Fight for Stonehenge takes to the air

[Blackleaf]

A hot-air balloon will take to the air on Monday to mark the 100th anniversary of the first aerial photograph of Stonehenge



Fight for Stonehenge takes to the air

Hot-air balloonists will highlight danger of traffic-choked roads and call for tunnel beneath monument

Robin McKie, science editor
Sunday July 23, 2006
The Observer

A hot-air balloon will rise over Salisbury Plain tomorrow on a trip that will mark one of the country's strangest scientific breakthroughs: the 100th anniversary of the first aerial photograph of Stonehenge.

The 1906 flight was the first use of air reconnaissance for studying ancient monuments in Britain, and will be commemorated with a balloon flight of English Heritage officials and other VIPs. 'Aerial photographs are our main method for finding new [archaeological] sites,' said Martyn Barber, of English Heritage's aerial survey unit. 'They are invaluable for studying the past.'

But the trip has another purpose. It is to form part of an unofficial campaign by English Heritage to maintain public awareness of the World Heritage site. They are anxious to press ministers who have promised they will decide in the next few months on what to do with the main roads that run near the 5,000-year-old stone circle.

English Heritage is particularly worried because Unesco, the United Nations education and cultural body, has warned it may remove the monument's World Heritage status unless Britain tackles the serious problem of traffic passing right beside Stonehenge, which is one of the world's richest reservoirs of Stone Age circles, henges and alignments.

Earlier this month the government pledged it would announce later this summer whether or not it would back a scheme to carry the A303, which runs past Stonehenge, in a tunnel bored under the monument. The plan has already been given planning approval following a public inquiry, and the government originally said it would provide funding. But spiralling costs - which have taken projected spending for the A303 bypass and tunnel to £510m, almost double the original estimates - caused ministers to balk. Instead they have proposed a number of other bypass projects to the north and south of Stonehenge.

These replacement schemes have been rejected by English Heritage, which controls Stonehenge, and the National Trust, which owns much of the surrounding countryside. Surface projects risk damaging a landscape that is riddled with precious archaeological artefacts.

'This is a one-off chance to put right all that has gone wrong at Stonehenge and the surrounding landscape,' said Sir Neil Cossons, chairman of English Heritage, 'We cannot afford to miss it.' English Heritage has planning permission for a new visitor centre, but this can only be built if the tunnel scheme goes ahead.

Most archaeologists consider the proximity of the road to the great monument to be very damaging to the stones and their environment, and a considerable embarrassment to a nation that takes pride in its heritage.

As can be seen in the original photograph, only a few tracks crossed the henge 100 years ago, compared with the roads that sweep by on either side today. The photograph was taken by Lieutenant Philip Henry Sharpe, of the Royal Engineers' Balloon Section, the forerunner of the Royal Flying Corps, and ultimately, the RAF.

His photographs also show that Stonehenge itself was in much worse condition 100 years ago. Larch poles prop up many of the outer stones, while several in the main inner ring have collapsed, and have been re-erected since then.

'We have improved the monument, and revealed it in all its glory,' a spokesman for English Heritage said. 'All we need is a traffic scheme that is worthy of it.'

Saving the stones

Four options are being looked at:

The Tunnel
English Heritage, supported by road groups and various scientific bodies, has backed construction of a 1.5 mile tunnel to be bored under Stonehenge. This would take traffic on the busy A303 under the monument. The A344, which runs right beside Stonehenge, would be closed and restored to grassland. However, the cost - £510m - is far higher than that of any other scheme.
- Chance of success: 6/10

Southern Route
This would divert traffic to the south of the monument but would slice through 50m of a scheduled Stone Age earthworks. Traffic noise and disruption would also be considerable, archaeologists have warned.
- Chance of success: 3/10

Northern Route
Cars and lorries would still be seen and heard around Stonehenge. Like the southern route, it would mean digging up part of the land near Stonehenge and possibly destroying some mounds, barrows and other archaeological features.
- Chance of success: 3/10

Cut and Cover Tunnel
Instead of boring underneath the land around Stonehenge, this plan calls for the removal of a slice of the landscape near the monument. This would then be covered over to make a tunnel. It would destroy a considerable section of land near the stone circle.
- Chance of success: 1/10

guardian.co.uk

 

[Blackleaf]

Leave our glimpse of Stonehenge alone
By Philip Johnston




Later today, all being well, we will leave behind the oppressive heat of London and head west to enjoy the cooling breezes of the north Devon coast.

It is a journey we have made many times; and the highlight of the long drive has always been the first glimpse of Stonehenge as the car crests the hill on the A303 just after the Amesbury roundabout, laying bare the panoramic Wiltshire landscape. As a child, I vaguely remember stopping for a picnic among the stones, something that seems astonishing when you consider that, today, they are fenced off and can be viewed close up only while walking around them in circular procession along a set path. It is strictly no touching.

We no longer stop. It has become, depressingly, the Stonehenge Experience, with the inevitable (if inadequate) visitor centre and opening hours. The idea that an ancient monument can have opening hours is bizarre. Stonehenge lies between two roads, the busy A303 and the A344, a more ancient route to the north. For almost as long as anyone can remember, there has been controversy over what, if anything, should be done to remove these roads both to ease the summer congestion and to allow the monument to stand in glorious isolation, to be gawped at by thousands of tourists without traffic in the background. We are, supposedly, approaching the moment of truth when the Government will make a decision after decades of dithering. Those who have followed this saga will believe it when they see it.

Over the years, the various options have been whittled away as either impractical or too expensive. The scheme preferred by many campaigners, which is to sink a long, deep tunnel on the A303, has been ruled out because it would cost at least £500 million on initial estimates. The officers of the all-party Parliamentary Archaeology Group wrote to The Daily Telegraph recently in support of a short-bored tunnel "as the only realistic solution", though this, too, would be hugely expensive. Other ideas include diverting the A303 north or south, which would affect burial sites and destroy rare flora and fauna.

It seems that every permutation of every possible option has been considered, without agreement. So why not just leave it so that Stonehenge can still be seen from the A303, but make the traffic drive by more slowly - even if it does add to journey times - and close the junction with the A344? I have long thought that this was the best option, but have never dared say so because so many people are adamant that both roads must be removed because they spoil the view of, and from, Stonehenge while others want the A303 widened to relieve congestion. But I was emboldened by a recent letter to this paper from Kate Mortimer, of Okehampton, Devon. She wrote: "The view from the A303 going west is unbeatable - much better than being close to the stones… a tunnel would deprive thousands of this pleasure, destroying much of Stonehenge's surrounding archaeology and cost millions of the taxpayers' money."

Well said. If the A303 is put in a tunnel, we will never see Stonehenge again unless we are prepared to pay through the nose to park the car and enter the site.

Even though, as a family, we have only stopped at Stonehenge twice in 15 years, we have nevertheless seen it dozens of times. Why should this fantastic prospect be screened off from the road? There are many who would prefer the monument to stand alone on the plain and it would, no doubt, be a fantastic sight were that to happen. But it would be a false one. It would not restore the authentic Neolithic landscape in which it was erected.

It would also mean that Stonehenge would be seen predominantly by foreign tourists. It is now estimated that 800,000 visitors a year go to the site, twice the number in the 1960s. Three quarters of them are from overseas, and half of those are from America. So, remove the view of Stonehenge from the road and it will be seen by fewer people who actually live in the country where it is situated than it is by Americans. Perhaps, as a World Heritage Site, this is not necessarily a bad thing. It does not just belong to the English; it was, after all, built long before we arrived.

But we have always been drawn to it. There are accounts of day-trippers in 1562 and there was an annual fair beside the stones from the 1680s. It was the first ancient monument to be listed, in 1882, and when the commission asked for the site to be fenced off, the owner of the land, Sir Edward Antrobus, refused. He said it was an important public space that should be open to all, though later he did put up a fence and charged for entry. Since the antics of the 1980s, when thousands of New Age travellers descended on the site - spawning the Public Order Act to keep them away - the prospect of returning Stonehenge to a place of unfettered access has gone forever.

But do we really want to remove it entirely from casual view, to be seen only as part of a "heritage experience"? It is an essential feature of our landscape, just as much as Salisbury Cathedral or the Tower of London, the views of which are also spoiled by roads or buildings, though no one suggests re-routing or demolishing them. Surely, the building work necessary to sink a tunnel just a few hundred yards away is more likely to damage the stones and the land around them than keeping things as they are. Fortunately, since nobody seems able to agree what to do with the site, we will probably continue to enjoy the magnificent view of the monument as we drive past on the A303 for many years to come.

philip.johnston@telegraph.co.uk

telegraph.co.uk