A303 Stonehenge Improvement – an alternative lower cost scheme.

Scheme Review – Public Consultation

This considered response meets the requirements of a reduced costs, phased scheme that will meet the expressed aims of the Project.

Summary of this Proposal.

The prohibitive cost of tunnelling or re-routing the A303 should not be allowed to delay the closure of the A344, existing car park and facilities. The restoration of the wider Stonehenge landscape is seen as the priority for Phase 1. This is a viable and attractive low cost option.

Aims of the Project

"To restore the dignity and isolation of Britain's greatest prehistoric monument and enable people to enjoy and appreciate it fully". The keywords here are "dignity" and "isolation".

Phase 1

A "Removing the visual impact and noise of roads and traffic from the vicinity of the Stones"

1 Close and remove all traces of the A344 together with its hedges and fences. Turf the area with appropriate wildflower grass mixtures.

2 Remove all traces of the car parks and visitors centre. Retain visual evidence of postmarks, re-turf as above.

3 Remove all security fencing from the proximity of Stonehenge and secure the site at the boundaries of the present National Trust land. See D1 below for access.

4 Defer A303 improvements and carry on independently with all other improvements until Phase 1 is complete.

B "Reuniting Stonehenge and its surrounding monuments in their natural chalk downland setting"

1 Abandon the Northern Route as a viable option. There is too much archaeology to the north and easy access to the Cursus, Woodhenge and Durrington Walls is seen as a vital and integral part of the Stonehenge experience.

2 Perimeter fencing should be secure but unobtrusive. Wherever possible, it should be hidden by earth banks or in sunken ditches on the ha-ha principle.

Hi Nigel,
Thanks for producing this. I think it's a very good starting point for discussions, so here are my first thoughts about it:
A 1-4. Excellent.
B 1. Yes, I agree that the Northern Route is unacceptable, but perhaps, instead of mentioning any of the 5 proposals in the 'new' road plans at this point, we should state from the beginning that we're opposed to all of them, and that only the long bored tunnel would be acceptable. I realize that this is essentially what you've done in your proposal at 'Phase 2', but still think it would be better to state upfront that we're presenting this alternative scheme because of the problems with the 5 current proposals.
B 2. I can't agree with this. No more unnecessary digging, please. If fencing is moved to the edge of the NT land (as proposed in A3), this will be enough.
C 1-2. Yes.
C 3. Don't even propose it. Until we elect a pacifist PM, the warmongers' demands will supersede all others.
D 1. Yes – though for Shrewton read Airman's Cross.
D 2-6. Not sure about these. I'd suggest that free access is viable if the current entrance costs are transferred to vehicles. Those arriving on foot, on bicycle – and perhaps on public transport – shouldn't have to pay. I'd also like to think that the use of moveable walkways might permit unlimited access at all times except when the weather is bad, and, of course, throughout the height of the summer season.
I'd also suggest that the low-impact shuttle buses proposed at D3 and D5 should be for disabled people only – though perhaps for the elderly as well. Otherwise the place will be overrun with shuttles (imagine how few of the 5,000 daily visitors in summer would actually be bothered to walk). If the main car park is somewhere near Airman's Cross, then most of the A344 – apart from the section that runs from the existing car parks across the Avenue to the A303 – could be retained and used as a pedestrian path (as it was at the summer solstice until last year) and also as the official disabled access route for the shuttles.
E 1-4. Yes and no. I actually think that shops, restaurants and exhibitions are financially important and not necessarily a bad thing (Tate Modern, for example, is free – apart from the special exhibitions – but more than makes up for it through its shops and food outlets). I think there's an argument for outlets at the three proposed entrances – Airman's Cross, Durrington and Countess – with the largest located at Airman's Cross, because of the shuttle access and the use of the A344 as the main path.
E 5. I agree about removing the metalled pedestrian path and replacing it with a removable trackway, but suggest that, with the A344 removed around Stonehenge, the pedestrian tunnel would be unnecessary, and can be filled in.
Hope this gets a lively discussion going.
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'.
http://www.andyworthington.co.uk

I note Heritage Action like the idea:
http://www.heritageaction.org/?page=theheritagejournal&id=119
J
x

Basically I'm with Andy Worthington on this, the only thing I would add is that the simpler this thing is the easier it is for a mjority to agree.

VBB

Elsewhere, George has just said - "I think there is not one person who will reject your minimum position regarding the A303 junction and the visitor centre road."

I feel you're right George. So why hasn't it happened already? Unnecessary linkage with the other matter, that's why.

I'm beginning to wonder whether the Achievable Stonehenge proposal isn't equally weakened by it's mention of the A303.

If my understanding of the present situation is right then those that would oppose the closure of the junction of the 344-303 would include Salisbury DC and Wilts CC, because they want any improvement at Stonehenge linked to the upgrading of the 303 and a Salisbury bypass, it may also include those that want a bypass for W.Stoke. We also know that opposition would come from govt and EH because they want nothing less than a grand statement in respect of Stonehenge, and we know that when it comes to questionnaires EH and the Highways agency will continue to ask the questions that will give them the answers they want rather than what the majority want, and because of this the conservation lobby will be ticking boxes to state they want nothing done. Therefore we have to make a stand where so many people agree that it convinces one or two heads on each of these bodies that a minimum change can be effected without detriment to any plans they represent that will include people like me and Andy that don't want to see a spade unless its lifting tarmac and those that desperately want bypasses for W.Stoke and Salisbury. To do so we have to step back from what we are being asked to comment on and say this is what we want and it is outside discussions on the 303.

VBB