In March 2006 I responded to a Department for Transport Consultation on the options for altering the roads around Stonehenge. The decision made following that consultation was that any alteration to the A303 – either burying it or moving it – was unaffordable. As of July 2008 there is now another consultation on the subject of closing the road which runs right next to the stone circle at Stonehenge and providing a new visitors centre and parking in the area, as well as the broader management plan for the World Heritage Site (WHS), this consultation closes on the 17th of October 2008.

• The consultation booklet is available as a PDF via this link
• Online forms (there are two forms) for responding to the consultation are available here

The World Heritage Site Management Plan

1. Do you agree with the Vision for the World Heritage Site?
The vision referred to is summarised on page 8 of the consultation booklet. It involves:

• returning much of the WHS to grassland
• removing or screening “inappropriate structures” and roads
• allowing walkers “open access” to areas of open grassland within the site
• providing a new high quality visitors centre and associated facilities
• conservation, eg. protecting buried archeology from ploughing

While I agree with all those points, I do think there ought be more emphasis on accessibility from the point of view of the elderly, disabled and those making short visits to the area (The average visit time has been reported as being only 20 minutes). I would like to see an accessibility bullet point as part of the vision. Fortunately this consultation is one where you can tick the box for “yes I agree” and still write comments in the “If not, what needs to be changed?” box.

2. Do you support the five Strategic Objectives of the Management Plan?

Objective 1

to manage the attributes that carry the OUV (Outstanding Universal Value) of the WHS so that the WHS is conserved and improved;

As with the other strategic objectives I think the language used is unnecessarily convoluted, and if this objective was simplified to: “Conserving and Improving the WHS” it would be overlapping with the “Vision”.

Objective 2

to identify the current other values, needs and interests of the WHS;

In my view this is garbled “management speak” containing inappropriate personification; I find it difficult to gain any meaning from this phrase.

I believe an attempt is being made here to say the primary objective is to conserve the elements of the WHS which make it a WHS, and objective two recognises there are other properties of the site, beyond those which make it a WHS which are also worth preserving.

Objective one uses the verb; “to manage” which I interpret in this context as meaning action over a sustained period of time, objective two refers only to “identification” and not taking any action as a result of any work to identify any secondary characteristics of the WHS.

I suggest that both objectives one and two ought refer to identification and conservation/management.

Objective 3

to outline a sustainable approach to the future management of the whole WHS which aims to balance all values and needs, such as archaeological and nature conservation (including research), visitor access and farming, and to set out ways whereby stakeholders can optimise the benefits of these values, without
compromising the OUV of the Site;

I broadly agree although the language used eg. “stakeholders” and “values” detracts from the clarity of the statement.

Objective 4

to increase public awareness of and interest in the WHS, and to promote the educational and cultural value of the entire Site, not just the famous Stones;

I strongly agree.

Objective 5

to identify a prioritised programme of action that is achievable and will contribute to the conservation, understanding of OUV, and the improvement of the WHS for all those who visit Stonehenge and live or work in the area.

I broadly support this objective.

3. Do you support the eight long-term aims?
I think aim 5 could usefully be expanded to refer not just to reducing “the impacts of roads and traffic”, but other impacting features and activity too, for example car parks, visitor facilities, paths. I think aim 7 could be strengthened, the “creation of a permanent world class visitor centre” should not just be “kept under review” but the aim should be to establish such a centre.
I question if aim 1 is achievable, and suggest that even if certain “bodies and individuals responsible for its implementation” do oppose elements of the plan, this should not be a reason for diluting the plan’s vision and objectives.
As I said in my response on the “vision” I would like to see accessibility considered as an aim; it would be a shame if the effect of this plan coming was to make it harder, or even impossible for any groups of people to visit Stonehenge.
I would like to suggest a new aim of bringing artefacts found in the WHS to the new visitors centre and displaying them appropriately nearer where they have been found and making them accessible to a wider audience than they receive in their current museums.
4. Which, if any, of the eight aims should be prioritised during the lifetime of the Management Plan?
As there is clear possible action associated with aim 5, and a strengthened aim 7 efforts in those areas have the potential to have most effect, though they must be progressed only in parallel with the other aims ie. the road closure, road improvements and a new visitors centre should not be given a higher priority than conservation. All the aims need to be pursued together.

5. Are the contents of the Management Plan broadly acceptable?
Yes, though accessibility of the stone circle to those with a short time to spend in the area and those who have difficulty walking should not deteriorate as a result of implementing this plan.
I oppose the statement in section 9.6.1 of the management plan stating:

The proximity of the car park to the A303 and A344, means that it is often not used by visitors to the monument, but as a convenient stop for toilets and light refreshments. In order to counter this …

I think such short term visitors; who want to stop off on a journey for a few minutes near the stone circle need to be accommodated.  It is noted there are many such visitors, and I have on a number of occasions been one of them. Those who stop at the monument clearly choose to do so – there are service stations nearby with better toilet and refreshment facilities – they are just as important as any other class of visitor in my view.

I agree with the concern noted in section 10.4.1: that ” if new parking is a long way from the stones” various local roads would come under pressure from unofficial parking. Clearly not all official parking opportunities should be moved a long way from the stones, I feel simple “lay-bys” both on the A303 and perhaps at the remaining stump of the A344 would be appropriate, in part a replacement for the unofficial parking opportunity on byway 12 which will be rendered inaccessible by the closure of the A344.

6. Have we missed out anything? If so, indicate here.
*Consideration of potential reduction in accessibility of the stone circle to certain groups.
*Opportunity to bring back artifacts found in the WHS to a museum / visitors centre within the site.
*There is no consideration of the impact of the fencing around the stones themselves, and the possibility of removing or reducing the impact of the existing security fencing along the A344. The removal of the A344 ought to enable the fencing and the “secure area” to which access is not possible without paying to be expanded. Section 8.3.1 and 9.3.2 deal with the general issues of fencing in the WHS, there is no specific discussion of the fence immediately around the stones, this is one of the major elements detracting from the monument at the moment in my view and deserves to be considered in detail.
*While it might be assumed as obvious I would have liked to see more emphasis on assuring that the new visitors centre and car parks will be built without causing any permanent damage to the WHS.

Environmental Improvements

1. Do you agree that the visitor experience at Stonehenge should be improved?
Yes. Though not at the expense of accessibility.
2. Which of the options for new visitor facilities do you prefer?
2a or 3a
On the grounds that parking should be as close as possible to the stone circle (though not right next to it as it is now) – the proposed new car parks in either options 2a or 3a are only 0.7 miles away from the stones (I don’t know why the consultation is in kilometers!)
This option does not involve the need for any “park and ride” facilities for most visitors.
The car park and visitors centre are located in the same place.
Even the 0.7 mile walk will be too much for some, so there ought be some kind of transport option all the way to the stones for disabled visitors.
Even with these options surely some minimal facilities near the stones will be required, for security, access control, and the facility for those approaching the stones on foot from directions other than the visitor centre to obtain tickets. With the car park and A344 removed the minimal remaining facilities ought not be intrusive. To me the proposals are not clear on where the security fence around the stones is intended to be placed under these proposals.
No proposals include any seasonal variation; which is perhaps reasonable at this stage, but at some point I think the differences between a busy summer Saturday and a desolate winter’s weekday morning ought be addressed.

3. Which of the options for new visitor facilities do you least prefer?
I least prefer 1a.

1a – With the main visitor’s facilities, and parking right next to the stones we’re not going to get much improvement in the immediate environment around the stones. I think option 1a would result in a smaller and less impressive visitor centre than we would get if the visitors centre was a new build further away from the stones.

1b I think any park and ride element will detract from the visitor experience (waiting for busses, reduced freedom, increasing the time required for a visit etc.). I think this would result in a smaller and less impressive visitor centre than we would get if the visitors centre was further away from the stones.

1c is even worse than 1b a as the car park is further away from the Stones.

2a is fine, 2b involves a park and ride which I think is best avoided by selecting another option.

3a is fine, I see no reason not to have the parking co-located with the visitors centre, and don’t think moving it further away and introducing a park and ride (options 3b and 3c) is worthwhile.

4 I think the park and ride element here could be avoided by selecting another option..

5. I think the park and ride element here could be avoided. My support would shift to option 5 though if the visitors centre / museum was to be increasingly substantive, I would like to see a little short term parking for at least for the disabled and the public out of hours and in the winter at sites X and W (and elsewhere) if option 5 was chosen.

4. Do you agree that the environment around Stonehenge should be improved? Select ‘Yes’ or ‘No’.
I do, I think removing the A344, and the fence would be a massive improvement. Shifting the visitor facilities and the car park slightly further way would also be an improvement.

5. Do you agree that the A344 adjacent to Stonehenge should be closed? Select ‘Yes’ or ‘No’.
Yes.

6. Do you have any other comments about the proposed improvements? Please write them here.
Could relevant consultation responses made during the Department of Transport consultation and the public enquiries and other consultation exercises be considered again during this process; I suspect many people who have responded to earlier consultations might not respond again to this new one. I am making some of the same points in this response as I made in March 2006 to the DoT?
There is some missing detail in the proposals, for example if I walk to the stones from somewhere other than the visitors centre how close will I be able to get? Will I need a ticket to walk around the stones? The location of the stone’s “security fence” is not discussed.
Entrance charges, charges for the proposed park and ride buses, and the estimated effect on the length of time visitors will visit for (or need to visit for) are not given.
There are no special arrangements for the elderly or disabled and no seasonal variation in access arrangements discussed.

Having submitted the above via the web forms I note there is no convincing feedback or confirmation of receipt once the submit button is pressed.