Header graphics: Save Stonehenge!
For the latest campaign news, please check out the Stonehenge Alliance website

You are here: Home > Information > Other views > Salisbury Transport 2000 objection to visitor centre, 26 October 2004

Salisbury Transport 2000 objection to visitor centre, 26 October 2004

26 October 2004

Planning Office
Salisbury District Council
61 Wyndham Road
Salisbury
SP1 3AH

 

Dear Sir,

Stonehenge Visitor Centre and Access Scheme, Ref: S/2004/0001

Salisbury Transport 2000 wish to object to the planning application by English Heritage for the new Stonehenge Visitor Centre (& associated access changes). We are objecting on the following grounds:

We have some specific comments about the Travel Plan which has been submitted with this planning application. Salisbury Transport 2000 has a particular interest in promoting sustainable travel modes for trips in Salisbury District, whether for work, leisure or school. We are therefore dismayed by the unchallenging targets that have been set in the Travel Plan. There is a statement that the existing visitor modal split - Car 60%, Coach 35% and Other (including walking, cycling, bus and rail) 5% - is favourable towards sustainable modes [Travel Plan para 5.3.7]. The aim of the Travel Plan is therefore "to ensure that this existing level of walking, cycling, public transport and coach use is maintained, and if possible, improved upon". This exceedingly modest target is not acceptable for a development of this scale in this day and age.

Furthermore, we had been led to expect that more would be delivered. The Highways Agency Proof of Evidence presented to the Public Inquiry into the A303 Stonehenge Improvement [HA/3/1, para 4.2.2.8] stated that "Although the forecast assumes no significant change in the number of visitors as a result of re-locating the Visitor Centre, it does assume a change in the nature of the visits (more coaches and fewer �casual� car trips), which means that there would be fewer vehicle trips than currently go to the existing facility at Stonehenge." This assumption does not seem to have been carried forward into the targets set in the Travel Plan.

We comment in passing (as already mentioned in an email to David Milton at SDC on 21/10, to which there has as yet been no reply) that the Transport Assessment seems to be missing a section which might provide some enlightenment regarding assumptions about prospective visitor trips. In para 5.1.27 it is stated that "the way in which 'existing' visitor trips have been separated from the 'proposed' visitor trips is set out in detail in section 7.6". However there is no section 7.6 in the Transport Assessment, section numbering goes from 7.5.6 direct to section 8.0.  

Sustainable tourism needs to be at the heart of any redevelopment of the facilities for visitors to Stonehenge, rather than a short postscript to an essentially car-based development. We would like to see the opportunity taken for a much more visionary Travel Plan for Stonehenge, worthy of this world heritage site, and something which would be a world-class showcase for sustainable tourism in the 21st century. The Travel Plan could encompass a number of possibilities which include, but should not be limited to, the following:

The issues raised by this planning application are of national, and in some cases international, importance. We do not feel that the proposed centre and its travel plan are worthy of a site such as Stonehenge. We therefore urge you to refuse the application. We trust that this action would lead to a revised submission or a planning inquiry at which the need for a more creative and fully integrated transport plan could be properly examined.

Yours Sincerely


Margaret Willmot

On behalf of Salisbury Transport 2000

Copy: Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, 26 Whitehall, London SW1A 2WH
Government Office of the South West, 2 Rivergate, Temple Quay, Bristol, BS1 6EH