Stonehenge update to be published in Rescue News 104 (Spring 2008)

On 6 December 2007 the Department for Transport announced that the A303 Stonehenge Improvement scheme had been scrapped in its entirety, owing to the by now unjustifiable expense of the project (some £540m). This is good news for environmentalists and archaeologists who have been campaigning for well over a decade for ways to improve the surroundings of Stonehenge that would not, as would the A303 scheme, involve major damage across the heart of the World Heritage Site (WHS).

The DfT's announcement also contained a commitment to examine the case for closure of the A344/A303 junction and, in its conclusion, states:

"The Government remains committed to working with stakeholders in investigating options for improving the environment of Stonehenge, including new visitor facilities, and exploring possible small scale measures to improve traffic flows and safety along this section of the A303."

Ministers have made it clear that they would like to see improvements in place at Stonehenge in time for the Olympics in 2012. The implication is that if this goal is not attained, HMG may lose interest in the Stonehenge Project and walk away from it.

So are there likely to be any difficulties?

Some are convinced that more than Olympic hurdling would be needed to reach agreement, within four years, on a multi-faceted problem that has festered without satisfactory solution for over three decades.

A series of recent comments ('Stonehenge: Now what?': British Archaeology, March/April 2006, pp.10-15) illustrates continuing lack of agreement on what was wrong with the A303 scheme for Stonehenge. The notion that the WHS will in some way be damaged by non-implementation of the road scheme still seems to prevail in the minds of some politicians who apparently misunderstand the impact that it would have had on the WHS landscape and its archaeology. There are other worrying signs of little underlying change.

Culture Minister Margaret Hodge has informed us that the Stonehenge project board, 'which includes all key stakeholders', met on 10 December 2007 (ibid, p.11). We don't know who all of these stakeholders are but, if the previous Stonehenge Project set up is anything to go by, they may be assumed to be largely those in whose power it is to effect changes within the WHS—that is to say, not necessarily those whose priorities are the best interests of the WHS. The Minister goes on to say that

"English Heritage is drawing up options and it is our intention to deliver a new visitor centre which will endure for at least 20 years. We can do this if everybody is prepared to work together constructively and creatively, and I am encouraged by the start we have made."

Certainly, encouraging words if a new approach is seriously under consideration.

But to those who have become, perhaps, a little cynical after years of battling against inappropriate and unworkable schemes devised by English Heritage and other 'key stakeholders', our own inclusion in discussion at the earliest stage would have been welcomed.

Already, two months after the 10 December meeting, less-empowered stakeholders who make up the 'Stonehenge Advisory Forum' have found themselves excluded from the latest thinking. Formerly members of a discussion group involved in the preparation of the current Management Plan (2000), these individuals represent interested local and national bodies and are now involved in preparation of the revised Management Plan.

Nevertheless, at its first meeting on 13 February 2008 this presumably important group was not informed about the Highways Agency's findings on the potential impact of closure of the A303/A344 junction; nor of English Heritage's options for discussion about a new visitor centre. Decision-making within the framework of the current Management Plan (2000) did not seem to be envisaged.

What was made clear was that the revised Management Plan was to provide a framework for whatever scheme the Stonehenge Project Board comes up with, rather than one within which appropriate choices for the future of Stonehenge might be made. This, sadly all-too-familiar, rather patronising and non-inclusive approach is one that ought to be reconsidered if there is to be any hope of making progress of the kind the Minister hopes for.

One small signpost to progress, however, was noted in Ministers' requirement that current Management Plan Objectives 1-3 are to be retained in the revised Plan: these point to the need to manage the WHS as a whole and as a cultural landscape. This is the term which all stakeholders (including English Heritage and the DCMS) agreed in 2000 as best describing the Stonehenge landscape, even though Stonehenge was nominated before the official 'Cultural Landscape' category of WHS was devised by UNESCO. Significantly, this term was found to be inconvenient to English Heritage and the DCMS at the A303 Inquiry, since the road scheme threatened harm to the landscape of the whole WHS: consequently they failed to use it. It is not unreasonable to fear that an attempt may be made to change the Minister's directive and remove the term from the revised Stonehenge Management Plan.

The years of troubled debate, and coercive, secretive and divisive decision-making about the future of Stonehenge have highlighted the intractable problems that inevitably arise from political initiatives governed by economic considerations, short-sighted ambition and bully-boy tactics. We must hope still to learn from these mistakes.

It would obviously not be impossible to put in place some significant improvements at Stonehenge in time for the Olympics; but these ought to arise from sensible and realistic aims, and be based on consensus and sustainability. The remarkable consensus at the A303 planning conference in 1995 ought not to be forgotten—when 199 delegates agreed 16 resolutions in just five days (Robin Wilson, 'A303 Trunk Road Amesbury to Berwick Down Planning Conference 6'10 November 1995', Chairman's Report).

To begin with, all those taking part in the revision of the Management Plan should be involved in the primary decision-making process, for the two must logically go together. To separate them, as before, could again lead to disaster. At the same time, the National Trust must be seen to play a role appropriate to its position as the major land-owner likely to be affected by whatever is proposed.

We know that it is difficult to reach agreement on Stonehenge issues, so the indications are that a modest scheme involving staged improvements might be successful, beginning with non-controversial minor changes that are achievable before 2012.

Obviously, agreement is needed on closure of the A303/A344 and suitable concomitant junction modifications. At present, this is the primary consideration; for without it, little improvement of any kind may be achieved.

The time-consuming effort of finding a suitable new site for a 'World Class' visitor-centre, then submitting plans and testing them at Public Inquiry, and then building it, makes this a poor option in the time available. It would be more sensible to aim for improvements to the current visitor-facilities in the short term. Parking might be separated either immediately, or a little later on, to a suitable location west of Stonehenge, allowing a western access to the Stones along the remaining part of the A344. A light touch on the landscape should be the aim, not extensive new development within the WHS. While these improvements are carried out, a more permanent longer-term visitor centre site might be sought outside the WHS, allowing access to different parts of the Site, in line with Management Plan aims. Park and ride should make use of existing roads and trackways and not involve new routes across the WHS landscape.

In adopting a gentle approach, such as this, controversy and conflict would be less likely to arise and the subject—and realisation—of improvements at Stonehenge would, at long last, provide a model for other World Heritage Sites—as it should have done all along.