RESCUE Press Release
RESCUE
THE BRITISH ARCHAEOLOGICAL TRUST
NEWS RELEASE
Contact - Paul Graves-Brown
STONEHENGE - SOME QUESTIONS
It is welcome news that the government have decided to do something about Stonehenge. But the announcement from DCMS and DETR leads RESCUE to ask some questions.
Is a "cut and cover" tunnel the best that can be done for Britain's premiere World Heritage Site? The 1995 planning conference opted for the expensive but best solution of a bored tunnel. The scheme adopted will destroy around 20-30 hectares of one of the most important prehistoric sites in Britain. With appropriate mitigation measures, even a surface road would not do so much damage. The government proposal meets aesthetic concerns but at the cost of archaeological remains.
The proposed scheme will cost stlg150 million, the bored tunnel would have cost stlg300 million, but how much is Stonehenge really worth?
If the cut and cover option is to proceed, will archaeological work on the route be aimed at gaining knowledge about Stonehenge, or simply "mitigating" the destruction caused by the tunnel? English Heritage in their Research Agendas document have called for research questions to be given priority in development - but will archaeologists only dig where the highway engineers decide to put their road?
One third of the cost (stlg50 million) of the scheme is to be met from lottery sources. Should the Heritage Lottery Fund be used to pay for Trunk Roads? When the lottery was launched, we were told that it would not be used as a substitute for other public spending - is this no longer the case?
Contact - Paul Graves-Brown
Notes to
Editors
1)RESCUE, The British Archaeological Trust, is the only entirely independent national archaeological organisation in Britain, and has campaigned vigorously for the preservation of archaeological heritage since the 1960s.
2)A "cut and cover" tunnel involves excavation of a wide trench in which the tunnel is built. For the proposed dual carriageway, this trench might be 100m wide with access "easements" on either side. The total corridor might be more than 150m wide. Over 2 km this represent c.a. 30 hectares. A surface road could be built above the buried remains preserving them "in situ" - this is the preferred approach for all archaeological remains set out in the governments planning guidance note PPG 16. A bored tunnel would not disturb archaeological remains.
3)The government press release of 31/7/98 quotes the cost of the scheme at stlg125 million plus VAT!!! The original tunnel proposed by English Heritage would, according to the press release have cost stlg300 million. The figures quoted do not appear to include the cost of new visitor facilities but do include a bypass of Winterbourne Stoke. Nor is it made clear what the cost of archaeological work on the route might be or whether this is included in the scheme costs - a full excavation of the route and its publication would cost several millions.
4)Many questions remain to be answered about Stonehenge and the piecemeal excavations that have taken place over the last century have not helped to give a clear picture. Many archaeologist now believe that work in advance of development should prioritise answers to questions about the past rather than simply digging what is found on the development site. Excavation on the road route might only involve digging parts of buried features and hence may not give complete or coherent answers as to what went on around this important and intriguing monument.
5)The government's recent spending review allocated only stlg10 million extra to Heritage and Royal Parks - less than inflation - this might actually represent a cut in the actual spend on archaeological heritage.