With the continuing debate on the future of the Stonehenge Landscape and the proposals for the route of the A303, I thought the view of the CBA on the matter might be of interest to Time Team viewers.
quote:
The Council for British Archaeology, like many other heritage and environmental organisations, was deeply disappointed by the announcement in January of the transport minister’s options for road improvements at Stonehenge. We had urged the minister to use the opportunity of the recent review of options for the road to seek a longer term, sustainable solution for the A303; we reiterated our conviction that there is real scope to look at alternative options for traffic management for the world heritage site. Five options are now offered for public consultation. None demonstrates the breadth of vision that an extraordinary landscape of this iconic and international importance deserves.
At the public inquiry in 2004 we opposed the proposal for a 2.1km bored tunnel through the world heritage site. This was recommended by the inquiry inspector and is the “published scheme”. The CBA believes that the massive and irreversible scar of a widened a303 across the landscape, in deep cuttings either side of the tunnel, would be deeply regretted by future generations. A cut-and-cover scheme along the same line with the same effect is even less acceptable. The environmental impacts of both the options for northern and southern routes, which have been considered before, are unacceptable for their impacts on the world heritage site and other environmental interests.
This leaves only the “partial” option to consider. If this were accepted not as a partial implementation of the published scheme but as an interim measure - one that would bring a degree of relief to local road congestion, and remove the A344 and its traffic from the immediate environs of Stonehenge - it offers a modest improvement. Nevertheless it would leave a congested major road crossing the world heritage site within sight and sound of Stonehenge; it falls far short of the world-class transport solution we hope to see for a world-class site and fails to meet the aims of the project.
This is a contested and hugely significant landscape in our national and international heritage. The “precautionary principle” applies here perhaps more so than in any other context and we should not be afraid to say that none of these options presents a sustainable solution. If we accept a short-term view, dictated by the financial ceiling set by the government and the contemporary imperative of the car, then we risk compromising one of the world’s few really great expressions of prehistoric culture for future generations.
Dr Mike Heyworth, Director, Council for British Archaeology
Originally posted by Steffan: By the way, for those who haven't seen it, information on the proposals and the consultation questionnaire can be found via the Highways Agency.
While I'm sure it would be nice to have less traffic noise at stonehenge , I can think of far better things to spend a few hundred million quid of tax payers money on than that.
