Stonehenge 181
Image by jimit

That is what I am saying - so who is muddying the waters by going on about the A303? Our proposal says leave the A303 for Phase 2 and don't start on Phase 2 until you have finished Phase 1. What are we arguing about? Phase 1 if completed properly gives us what we want and removes all of the crap. The only point I'm sticking with is that we cannot fail to mention the A303 altogether if we want to be heard. So we say "Do it later ie Phase 2" . The proposals have to go to the Highways Agency and their priority is the A303 so we must mention what is paramount to them. Everyone agrees about closing and removing the A 344 and associated junk its not an issue.

So presumably the statement could exclude mention of the A303 altogether?

To be honest, I think we are all right - the debate about the A303 is going to go on and on, all the time the issue of Stonehenge itself is being overlooked - subserviant to the whole A303 debate and in many ways we are being held to ransom - "allow us to do what we like with the A303 and we MIGHT fix Stonehenge".

Sounds remarkably like another site I know.

As far as I am concerned, doing nothing with the A303 means there is no further damage to the archaeology but obviously some long term fix needs to be found. Maybe if we can switch emphasis onto what's best for Stonehenge by way of this intiative, we can make a positive difference.

By the looks of things, TimeWatch are going to be rejecting all of the options laid on the table for the A303. Other campaigns are going to have their own ideas and therefore support for this initiative will to a certain degree rest on what it says about the A303. Surely that is understandable? If the A303 is not menitoned, then the proposal stands on its own and its a good one - a simple and easy to deliver step forward for Stonehenge, regardless of what ultimately happens to the A303.