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 ;)