The Stonehenge we deserve.

WAINWRIGHT, GEOFFREY

Introduction

Stonehenge is Britain's greatest prehistoric archaeological monument and one of the most powerful landmarks in the world. It stands at the centre of over 2000 hectares of ancient landscape which contains 196 scheduled monuments -- mainly prehistoric burial mounds -- and a dense concentration of buried archaeological sites which combine to create a unique cultural landscape of international importance. For England it is a national heritage icon -- extensively used in advertising and the media as a readily recognized and accessible image, which conveys a compelling sense of power and mystery. The management of the monument and its setting therefore provides a litmus test for millions of people across the world as to how we care for our heritage. In 1986, Stonehenge, Avebury and its associated sites were inscribed as a single cultural World Heritage Site (WHS) under the UNESCO World Heritage Convention of 1972. The 630 sites on the UNESCO World Heritage List, of which 20 are within the UK and its overseas territories, are internationally recognized for their outstanding universal value. There is an international obligation under the World Heritage Convention for the careful protection and management of these sites and the production of Management Plans which will ensure their survival for future generations.

The UK Government therefore has ultimate responsibility for what happens within the Stonehenge WHS, but exercises that in partnership with others. English Heritage is responsible for the Stones and the five hectares of land immediately surrounding them on behalf of the nation. In 1927, 587 ha of the surrounding land (about a quarter of the WHS) were purchased by the National Trust following a national public appeal. The National Trust recently acquired Countess Farm within the WHS, bringing a further 172 ha within its Stonehenge estate. This land now links Woodhenge near the A345 with Stonehenge via King Barrow Ridge, under National Trust ownership. The Ministry of Defence owns Larkhill and its surrounding farmland in the northern part of the WHS and the majority of the WHS is owned by six private owners and is used for farming. At Amesbury, Durrington and along the Woodford Valley, there are a number of private houses within the WHS boundaries. The existing visitor facilities at Stonehenge are operated by English Heritage on land to the northwest of Stonehenge leased from the National Trust. The business provides access to Stonehenge with a car park, small shop, a pedestrian subway under the A344 and light catering facilities.

It will be apparent that a number of Government Departments, statutory bodies, agencies, landowners and tenants have responsibilities and interests which should influence the future management of Stonehenge and the World Heritage Site. They are the Department for Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS), the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions (DETR), the Highways Agency, the Ministry of Defence (MOD), the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (MAFF), English Heritage, the National Trust, Wiltshire County Council, Salisbury District Council, Amesbury Town Council, English Nature and the Countryside Agency. Add to these the landowners, local communities and their representatives, the Wiltshire Constabulary and special interest groups and clearly there is a challenge for anyone wishing to channel the energies of such a large and volatile group towards a solution which will reconcile the sometimes conflicting demands of international legislation with local aspirations.

The problems confronting the proper management of Stonehenge and its landscape are well known and have been rightly described by the Public Accounts Committee of the House of Commons as a `national disgrace'. The present visitor facilities are too small for the existing numbers of visitors to Stonehenge and are too close to the monument. These difficulties are compounded by the large number of motorists and tour coaches who use the free Stonehenge car park as a roadside stop with refreshments and lavatories. Stonehenge is adjacent to the trunk road A303 which cuts through the WHS and carries 26,000 vehicles per day on average -- rising to over 40,000 within 10 years. The A344 road runs close to the Stones and separates them from its ceremonial avenue and the inadequate car park. The setting of the monument is therefore marred by the continuous stream of vehicles passing along the A303 and A344. The free car park is a hideous intrusion on the landscape and 833,000 visitors each year trudge through a concrete underpass to reach the monument whilst unknown numbers (?200,000) risk life and limb to rush across the A344 in order to get a free view of the monument and to stroke the Heelstone just inside the wire fence. Although the land owned by the National Trust is largely down to pasture, tracts of the core of the WHS are ploughed annually and important groups of burial mounds survive as fenced conservation ghettos in a sea of arable, where scrub and rodents flourish in an anachronistic display of how such monuments should not be managed.

It is truly a cause for national shame that we have allowed one of the most important prehistoric landscapes in the world to be so degraded.

To rectify this state of affairs presents an enormous challenge given the large number of interested parties and the variety of viewpoints they represent. A solution took 16 years to emerge and involved numerous conferences, hundreds of meetings and many hours of consultation. The objective was relatively straightforward. It was (English Heritage/National Trust 1996):

To create a setting an environment for Stonehenge appropriate to its status as a World Heritage Site, with the minimum disturbance to the surrounding downland landscape, to the archaeology it contains and the lives of people who live in the area

The route to achieving the simple objective was difficult and placed great strains on the partnerships which were essential to the success of the enterprise. The plan which has emerged will take a decade to implement at a total cost of some 200 million [pounds sterling] but it contains a degree of unanimity which will ensure its ultimate success despite objections from those who will disagree with some parts of the package. The purpose of this paper is to describe the background, history and solution to what must be the most complex heritage problem yet to be encountered.

Researching the issues

Throughout the development of the proposals the need to document and understand the archaeological remains in the World Heritage Site was given high importance. This began with a study around Stonehenge which was commissioned by English Heritage and published by them in 1990 (Richards 1990). This was followed by a much needed reorganization of the Stonehenge archive and a report on the 20th-century excavations at the monument. This was also commissioned by English Heritage and published in 1995 (Cleal et al. 1995). These publications made it possible to move forward to formulate new programmes of research. To stimulate debate, the Royal Society, British Academy and English Heritage organized a conference entitled `Science and Stonehenge' which was held at the Royal Society in March 1996 and published in 1997 (Cunliffe & Renfrew 1997). In 1994 the Central Archaeology Service of English Heritage, working in conjunction with the Archaeology Section of Wiltshire County Council, developed a consolidated database and assessment of the recorded archaeology for 135 sq. km around Stonehenge, including the WHS and surrounding areas (Blore et al. 1995). The database and mapped information is maintained on a GIS system by the Central Archaeology Service of English Heritage and is an essential reference document for any project which concerns itself with the cultural heritage of the WHS (Batchelor 1997).

The later history of the landscape is also important and a survey commissioned by English Heritage identified the general military land-use patterns throughout the modern era, within the World Heritage Site and its immediate environs (Wessex Archaeology 1998). The study confirmed that the modern military remains are part of the archaeological record, and that they should be treated as such.

The Visitor Centre

Proposals to improve the condition of Stonehenge and its landscape can be traced back several decades (Chippindale 1983a; 1983b). The current initiative began when English Heritage was established in 1984 and appointed a Study Group to see how matters could be improved. The Study Group produced its report in 1985 (English Heritage 1985) and at the launch of the report the then Chairman of English Heritage, Lord Montagu, announced that the proposals favoured by English Heritage involved the closure of the A344 and the resiting of the Visitor Centre at Larkhill West, about i km north of Stonehenge. These plans were developed between 1985 and 1990 and included the appropriate archaeological assessments, negotiations for the assembly of the necessary land and detailed plans for the layout of the site (e.g. Golding 1989).

Outline planning permission for a comprehensive scheme was applied for in May 1991, but the proposals did not find favour locally and in December 1991 the application was turned down by the Planning Committee of Salisbury District Council. An appeal against that decision was lodged. A detailed planning application relating to landscaping works along the line of the A344 and the construction of a new approach road was submitted to Salisbury District Council in September 1992. This application was accompanied by an Environmental Statement (Darvill 1991) which incorporated an extensive archaeological evaluation of the proposed Larkhill Visitor Centre Site and the western approach road corridor which was considered necessary to service it.

In April 1992 Jocelyn Stevens became Chairman of English Heritage and it is largely due to his drive and determination and the emergence of strong political support after the General Election in 1997, in particular from Chris Smith (Secretary of State DCMS) and Lord Whitty (DETR), that a solution has emerged. Both planning applications were withdrawn and Sir Jocelyn took personal charge of a review of all available options including what must be the largest public consultation exercise ever undertaken in respect of a heritage project (English Heritage 1993). The code of practice suggested by ICOMOS were used to guide the assessment of the options (ICOMOS 1991) and particular emphasis placed on the following criteria:

* the Visitor Centre should be on the edge of the World Heritage Site;

* no archaeological damage should result from its construction;

* it must not be seen from Stonehenge;

* the approach to Stonehenge should be dramatic;

* the building should form a gateway to the landscape.

Eight site options were the subject of a public consultation involving the distribution of 100,000 leaflets during the summer of 1993 and each was subjected to an archaeological assessment (Darvill 1997). They were:

1 Countess Road west of the A345

2 Countess Road east of the A345

3 Fargo North, south of Fargo Plantation and north of the A344

4 Fargo South, south of Fargo Plantation and south of the A344

5 Larkhill, south of Durrington Down Farm

6 New King Barrows, north of the A303 on King Barrow Ridge

7 Old King Barrows, north of the Stonehenge Avenue on King Barrow Ridge

8 Strangways, south of Fargo Road at the western end of the Stonehenge Cursus.

As a result of the extensive consultation process four additional sites were added to the list:

9 Stonehenge Bottom

10 Pedigree Stock Farm north of the A303

11 Stonehenge Down

12 A303 Roadline site east of King Barrow Ridge

Following the review, four potential sites for the new Visitor Centre emerged and each was subjected to an archaeological evaluation.

(i) Larkhill was the public's preferred choice but access to the site through MOD land to the north proved too difficult and was strongly opposed on archaeological grounds as it required a new access road and car park to be constructed within the WHS. In November 1997, English Heritage and the National Trust put forward scaled-down proposals for a smaller Visitor Centre at Larkhill with access from the north via a new road from the Packway. A meeting convened by the Secretary of State (DCMS) at Amesbury with local authority leaders and other representatives of the local community confirmed local concerns about the traffic impacts associated with the scheme.

(ii) A site on King Barrow Ridge which utilized the foot bed of the A303 and a narrow strip of land immediately south of the present A303 was considered but discarded due to access problems.

(iii) A site at Fargo North, south of Fargo Plantation and north of the A344 was a strong candidate but the archaeological evaluation showed this to be a particularly sensitive site (Wessex Archaeology 1998a) and it would have required substantial development within the WHS. The proposals were presented by the Secretary of State (DCMS) to a meeting of local authority leaders and local community representatives in April 1998. The proposals received widespread local support but were rejected on archaeological and landscape grounds.

(iv) Countess East to the north of the A303 was particularly attractive because of its situation outside the WHS, its apparent low archaeological significance as demonstrated by an evaluation in 1994 (Darvill 1995), and its general availability for development and access. In consequence, the Countess Farm Site was selected as the preferred location for the Visitor Centre and associated facilities. In 1995 and 1996 work progressed with planning a connection between Countess Road East and King Barrow Ridge. Further archaeological assessment was carried out, mainly to identify usable corridors where archaeological remains had previously been disturbed by military works, road and tracks (Reilly et al. 1996).

In 1996 a Planning Brief incorporating these proposals was submitted on behalf of English Heritage and the National Trust and was endorsed by both Salisbury District and Wiltshire County Councils. The Brief was prepared as a framework document to guide the development of a Visitor Centre at Countess Road East and the implementation of a major landscape restoration project called the Stonehenge Millennium Park (English Heritage/National Trust 1996). The Stonehenge Millennium Park concept failed due to the rejection of a grant application by the Millennium Commission in July 1997. This rejection caused a review of the project, particularly options at Larkhill in 1997 and Fargo North in 1998. These options were rejected for reasons already given and the Secretary of State (DCMS) confirmed Countess East as the preferred site at a public meeting in Amesbury in September 1998. The Planning Brief for Countess East was amended and updated in 1999 to take into account material changes in circumstances -- particularly the A303 improvements announced in July 1998 (see below). This was adopted by Salisbury District Council and Wiltshire County Council as Supplementary Planning Guidance in October and December 1999 (English Heritage/National Trust 1999b).

The highway issues

The A303 Trunk Road cuts across the WHS from east to west and is a strategic link to the southwest, providing an alternative to the M4/M5 between London and the West Country. Towards the end of 1992 the Department of Transport announced that it was considering upgrading the A303 between Amesbury and Berwick Down. In March 1993 the first public consultation was held (Highways Agency 1993) on a number of possible routes which included an on-line scheme (Yellow route) and a southern detour (Grey route) for the eastern section, and two detour options for the western sector (Red and Blue routes). In July 1994 English Heritage and the National Trust jointly organized a one-day international conference in London (English Heritage/National Trust 1994). During the Conference the Minister for Roads and Transport withdrew the Yellow and Grey routes because of their effect on Stonehenge and on land held inalienable by the National Trust.

A planning conference to discuss these issues was held at Amesbury in 1995 (Highways Agency 1995; Wainwright 1996) which supported the objectives of English Heritage and National Trust in seeking restoration of Stonehenge to its landscape through the closure and restoration to downland of the A303 between Stonehenge Cottages and Longbarrow Cross Roads, and the A344 between Stonehenge Bottom and Airman's Corner and the resiting of the present visitor facility (Wilson 1996). The conclusions of the conference also supported in principle the proposal by English Heritage and the National Trust for a 4-km long bored tunnel under the WHS but recognized that the cost of that tunnel at 300 million [pounds sterling] was far in excess of the funds likely to be available from the current transport budget.

In August 1996 the Department of Transport announced that the long bored tunnel option was too expensive and that it would not be pursuing any of the proposed options for upgrading the A303 in the vicinity of Stonehenge in the near future. In November 1996 the Stonehenge section of the A303 Amesbury to Berwick Down Improvement was withdrawn from the Trunk Road Programme.

From 1997 the new Government reviewed all Trunk Road schemes and strenuous negotions were undertaken with the Highways Agency and DETR to reinstate in the Programme an environmentally acceptable dualling of the A303 near Stonehenge. These discussions with ministerial involvement resulted in the announcement by the DETR in July 1998 that the scheme to dual the A303 from Countess Roundabout and to bypass Winterbourne Stoke had been included in the Government's Targeted Programme of improvements as an `exceptional environmental scheme'. At a meeting with local authorities and other interests in Amesbury in September 1998, Chris Smith (DCMS) confirmed that the DETR would contribute two-thirds of the 125-million [pounds sterling] cost of the A303 road improvements -- including the cost of a 2-kin cut-and-cover tunnel past Stonehenge -- and that the other third will come from heritage sources via the DCMS. DETR Minister, Lord Whitty stated that the A303 scheme would not have been included in the National Road Programme if it had not been for the importance of the heritage issues at stake. The Highways Agency has now completed a public consultation on the preferred route for the Winterbourne Stoke Bypass and the A303. The results of the public consultation, the views of the Highways Agency and the decision of the Secretary of State were announced in June 1999 (Highways Agency 1999). The decision to incorporate the scheme in the new roads programme is an unprecedented commitment by the Government to the nation's heritage. In March 2000 the Highways Agency announced that the design commission for the development of the A303 scheme, including the Winterbourne Stoke Bypass, had been awarded to Mott MacDonald Ltd. This 2.3-million [pounds sterling] commission will develop the proposals for the road improvement in more detail and will include comprehensive environmental surveys and impact assessment work. The Environmental Statement and a Public Exhibition of more detailed proposals are scheduled for the summer of 2002. A Public Inquiry is likely in 2003 and construction works are programmed to start in 2005.

Stonehenge World Heritage Site Management Plan

As a signatory to the World Heritage Convention (UNESCO 1972), the UK Government has an obligation to provide Management Plans for all of the country's World Heritage Sites. A Management Plan for the Stonehenge WHS was prepared after extensive consultation in 1998 and 1999 and will provide a framework -- agreed with all interested parties -- within which management decisions can be taken on a whole spectrum of issues over time. It represents the strategic framework within which the Master Plan for Stonehenge (described below) has evolved. Government policy in respect of World Heritage Sites is set out in PPG-15 Planning and the Historic Environment (September 1994). This confirms that no additional statutory controls follow from the inscription of a site onto the World Heritage List. Inscription does, however, highlight the outstanding international importance of the site as a key material consideration to be taken into account by local planning authorities in determining planning and listed building consent applications and by the Secretary of State in determining cases on appeal or following call-in.

The Plan was developed through an interactive process co-ordinated by consultants Chris Blandford Associates. The process was overseen by a Working Party chaired by Lady Gass, an English Heritage Commissioner, which represented many organizations and individuals. This group met on 10 occasions during the 12 months that the Plan was in preparation. This included four Topic Discussion Group workshops and a site visit. A consultation draft of the Management Plan was circulated during September and October 1999 and 13,000 leaflets distributed to households in the Stonehenge area. The Plan was finalized in January 2000 and during that month was adopted as Supplementary Planning Guidance by Salisbury District Council and approved by the Secretary of State (DCMS). It was published in April 2000 (Stonehenge World Heritage Site Management Plan).

The Plan provides an assessment of the significance of the whole WHS and evaluates the management issues which affect it. There are 26 substantial objectives embracing a vision for the future; the statutory and policy framework of the area; landscape and heritage conservation; sustainable tourism; sustainable traffic and transportation; and archaeological research. The Plan identifies the need to extend the permanent grassland in the core zone surrounding Stonehenge and to balance the major benefits that would result from the removal of roads and the reunification of the landscape, with the loss of some archaeological remains. The Plan also recognizes the balance which needs to be maintained between the development of tourism in the WHS and its conservation. The Plan recognizes the need for the Visitor Centre to be outside the WHS and the consequent need for a sustainable means of access by visitors to Stonehenge and the wider landscape. The Plan is in essence an ordering of the documentation which the Stonehenge project has produced over the past 16 years into a strategic framework for landscape management and future initiatives which may arise.

Stonehenge: the Master Plan

The Stonehenge Master Plan announced by English Heritage and the National Trust in April 1999 runs in parallel to, but independently of the Management Plan, by which it was influenced. It brings together the long process of consultation and negotiation surrounding the Visitor Centre and Highway issues and was only made possible through the determination of Sir Jocelyn Stevens and the political support it received at ministerial level from several government departments.

The Master Plan provides a coordinated and managed approach to the delivery of the key elements of the A303 road improvements, A344 closure and development of the new Visitor Centre. To confirm their commitment to the Master Plan, the main partners in the project -- English Heritage, the National Trust, the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions, the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, English Nature, the Highways Agency and Salisbury District and Wiltshire County Councils -- issued a joint Mission Statement which was:

To restore the dignity and isolation of Britain's greatest prehistoric monument, and enable people to enjoy and appreciate it fully by:

* removing the visual impact and noise of roads and traffic from the vicinity of the Stones;

* reuniting Stonehenge and its surrounding monuments in their natural chalk downland setting;

* creating the conditions for improved bio-diversity with flowers, butterflies, birds and insects flourishing;

* providing improved access, enabling people to roam freely and at no cost throughout the World Heritage Site;

* building a new world-class Visitor Centre outside the World Heritage Site at Countess East.

The lynch-pin of the Master Plan is the scheme to remove the roads and traffic from within site and sound of Stonehenge. Transport Minister Lord Whitty announced the preferred route for the duelled A303 and the 2-km cut-and-cover tunnel on 25 June 1999. Junction improvements at Long Barrow Crossroads will respect the importance of the archaeology and a full programme of archaeological evaluation and mitigation will be developed in conjunction with the engineering design details. Support for the 2-km cut-and-cover tunnel from partners in the scheme and many archaeology bodies is conditional on the planning, design and implementation strategy bringing substantial environmental improvements to the setting of Stonehenge. It seems probable that following the successful completion of statutory procedures, work will commence in 2005. It is expected that the existing A303 will remain open during construction until the west-bound tunnel is completed. Traffic will then be transferred to the west-bound tunnel whilst the eastbound tunnel replaces the existing carriageway. As part of the Master Plan, the Highways Agency and Wiltshire County Council have agreed that the A344 will close when construction work begins on the east-bound tunnel of the A303. These changes are crucial to the future management of Stonehenge and its setting and fundamental to plans for public understanding and enjoyment and access to the landscape.

The second stage of the Master Plan is the management of the landscape within the Stonehenge core zone and in the WHS as a whole, in a way which is appropriate to its international importance and to the lives of people who live and work in the area. The framework for future action is the Management Plan which has identified a set of objectives which are considered necessary for the effective future management of the Site as a whole in the short and long term. The Plan sets out the recommended mechanisms and actions required to achieve these objectives. The roles of relevant agencies, sources of funding and administrative arrangements are reviewed in the Plan and a suggested programme of action is set out. Mechanisms for monitoring and reviewing the Plan are also explored. Work on implementing the Plan must be pursued with vigour and enthusiasm by all the stakeholders to secure the benefits of its vision.

A new Visitor Centre is needed to enhance public understanding and enjoyment of one of the world's great heritage sites. The Management Plan recommends that this should be outside the WHS so as to relieve people and traffic pressure on the monument and its setting so that the current facilities and car park can be removed and grassed over. The new Visitor Centre will be developed to the east of Countess Roundabout, within the guidelines set out in the 1999 Planning Brief prepared by English Heritage and the National Trust and endorsed by Salisbury District and Wiltshire County Councils. A full range of interpretation, education, catering and retail facilities for visitors will be included. Car parking will be located at the new Visitor Centre and the Master Plan proposes that visitors will be transported to a drop-off point at Fargo North. The Management Plan recognizes the benefits of a drop-off point at King Barrow Ridge where the best views of the Stonehenge bowl may be obtained and the Stones are 20 minutes' walk away. For elderly and disabled people transport to Fargo North could be made available, from where vehicles would take them along the grassed-over footprint of the A344 to the Stones. Anyone who wishes to walk from the Visitor Centre, or into the WHS from another direction, will be encouraged to do so without charge. It will be clear from the concept that visitors will be offered a completely different experience from that currently on offer. The nature of the experience at the Visitor Centre will be vastly improved but in order to reach the Stones a 20-minute walk will be necessary. This provides an opportunity to diversify visitor activity within the World Heritage Site and dependent on the numbers of those who wish to walk to Stones it may be possible to allow appropriately supervised access to them once more.

Conclusion

At last, after so many years of debate, the Master Plan and its companion Management Plan provide a framework for action. The defining moment in the story was the decision by the DETR to incorporate the Stonehenge A303 road scheme into their roads programme and to route it underground where it passes through the Stonehenge core zone. Such co-ordination between Government Departments would have been unthinkable in the recent past and the political support for the project has been essential to its success. The partnership between government, national bodies, local authorities and the resident population inevitably created tensions but was essential to the ultimate success of the enterprise. We must now seize this opportunity and bring the plans to reality so that by the end of the decade we will truly have the Stonehenge we deserve.

References

BATCHELOR, D. 1997. Mapping the Stonehenge World Heritage Site, in Cunliffe & Renfrew (ed.).

BLORE, F., M. HITCHEN & J. VALLENDER. 1995a. Archaeological assessment of the Stonehenge World Heritage Site and its Surrounding landscape. English Heritage Central Archaeology Service.

BLORE, F., M. HITCHEN & R. CANHAM. 1995b. Appendix B. Gazetteer of survey and evaluation work undertaken within the Stonehenge World Heritage Site and its surrounding landscape. English Heritage Central Archaeology Service.

BLORE, F., M. HITCHEN, R. CANHAM & V. GRIFFEN. 1995c. Appendix A. Gazetteer of the recorded archaeology within the Stonehenge World Heritage Site and its surrounding landscape. English Heritage Central Archaeology Service.

CHIPPINDALE, C. 1993a. Stonehenge Complete. London: Thames & Hudson. 1983b. What future for Stonehenge? Antiquity 57: 172-80.

CLEAL, R.M.J. K.E. WALKER & R. MONTAGUE. 1995. Stonehenge in its landscape. Twentieth century excavations. English Heritage.

CUNLIFFE, B. & C. RENFREW (ed.). 1997. Science and Stonehenge. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Proceedings of the British Academy 92.

DARVILL, T.C. (ed.). 1991. Stonehenge conservation and management project: Environmental statement. London: Debenham, Tewson & Chinnocks.

1995. Stonehenge visitor centre, Wiltshire, Countess Road and King Barrow Ridge Site: Field evaluations. London:

DTZ Debenham Thorpe & Bournemouth: Timothy Darvill Archaeological Consultants.

1997. Stonehenge conservation and management programme: a summary of archaeological assessments and field evaluations undertaken 1990-19.96. London. English Heritage.

ENGLISH HERITAGE. 1985. The .future of Stonehenge. London: English Heritage.

1993. Stonehenge: the present, the future. London: English Heritage.

ENGLISH HERITAGE/NATIONAL TRUST. 1994. Stonehenge: the great debate. Conference Papers, London 8 July 1994.

1996. The Stonehenge millennium park and visitor complex. Planning Brief. London: DTZ Debenham Thorpe.

1999a. Stonehenge -- the Master Plan. London: English Heritage/National Trust.

1999b. A new Visitor Centre for Stonehenge at Countess Road East. Amesbury. Planning Brief. London: DTZ Pieda Consulting.

GOLDING, F.N. 1989. Stonehenge past and present, in H. Cleere (ed.), Archaeological heritage management in the modern world: 256-71. London: Unwin Hyman.

HIGHWAYS AGENCY. 1993. Trunk road improvement scheme: A303 trunk road Amesbury-Berwick Down. [Leaflet circulated in March 1993 for first public consultation.)

1995. Trunk Road improvement scheme: A303 trunk road Amesbury-Berwick Down. (Leaflet circulated for the Planning Conference held in September 1995).

1999. A303 Stonehenge [incorporating the Winterbourne Stoke Bypass): Preferred route announcement June 1999.

HALCROW. 1998. Review of English Heritage 2KM tunnel and comparative options. Highways Agency.

ICOMOS. 1991. Management of World Heritage Sites Seminar Papers. London: ICOMOS.

POST. 1997. Tunnel Vision? The future role of tunnels in transport infrastructure. London: Parliamentary Office of Science & Technology.

RICHARDS, J. 1990. The Stonehenge environs project. London: English Heritage.

REILLY, S., N. BURTON, T. DARVILL & J. TIMBY. 1996. Stonehenge World Heritage Site, Wiltshire. Countess Road to King Barrow Ridge -- proposed visitor transportation routes; Archaeological assessment. English Heritage Central Archaeology Service.

STONEHENGE 2000. World Heritage Site Management Plan.

WAINWRIGHT, G.J. 1996. Stonehenge saved? Antiquity 70: 9-12.

WESSEX ARCHAEOLOGY. 1998a. Stonehenge Military Installations. A desk-based study. Report reference 44411.

WESSEX ARCHAEOLOGY. 1998b. Stonehenge Visitor Centre, Fargo North, Wiltshire Stoke: archaeological evaluation. Report reference 45044.03.

WILSON, R. 1996. A303 trunk road Amesbury to Berwick Down. Planning Conference. Chairman's report.

Appendix: the tunnel

Finding a solution to the problems of Stonehenge is a priority for the Government, English Heritage and the National Trust. The number of conflicting interests impacting upon the World Heritage Site have made the decisions and negotiations very difficult and compromises have been necessary. In the area of cultural heritage the most difficult compromise negotiated by the principal partners was the 125-million [pounds sterling] scheme which will put the A303 in a cut-and-cover tunnel 2 km long under the Stonehenge Bowl, out of sight and sound of Stonehenge.

Roads and road traffic have long had serious impact on the World Heritage Site. In particular, the A303 trunk road and A344 county road are highly visible routes that cut through the heart of the World Heritage Site landscape and adversely impact on the character of the immediate setting and public enjoyment of the Stones themselves. The strategy put forward in the Management Plan to achieve objective 23 (reduction of traffic movements and congestion within the World Heritage Site, improve safety and enhance the historic environment) includes:

Placing the A303 (T) in a tunnel, closure of the A344 and related restoration schemes within the Stonehenge `Bowl', including the removal of the A344 in the longer term. Although tunnelling may inevitably have some detrimental effect on existing archaeology along the route corridor of the A303 (T), this should be balanced against the major benefits for the World Heritage Site which would result (para 4.6.4)

These benefits include the reunification of the landscape in the Stonehenge Bowl which together with the related and dependant closure of the A344 will give the public freedom to roam within the prehistoric landscape; the reduction of the impact of the visual, noise and air pollution around the Stones and the provision of safer public access to the Stones and their immediate environs. The archaeological compromise resides in the partial or total destruction of 16 plough-damaged archaeological sites and find-spots (including four scheduled sites) that the cut-and-cover tunnel will entail. The Environmental Impact Assessment and detailed design will attempt to reduce this impact still further and the scheme will be the subject of a Public Inquiry based on a full assessment of all aspects of the scheme. Nevertheless, the advocates of the 2-kin cut-and-cover tunnel are firmly of the view that the advantages to be derived from the scheme are such as to justify the damage to the cultural heritage. In keeping with the principles of sustainability one form of environmental capital will have been substituted for another with greater benefits to the landscape as a whole.

At this stage in the debate there are advocates of a 4-km bored tunnel across the full width of the World Heritage Site which would add 170 million [pounds sterling] to the 125 million [pounds sterling] which the Government is committed to invest in the scheme. Although superficially attractive -- if the finance could be found-- a long bored tunnel would have its own adverse effects. There would be an adverse impact on the local water table as a result of dewatering during construction. Unlike the 2-km tunnel, the 4-km tunnel would require ventilation shafts with forced ventilation which would impact both visually and audibly on the World Heritage Site. The greater depth of the tunnel would require much greater excavation at the two portals which would be on the eastern and western edges of the World Heritage Site, with greater visual impact and particularly on the western edge at Long Barrow Crossroads -- greater archaeological impact (Halcrow 1998). Great care will need to be taken at the design state of the preferred option and the Public Inquiry -- probably in 2003 -- will be hotly contested.

GEOFFREY WAINWRIGHT(*)

(*) wainwright@bstone.demon.co.uk

Received 26 February 2000, accepted 8 March 2000, revised 7 April 2000.