Stonehenge 181
Image by postman

Yes, I'm perfectly willing to accept the knuckle rap for sounding off, but by Christ, someone has left an astonishing mess next to Britain's most iconic bit of real estate, something that would get them evicted from my local Council Estate, so I'm entitled to squawk just once, aren't I? ;) But point taken, I'm now Mr Responsible...

"so now some thought needs to be given as to how the merits of that case can be put across effectively and sold. If presented sympathetically, it should appeal to anyone who genuinly cares about the integrity of Stonehenge and its landscape."

Totally agree. It's not rocket science either, nor mining engineering with failure to release all the technical data, so it's a very refreshing level playing field that any of us can understand. No claiming it's too complex for peasantry here, Oh dear me no. For instance, take a look at the pathway and resistant grass they've provided at the Rollrights. Technology exists to run low impact vehicles almost anywhere. That's something we could look at. Doesn't half change the situation if that's possible, doesn't it?

I think we could put together a pretty comprehensive set of proposals to add weight to our bald idea if we had a mind to, like you say. And we should, if enough people are willing to put in the effort.

Its not a knuckle rap, Nigel - we are all pretty angry about the mess and muddle. It's getting it changed for the better that matters. Thanks to you - we have something that really could work and the more people that know about it the better. The websites of HA, TMA and the Portal get millions of hits each year so we are potentially effective dissemination machines. Let's firm up your proposal and tell the world about it. Sell it as a positive solution rather than a moan about previous failures. ;o)

Nigel, that sounds like an awful lot of common sense. Having read the thread so far, the fact that you, VBB, Littlestone and Peter are in agreement is indicative of how sensible the suggestion is ;)

I know little of the workings of these things, but it occurred to me that budgetary issues aside, the above suggestions are be more in keeping with the heritage friendly interpretation of 'setting' than the current plan. Does ppg16 apply to Stonehenge? If it's eventually clarified/replaced this would be about as high profile a test case as the UK is likely to get, it'll attract more attention and support than any other site would, and even if it's a temporary measure, a successful conclusion (from the perspective of those expressing opinions here) at Stonehenge might have ramifications elsewhere, as it could be used as an example of the preservation of wider setting being both heritage friendly and cost friendly. Like I say, I'm rather blurry on this kind of thing, so tell me if I'm talking tosh.

fwiw, I'd really rather go for a visitor centre similar to the one at Castlerigg ;)