The National Trust's evidence emphasises that the Stonehenge World Heritage Site is a landscape of extraordinarily high archaeological significance with a unique spirit of place.
Even so, human activity and intervention have gravely damaged the prehistoric landscape whilst the spirit of place has been eroded by roads, poor visitor facilities and the cultivation of crops.
While applauding the government for its desire to pursue a scheme to rescue Stonehenge from its present predicament, we do not believe that the current Highways Agency proposals deliver the objectives of the Stonehenge Management Plan or are the right solution for Stonehenge.
Our objection relates principally to the failure of the proposed scheme to reunite the stone circle and its associated monuments with the rich historic landscape.
Our evidence highlights four key modifications - including lengthening the tunnel by 800m – that appear to offer significant advantages over the existing scheme.
They would do much to reduce or avoid the adverse impacts on the site and would be advantageous in terms of landscape character, noise and visual impact. These modifications are:
- Moving the proposed western portal approximately 200 metres westwards.
- Moving the proposed eastern portal 600 metres eastwards.
- Using a tunnel boring machine for the construction of the tunnel instead of the presently proposed sprayed concrete lining method. This would reduce the potential impacts of construction at Stonehenge Bottom.
- Creating a bridleway instead of a byway along the course of the former A303.
Lengthening the tunnel at either end would produce significant benefits for six important archaeological sites, five of which are scheduled.
The relocation of the proposed eastern portal would also enable the reconnection of the Avenue.
The Avenue links Stonehenge to the river Avon and is thought to be the bronze-age ceremonial approach to the Stones. It is currently, and will remain under the proposed scheme, severed by the A303. Our evidence highlights that this treatment is inconsistent with the objective of the Stonehenge Management Plan to enhance degraded archaeological features where appropriate.
These modifications might result in some delay to the scheme and some additional cost but we believe that in the context of this uniquely important site, they would be amply justified.
Our remit does not extend to assessing the relative economics of one scheme against another. Instead, it remains focused on doing what it can to ensure that the chance is not lost to reunite the stone circle with the rich historic landscape surrounding it.
In the end, the issue of cost must be a matter for government, having regard to its responsibilities under the World Heritage Convention.
National Trust statements to the public inquiry can be viewed by clicking:
Visit the Department for Transport website to view the Public Inquiry Inspector’s Report.
|
