Proposed Stonehenge road scheme will compromise ancient monument’s setting and sacred precinct
In an unprecedented move, 21 experts on Stonehenge have joined together in their objection to the A303 tunnel scheme proposed by Highways England. The group comprises senior archaeologists, among them 12 professors, who have carried out internationally recognised research within the Stonehenge World Heritage Site (WHS) within the last ten years or more.
The group welcomes schemes to improve the setting of Stonehenge and associated monuments, but feels strongly that the short tunnel scheme (of 2.9km) places important archaeological remains at undue risk, and impacts on the integrity of the WHS. The group’s principal objections are that:
- The creation of new sections of dual carriageway and slip roads beyond the tunnel but still within the boundary of the WHS would set a dangerous precedent by allowing large-scale destructive development within a WHS, potentially threatening its status and integrity.
- The construction of the western tunnel portal and new sections of road would destroy part of a sacred precinct created around Stonehenge and the Normanton Down barrow group 3500 years ago. This massive enclosure, originally comprising ditches, banks and palisades (known as the Stonehenge Palisade) is an integral part of Stonehenge’s sacred landscape. Furthermore, the westerly section of new road would run through an area with an unusual and nationally important concentration of long barrows (burial monuments) belonging to the millennium prior to Stonehenge.
- The proposed siting of the western tunnel portal and its approach road will generate light pollution that would impact on the key midwinter sunset alignment from Stonehenge.
- At its eastern end, construction of the tunnel portal here may have an effect on groundwater conditions which could detrimentally impact the survival of nationally important Mesolithic remains at Blick Mead.
- There has been no effective consultation with the expert group, who between them have unprecedented knowledge of the prehistoric landscape of the WHS.
The iconic status of Stonehenge and international importance of associated archaeological remains within its landscape demand that a scheme is devised which offers the highest standard in heritage protection. The group requests that other options be given further consideration, including the creation of a longer tunnel or a southern surface loop that avoids the WHS.
2 comments
Comments feed for this article
06/03/2017 at 11:36
georgenash
Just to add further cold water
• The creation of a new dual-carriageway either side of a short or long tunnel will result in a considerable landscape scar that would be double the width of the actual carriageway. Highways England (and their chosen contractors) would require this width in order to operate; therefore if the assumed carriageway width is c. 22m (at a very minimum) the scaring of the surrounding landscape will be doubled. Based on a cross-section in Design Manual for Roads and Bridges (DMRB – 2005), the width of the scarring on the Stonehenge landscape will be in excess of 45m. Based on road schemes elsewhere, we are looking at a 45m + width scar (excluding laybys, slopes and beams) that will extend a minimum of 0.5km either side of the tunnel. Based on this assumption, the potential impact of the development-corridor will be potentially severe; destroying everything associated with the ‘historic’ A303 and sites either side, including elements of the later prehistoric landscape (i.e. sites that are contemporary with Stonehenge).
• There are also issues of updating the slip-roads which will require the same treatment. I would urge those supporters of the tunnel to look through DMRB Volume 6, Parts 1 and 2 (2005).
• There is also the issue of the concentration of vehicle pollutants within the tunnel itself (I urge tunnel supporters to go to northern Italy and Switzerland and breath the noxious air that stagnates in these tunnels, this is despite [ineffectual] apparatus for circulating the air out of the tunnels). A potential problem-solver would be to insert along the route of the tunnel a series of airshafts; however, these would potentially destroy yet more of the potential archaeological landscape.
• At either end of the tunnel would be dual lighting; this would create light pollution on an unprecedented scale (I urge tunnel supporters to use the Darford tunnel at night and look at the light pollution there; also read the requirements in DMRB 2005).
• Unless the Powers-that-Should, have taken all these and other issues in hand, this scheme will be yet another waste of money and a scar to far on what is already a threatened landscape.
• This severe scarring across a World Heritage Site landscape would surely put under threat the WHS designation and could result in WHS status being withdrawn from UNESCO’s inscribed list.
06/03/2017 at 22:04
Juliet Waldron
Reblogged this on jw's historical and commented:
What is wrong with us? Humans, knock it off!