Stonehenge, Avebury and Associated Sites

• Need for information on the management (issue resolved) 
• Site Museum project (issue resolved)
• Upgrading of the A303 trunk road project
• Risks of collapse of  Silbury Hill (issue resolved) 
• Infrastructure development pressure 
• Lack of visitor management (issue resolved) 

On 30 March 2017, the State Party submitted a state of conservation report, available at https://whc.unesco.org/en/list373/documents and which responds to issues identified in the Statement of Outstanding Universal Value (OUV), reports on management achievements and implementation of previous Decisions, and the current status of the proposed major road project, noting:

• The closure of the A344 road in the property which allowed the reinstatement of the link between Stonehenge and its Avenue (ceremonial approach);
• A new visitor centre;
• The publication of an integrated management plan for Stonehenge and Avebury;
• A new joint Research Framework;
• The development of a strategy to address road and traffic challenges at Avebury;
• That the Local Development Framework protects the property from inappropriate development.

Road and traffic affect the integrity, condition and setting of the property and the experience of visitors and local people. The main A303 road runs for 5.5km across the centre of the property and was noted as an issue at the time of inscription. The State Party is now committed to addressing its impact as part of a major infrastructure project to upgrade a road route between London and the West of England. A feasibility study for this overall A303/A358/A30 route corridor was prepared in 2014.

The State Party position is that a road improvement scheme for the Stonehenge section that includes a twin-bored tunnel of at least 2.9km, with dual carriageway approach roads on either side, has the potential to deliver benefits by removing the surface road from the central parts of the property.

For the Stonehenge part of the project, a technical advisory working group, was convened including English Heritage (now Historic England), the National Trust and Wiltshire Council, and the local planning authority.

The State Party invited an initial UNESCO/ICOMOS Advisory mission in October 2015, to advise on the overall processes. The mission report is available at: https://whc.unesco.org/en/list373/documents and informed Highways England’s development of possible route options. Public Consultation on two preferred route options involving a 2.9km tunnel occurred during January and February 2017.

A second Advisory mission to consider the emerging proposals occurred in February 2017. The mission report acknowledges the responses to the first advisory mission recommendations, particularly on processes, archaeological investigations and assessments, but notes that some matters are yet to be implemented. This second mission recommends that a non-tunnel by-pass to the south of the property be re-considered and that further work should also occur on longer tunnel options, particularly in relation to portal location and potential impact on the overall Stonehenge cultural landscape and the setting of the property.

Considering the iconic status of the property, the State Party and its agencies should continue to proceed thoroughly and cautiously, to ensure that the optimal solution is identified and implemented for the widening of the A303. The governance and decision making processes for the project is sophisticated, but has not afforded sufficient priority to the OUV of the property. While a range of issues and factors must be balanced, the appropriate approach is to avoid adverse impacts on the OUV of the property. It is not considered satisfactory to suggest that the benefits from a 2.9km tunnel to the centre of the property can offset significant damage from lengths of four lane approach roads in cuttings elsewhere in the property.

The State Party and its relevant agencies have responded to the recommendations of the first mission, but some matters, such as establishing a ‘scientific committee’ are yet to be implemented.

Following the first mission a broad range of options remained under consideration, although media attention has focused on a tunnel proposal of at least 2.9km. Additional research, archaeological investigations and iterations of Heritage Impact Assessments (HIA) have identified that an alternative bypass route (the F10) would have no impact on OUV and could bring significant benefits to the property and the wider Stonehenge landscape, and therefore warrants further consideration, even though it was ruled out prior to the public consultation in early 2017.

The 2.9km tunnel options presented in the public consultation would cause adverse impact on the OUV of the property from their approach roads and associated portals. Both portals would have visual impact, but the extent of new roads beyond, within the property, is of greater concern. The potential impact of some 2.2km of four lane approach roads in cuttings on the Stonehenge landscape could fundamentally compromise the OUV of the property.

If the western portal were to be moved to or outside the property boundary, the approach roads (and their impacts) would shift outside the property, where dual carriageways are already planned. Determination of the precise location would require further investigations as well as consideration of the best alignment for a longer tunnel.

The current positioning of the eastern tunnel portal to the east of the 'Avenue', on-line on the current path of the A303 road, but still within the property, mitigates its impact, but further adjustment of the location for this portal, closer to Countess Roundabout, should be considered, noting that other issues, including potential impacts on Blick Mead and Vespasian’s Camp archaeological sites, where recent investigations have uncovered new significant archaeological finds, must also be addressed.

The project is a government project, and it is therefore within the power of the State Party and its agencies to decide when to lodge applications or take other actions which trigger commencement of statutory timelines. Therefore, it should be possible to align the project process with the timeframe of the Committee statutory meetings. Achieving an optimal outcome requires a continuing, thorough, reflective, process. Provision should be made to ensure that the World Heritage Centre, ICOMOS and the Committee can continue to contribute to the evaluation and decision making processes at appropriate stages.