”

    The tunnel to carry the A303 and the visitor centre might have put an end to one of the most spectacular views from any road in England, but for tourists it would have made access easier to Stonehenge, which attracts about 800,000 visitors a year. It would also have returned the 5,000-year-old monument to a grassland setting.

    Rejection means that the planned £67m visitor centre, from which mini-buses would have taken visitors to the site, will be shelved, as its location was dependent on the tunnel.

    It could also jeopardise the status of Stonehenge as a World Heritage site, awarded by Unesco in 1986. At the time, the United Nations cultural body told the government that it must improve access and take nearby roads away from the site. Unesco will consider delisting Stonehenge at its next meeting in February.

    The government’s preferred solution now is for the stretch of the A303 that at present passes close to the south of the stone circle to be diverted well to the north. This would be a much cheaper option as no tunnel would be needed. However, it would need the permission of the Ministry of Defence to take the road, which would then become a dual carriage-way, through an army area.
    [ Reply to This ]
      Re: Stonehenge road plans by Andy B on Monday, 23 July 2007
      (User Info | Send a Message)
      Well if all this is correct as leaked to the Sunday Times then it looks
      like at last someone in high places has leant on the necessary Army
      types to allow sanity to prevail at last. Hooray for the death of the
      tunnel, and hooray for the death of the overblown new visitor centre too.

      "Stonehenge world heritage status at risk" - cobblers. (not to you, to
      them). If the link is sent well out of the way northwards then why would
      this be?

      Thanks for the link.
      Andy
      [ Reply to This ]

Re: Stonehenge road plans by Andy B on Thursday, 30 March 2006
(User Info | Send a Message)
STONEHENGE WORLD HERITAGE SITE:

Highways Agency A303 Stonehenge Improvement Scheme Review Consultation

Collective Response from Conservation Organisations

On 17th March 2006, leading independent conservation organisations met to agree a common view of the current Highways Agency A303 Stonehenge Improvement Scheme Review consultation.

These organisations together represent a large heritage and environmental constituency, and reflect local, national and international views, with a diverse range of professional and public opinions.
Emerging from this meeting was a strong consensus on the issues underlying the A303 consultation, on a vision for the Stonehenge World Heritage site, on strategies for the way forward to achieve this vision, and on the potential for huge public value that an unencumbered World Heritage site could deliver.

Vision for the Stonehenge World Heritage site:

"To regain the tranquillity and dignity of this unique cultural landscape, allowing present and future generations fully to enjoy and appreciate the World Heritage site as a whole."

All of the conservation organisations agreed collectively:
* On the shared vision for Stonehenge, as set out above
* To encourage delivery of this vision through strategies that take the long-term view for Stonehenge

- All support strongly an approach at Stonehenge that recognises and respects the World Heritage site as a cultural landscape and believe that it should be put forward for re-inscription as such in order to provide appropriate protection

- All challenge the Inspector's reasoning and recommendation in the A303 Public Inquiry Report, and consider that there could be grounds for judicial review should the preferred scheme be approved for implementation

- All oppose the current options in the Highways Agency Scheme Review as lacking a long-term vision that respects the international significance of Stonehenge as a World Heritage site 1

- All call on the Highways Agency to explore different options, which would be acceptable in terms of impact on the World Heritage landscape. These options should include above ground, or mainly above ground, routes, within northern and southern corridors, together with tunnel options that avoid impacting on the World Heritage site

- All believe that the government should, in the short term, focus on the benefits of possible small-scale, interim improvements, notably closure of the A344/A303 junction, in the absence of agreed large-scale development, but without prejudicing any future off-line solutions

- All recognise the considerable potential of the Stonehenge World Heritage site as a whole to deliver huge public value and consider that a formal assessment of that value should form part of any analysis for evaluating large-scale development in the World Heritage site

- All agree that the following principles should be heeded when assessing the appropriateness or otherwise of possible road and access schemes:

- The significance of the World Heritage site extends beyond individual scheduled monuments and their immediate settings

- The Stonehenge World Heritage site is a cultural landscape of interrelated complexes of monuments and buried remains, which together display an unique range of evidence for prehistoric society

- To safeguard the World Heritage site for future generations, the long-term view must always be considered, even for interim or partial solutions

Signatories - in alphabetical order:

ASLaN - Ancient Sacred Landscape Network
CBA - The Council for British Archaeology
CPRE - The Campaign to Protect Rural England
FoE - Friends of the Earth
ICOMOS-UK - International Council for Monuments & Sites, UK
Prehistoric Society
RESCUE - The British Archaeological Trust
The Natio

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

RSPB hits at 'bias' in A303 consultation by Anonymous on Friday, 24 March 2006
THE Royal Society for the Protection of Birds has launched an attack on the public consultation for the Stonehenge road improvements, labelling it biased and misleading.

The charity has written to the Highways Agency outlining its concerns about the way information has been presented in the consultation literature and displays.

It has also called into question the level of ecological data gathered to support statements made about the pros and cons of the two bypass routes.

The RSPB's south-west regional director, Tony Richardson, said that both the northern and southern route options would be equally damaging to the area's wildlife, but the information contained in the consultation leaflet understated the damaging effects of the southern route.

He said it was not clear why full details of the wildlife that would be affected by the southern route had not been publicised.

The society claims there is evidence not only that barn owls nest and feed on the line of the potential southern route but that land close to it is also used by other breeding birds, bats and amphibians.

Mr Richardson said: "We do not understand how the information for the public consultation has been gathered because, as far as we know, no ecological survey work has been carried out specifically for the purpose of this road review."

The Highways Agency is a member of the Stonehenge world heritage site committee, which has discussed the area's wildlife at many of its meetings and events meaning, said the charity, that it should be well aware of the potential damage a southern bypass would cause.

Despite this, the RSPB said the only data requested by the agency concerned stone-curlews, ignoring other species that could be affected by a new road.

"People and organisations responding to the consultation are currently basing their views on at best inadequate and at worst misleading and unrepresentative information," said Mr Richardson "This is unfair not just to those who want to have their say but to everyone who values wildlife."

The RSPB has called on the Highways Agency to correct publicly the biodiversity information provided for the A303 review of options for Stonehenge leaflet, so that those who still want to respond to the consultation can be better informed.

http://www.thisiswiltshire.co.uk/news/headlines/display.var.713174.0.rspb_hits_at_bias_in_a303_consultation.php
[ Reply to This ]

Re: Stonehenge article in the Guardian by JCAntunes on Friday, 10 February 2006
(User Info | Send a Message)
Since the beginning of time people where clever than they are
in current days!
[ Reply to This ]

Re: Stonehenge article in the Guardian by Anonymous on Friday, 10 February 2006
>it is handed back to the druids

Stonehenge never belonged to the Druids in the first place let alone the Mock Druids who infest the site nowadays!
[ Reply to This ]

Stonehenge article in the Guardian by Anonymous on Thursday, 09 February 2006
The curse of Stonehenge will remain until it is handed back to the druids.

This world heritage site is a national disgrace. Consultants have made millions but achieved nothing in 20 years.

By Simon Jenkins
The Guardian, Friday January 27, 2006

West of Amesbury on the A303, the road dips and rises towards a meadow in the distance. In the meadow stands a clump of grey stones, looking
like dominoes rearranged by a shell from the neighbouring artillery range. The clump is Britain's greatest stone-age monument. Nobody can touch it. Stonehenge is cursed. I have bet every chairman of English Heritage - Lord Montagu, Sir Jocelyn Stevens and Sir Neil Cossons - that no plan of theirs to meddle with the stones will ever work. This week the latest tunnel proposal collapsed, following last year's rejection of a new visitor centre. The fate of the site is consigned to that Blairite neverland called "consultation", joining St Bart's and Crossrail among the living dead, projects which move only because they are maggot-ridden with costs.

I have attended many Stonehenge consultations. They are raving madhouses. The sanest people present are the pendragons, druids, warlocks, Harry Potters, sons of the sun and daughters of the moon. They have a clear use for the stones and speak English. Weirdness sets in with Wiltshire county councillors, health-and-safety officers and
archaeologists, all of whom think the stones are theirs as of right. But for total extragalactic dottiness, nothing tops the Ministry of Defence.
It moves only in twos, each official with a soldier doppelganger at his side. These people lay claim to the stones under ancient brehon, mortuary and
gavelkind, if not by line of descent from neanderthals. To them Stonehenge is a sacred receiving dish, like the one recently discovered
in Moscow, a relic of a long-forgotten Wiltshire chapter of the KGB. To the ministry the stones are a crucial link in a chain of extraterrestrial defence, located at the southern tip of the feared Swindon Triangle. In the late 1980s a road to some proposed new visitor centre cut across an officer's vegetable patch at Larkhill Barracks. The ministry instantly declared the patch vital to national security. The Army Board even took the matter to Downing Street and a meeting with Margaret Thatcher. When she furiously overruled it, the board marked her order "urgent" and threw it in the bin.

Stonehenge may be vital for national security but, as a world heritage site, it is a national disgrace. It comprises the stones, a temporary shelter, a public lavatory and a concrete tunnel. In 1992 Lord Montagu commissioned the architect Ted Cullinan to design a new centre, which was rejected as too expensive (at under £1m). Consultants were brought in and, after a myriad of plans, suggested a new one at £67m, which was accepted as about right. It was located over a mile from the stones,
requiring some sort of train for the disabled and, at one point, a glass replica for those who did not want to walk. Further trains were proposed for everyone until the place was getting like Clapham Junction.

No sooner were the railwaymen at work than the roadbuilders wanted some of the action. They thought to put the A303 in a tunnel. Tunnels are
like computers in Whitehall, costing a fortune and never quite happening. The A303 tunnel began at £125m. Someone then discovered that Wiltshire was made of chalk and it soon cost £470m. This is what killed it. The "Stonehenge experience" is back to c1600 BC.

There are still sceptics who refuse to believe that these stones are cursed. What evidence do they want? The place was the crossroads of neolithic Britain and is clearly a cat's cradle of ley lines and hidden forces. There are more spells round here than in Hogwarts. You cannot drive from Savernake to Devizes without encountering devil's disciples, screaming mandrakes and shooting dog stars. On a full moon you will see defe

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

Re: Stonehenge road plans by JCAntunes on Thursday, 09 February 2006
(User Info | Send a Message)
I think it is very important to first understand what stonehenge is, then decide about the A303 based on what the World Heritage site is.
If the A303 is not correctly placed we will destroy the concept and the reason why World Heritage site was constructed 5000 years ago!
[ Reply to This ]

Re: Stonehenge road plans by mishkin on Tuesday, 07 February 2006
(User Info | Send a Message)
Just to add, there is a letter to Alistair Darling that you can add to or make your own on the following website....

http://www.savestonehenge.org.uk/actnow.html
[ Reply to This ]
    Re: Stonehenge road plans by Thorgrim on Tuesday, 07 February 2006
    (User Info | Send a Message)
    Thanks for that link, Mishkin. Come on folks - get writing!! This is your chance to get it right for Stonehenge. No good moaning about it afterwards if it all goes wrong or nothing happens at all.
    [ Reply to This ]

Re:Stonehenge Roads by Anonymous on Monday, 06 February 2006
The Southern option is by far the best. It will need an earth bank to kill the sound and view from the Houses in West Amesbury. At the other end it should pass to the south of Winterbourne Stoke in the area of old chicken farm. This would mean sacrificing parts of the 'earth Banks', near the Lakes Group but cuts the length of the road and is a better line and gradient cutting out the costs of a viaduct. Why is it not an option? JACKME.
[ 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.