English Heritage
Stonehenge Visitor Enhancement Project
Planning Submission for Permanent Coach Visitor Facilities & Visitor Transit System Improvements
Heritage Impact Assessment
April 2016
CONTENTS
1.0 INTRODUCTION 1 1.1 Project Background 1 1.2 Consultations 4
2.0 METHODOLOGY 5 2.1 Aims and Scope 5 2.2 Planning and Policy Context 5 2.3 Impact Assessment Methodology 9
3.0 EXISTING BASELINE CONDITIONS 15 3.1 Introduction 15 3.2 Designated Heritage Assets 15 3.3 Historic Development of the Study Area 20 3.4 Monument Groups and Outstanding Universal Value 20 3.5 Sites and Monuments within the Assessment Area 24
4.0 ASSESSMENT OF EFFECTS AND MITIGATION 29 4.1 Proposed Works 29 4.2 Mitigation Strategy 32 4.3 Construction Effects 35 4.4 Operational Effects 39
5.0 EFFECTS ON THE OUTSTANDING UNIVERSAL VALUE OF THE WHS 44 5.1 Introduction 44 5.2 Stonehenge and the Stonehenge Avenue 44 5.3 The Cursus 45 5.4 The Cursus Barrows 46 5.5 The Lesser Cursus and Associated Barrows 46 5.6 The Monarch of the Plain 46
6.0 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS 48 6.1 Effects on the Outstanding Universal Value of the WHS 48 6.2 Effects on Archaeological Remains 50
SVEP Permanent Coach Park April 2016 Heritage Impact Assessment 11110205_SVEP_HIA_V2_CMdw_15-04-16 Chris Blandford Associates
REFERENCES 51
GLOSSARY 52
FIGURES 1 Designated Sites and Monuments in the Study and Assessment Areas 2 Scheduled Monuments and Recorded Sites in the Assessment Area 3 Scheme Elements Re-using Previously Developed Land / Reversible Scheme Elements
APPENDICES 1 Heritage Impact Assessment Methodology 2 Adopted Statement of Outstanding Universal Value 2013 3 SEIP Environmental Statement, Chapter 5 (Archaeology and the Historic Environment) 4 Gazetteer of Sites and Monuments within the Assessment Area 5 Proposed Scheme Drawings
SVEP Permanent Coach Park April 2016 Heritage Impact Assessment 11110205_SVEP_HIA_V2_CMdw_15-04-16 Chris Blandford Associates
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Project Background
1.1.1 The new Stonehenge Visitor Centre developed English Heritage as part of the Stonehenge Environmental Improvements Project (as consented under planning permission S/2009/1527/FUL dated 23/06/10) was opened to the public in December 2013.
1.1.2 As part of the Stonehenge Visitor Enhancement Project, planning permission has been granted for interim improvements to the visitor facilities implemented by English Heritage. These include planning permission for the ‘Re-surfacing of existing reinforced grass overflow car park and landscaping works’ (planning application reference 15/05558/FUL dated 24th July 2015), and for the ‘Change of use from agricultural land and creation (temporary consent 2 years) of a 26 space coach park and associated ancillary works’ (planning application reference 14/12106/FUL dated 13th April 2015). Condition 5 of planning consent 14/12106/FUL states:
‘The coach park expansion hereby permitted shall be removed in its entirety and the land restored to its former condition on or before 09/04/2017 in accordance with a scheme of work submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. REASON: In order for a permanent and sustainable solution to be found to coach parking for the Stonehenge Visitor Centre.’
1.1.3 This Heritage Impact Assessment (HIA) has been prepared by Chris Blandford Associates on behalf of English Heritage to support a planning application for a sustainable solution to permanent coach visitor facilities and visitor transit system (VTS) improvements at the Stonehenge Visitor Centre. The planning application site boundary includes proposed works within the following two areas:
The ‘Visitor Centre End’ – comprising the existing coach park, agricultural land, VTS turnaround area and the temporary footpath between the visitor centre and the A344 at the Stonehenge Visitor Centre, north east and east of Airman’s Corner Roundabout.
The ‘Stones End’ – comprising the existing VTS turnaround area near the Stonehenge Monument, east of Byway 12.
1.1.4 The HIA identifies the historic environment baseline resource that could be affected by implementation of the Scheme and assesses the potential impact of the proposals on the Outstanding Universal Value (OUV), significance, authenticity and integrity of the World Heritage Site (WHS) and its setting. The HIA has been prepared in line with the Guidance on Heritage Impact Assessments for Cultural World Heritage Properties adopted by International Council on Monuments and Sites (ICOMOS) in January 2011 (‘the ICOMOS Guidance’).
SVEP Permanent Coach Park April 2016 1 Heritage Impact Assessment 11110205_SVEP_HIA_V2_CMdw_15-04-16 Chris Blandford Associates
1.1.5 The HIA draws on baseline data and surveys published in the Stonehenge Environmental Improvements Project Environmental Statement (Chris Blandford Associates/Wessex Archaeology 2009) (‘the 2009 ES’); text and drawings referred to are presented as appendices to this HIA for completeness.
1.1.6 The HIA should be read in conjunction with the Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment (LVIA) prepared by Chris Blandford Associates submitted with the planning application. Key viewpoint locations and photographs referenced in this HIA can be found in LVIA Figures 2.1 and 2.5 respectively.
The Scheme
1.1.7 The proposals are shown on the drawings at Appendix 5 and outlined below:
Modification of the existing coach park layout to provide spaces for coaches and motorhomes and pathways to improve pedestrian safety. Construction of a new coach visitor facilities ancillary building. Decommissioning and removal of the existing VTS turnaround area adjacent to the Visitor Centre, and construction of a new VTS turnaround area north of the A344 to accommodate use by shuttle buses. Replacement of the temporary surface matting with a hard permanent surface for the existing footpath between the Visitor Centre and the A344. Construction of an extension to the existing VTS turnaround area near the Stonehenge Monument to accommodate use by shuttle buses and to improve pedestrian safety. Related landscaping works.
Revised coach parking at Airman’s Corner
1.1.8 The coach park is located on the western edge of the WHS to the north-east of the junction of the A360 and B3086 (Figure 1). The original coach park opened in 2013 consisted of an access road off the A344 leading to a coach drop-off alongside an ancillary building within the WHS boundary, and a 30 space coach park constructed outside the WHS boundary. However, the numbers of coaches using the coach park in busy periods proved significantly greater than was anticipated and temporary planning permission for provision of an additional 26 coach parking spaces was subsequently granted by Wiltshire Council in April 2015.
1.1.9 The Scheme proposes the construction of a permanent coach park solution to provide a total of 53 coach spaces and parking for up to 26 motorhomes, together with a new coach visitor
SVEP Permanent Coach Park April 2016 2 Heritage Impact Assessment 11110205_SVEP_HIA_V2_CMdw_15-04-16 Chris Blandford Associates
facilities (CVF) building to provide improved access to ticketing, audio guides and toilet facilities for coach visitors. The proposed Scheme would provide a revised layout and circulation, with parking spaces for motorhomes provided on the western edge of the site (the original coach park) and coach parking provided in an ‘island’ occupying the central part of the site, with a visitor disembarkation point at the eastern edge of the site.
1.1.10 The existing coach park entry and egress points from the A344 and on to the B3086 would be retained. A line of mature beech trees along the northern edge of the former A344 provides screening of the coach park site in views from the south. A landscaping strategy combining low-level boundary planting with carefully placed grove planting would provide partial visual screening to the extended coach park using a mix of native trees and shrubs in a woodland matrix that will blend into the existing landscape.
New Coach Visitors’ Facilities Building
1.1.11 The proposed new CVF building would be located to the south-east of the revised coach park area. There would be no physical change to the existing ancillary services building. The new CVF building would be clad in vertical weathered sweet chestnut timber panels to match the specification of the other buildings on site, with a flat roof concealed behind the vertical timber parapet. In areas where openings are required, metal framed windows and doors would be used together with weathered zinc cladding panels in a dark grey colour to match those used on the main visitor centre.
VTS system alterations
1.1.12 The existing VTS loading area at the Visitor Centre would be replaced with a new turning loop on the north side of the A344 adjacent to the coach park at Airman’s Corner, connecting to the road to the east and west of the existing shuttle area. The existing loading platform hardstanding at the Visitor Centre would be broken out and replaced by soft landscaping.
1.1.13 The new shuttle loop would provide two loading platforms, one on the southern edge of the loop, alongside the A344 and adjacent to the visitor centre in the location of the existing entrance to the current loading bay; and a dedicated loading platform for tour groups on the north side of the turning loop. Dense stands of shrub planting would provide additional strength to the boundary planting in views towards the new shuttle loop along the former A344 and from the Monarch of the Plain scheduled monument.
1.1.14 The existing VTS turnaround at the Stones would be enlarged by around 270m2 to the north and east. On the north edge of the enlarged turning area, a new platform would be constructed
SVEP Permanent Coach Park April 2016 3 Heritage Impact Assessment 11110205_SVEP_HIA_V2_CMdw_15-04-16 Chris Blandford Associates
for unloading visitors arriving at the Stones, with a new path for visitors to move away without conflict with other visitors queuing to return and pedestrian access from Byway 12 to allow visitors arriving on foot to join the VTS passengers as they approach the Stones.
1.2 Consultations
1.2.1 An Archaeological Working Group (AWG) comprising representatives of Wiltshire Council, Historic England (the Inspector of Ancient Monuments for Wiltshire) and The National Trust was established to advise the Stonehenge Visitor Enhancement Project team on the scope and methodology of the assessment process and associated surveys in respect of archaeology and the historic environment.
1.2.2 A meeting of the AWG convened in January 2016 reviewed the outline Scheme proposals and confirmed the need for a HIA in accordance with ICOMOS guidelines. A subsequent meeting of the AWG in February 2016 included a site visit with the AWG (and the Wiltshire Council Landscape Officer) to review the potential visibility of the proposals and agree key viewpoints for assessment of impacts on attributes of OUV.
1.2.3 Parallel consultation with the Wiltshire Council Assistant County Archaeologist considered the extent of previous archaeological investigations at Airman’s Corner, in order to confirm the need for and scope of further surveys to inform the HIA.
SVEP Permanent Coach Park April 2016 4 Heritage Impact Assessment 11110205_SVEP_HIA_V2_CMdw_15-04-16 Chris Blandford Associates
2.0 METHODOLOGY
2.1 Aims and Scope
2.1.1 The aim of this HIA is to:
Determine the nature and importance of the archaeological and historic environment resource (‘heritage assets’) within the Assessment Area (see Figure 1, and section 2.3 below) that could be affected by changes due to the Scheme; and
Determine the impacts (both positive and negative) that may occur as a result of the Scheme and assess the magnitude of these impacts and the resultant significance of effect on; (i) the archaeological and historic environment resource of the Assessment Area; and (ii) the OUV of the WHS.
2.2 Planning and Policy Context
National Planning Policy Framework
2.2.1 The core planning principle set out in NPPF with regard to the historic environment states that planning should ‘Conserve heritage assets in a manner appropriate to their significance, so that they can be enjoyed for their contribution to the quality of life of this and future generations’ (paragraph 17). NPPF Section 12: Conserving and enhancing the historic environment sets out the principal national guidance on the importance, management and safeguarding of heritage assets within the planning process.
2.2.2 Paragraph 128 of NPPF states:
‘In determining applications, local planning authorities should require an applicant to describe the significance of any heritage assets affected, including any contribution made by their setting. The level of detail should be proportionate to the assets’ importance and no more than is sufficient to understand the potential impact of the proposal on their significance. … Where a site on which development is proposed includes or has the potential to include heritage assets with archaeological interest, local planning authorities should require developers to submit an appropriate desk-based assessment and, where necessary, a field evaluation’.
2.2.3 Paragraph 131 directs that planning authorities should take into account ‘the desirability of sustaining and enhancing the significance of heritage assets’. This includes both designated heritage assets and non-designated heritage assets. Designated heritage assets include, inter alia World Heritage Sites and Scheduled Monuments. 2.2.4 Paragraph 132 of NPPF considers harm to the significance of designated heritage assets:
SVEP Permanent Coach Park April 2016 5 Heritage Impact Assessment 11110205_SVEP_HIA_V2_CMdw_15-04-16 Chris Blandford Associates
When considering the impact of a proposed development on the significance of a designated heritage asset, great weight should be given to the asset’s conservation. The more important the asset, the greater the weight should be. Significance can be harmed or lost through alteration or destruction of the heritage asset or development within its setting. As heritage assets are irreplaceable, any harm or loss should require clear and convincing justification.
2.2.5 World Heritage Sites and Scheduled Monuments are heritage assets of the highest significance and substantial harm or loss should be wholly exceptional (paragraph 132). In summary, the tests set by Section 12 in respect of development impacts on designated heritage assets are:
Whether the effect of development on the significance of a designated heritage asset constitutes substantial harm or less than substantial harm (paragraph 132). Substantial harm to or loss of significance is only acceptable where it can be demonstrated that it is necessary to achieve substantial public benefits that outweigh that harm or loss. In the case of less than substantial harm, the harm must be demonstrably outweighed by the public benefits of the development (paragraph 134).
2.2.6 The Government published its online Planning Practice Guidance (PPG) suite in April 2014. This includes Further Guidance on World Heritage Sites, which provides revised guidance on the treatment of World Heritage Sites under the NPPF and replaces the previous Circular on the Protection of World Heritage Sites (Circular 07/2009, July 2009). The PPG notes (paragraph 031) that NPPF policies apply to the Outstanding Universal Value of the WHS as part of the heritage significance of the WHS, and reiterates that the significance of the WHS as a designated heritage asset derives not only from its physical presence but also from its setting.
2.2.7 Paragraph 137 of the NPPF states:
‘Local planning authorities should look for opportunities for new development within Conservation Areas and World Heritage Sites and within the setting of heritage assets to enhance or better reveal their significance. Proposals that preserve those elements of the setting that make a positive contribution to or better reveal the significance of the asset should be treated favourably’.
Wiltshire Core Strategy
2.2.8 The Wiltshire Core Strategy was adopted in January 2015. The relevant policies of the adopted Wiltshire Core Strategy are:
‘Policy 6: Stonehenge
The World Heritage Site and its setting will be protected so as to sustain its Outstanding Universal Value in accordance with Core Policy 59. New visitor facilities will be supported where they:
SVEP Permanent Coach Park April 2016 6 Heritage Impact Assessment 11110205_SVEP_HIA_V2_CMdw_15-04-16 Chris Blandford Associates
- Return Stonehenge to a more respectful setting befitting its World Heritage Site status - Include measures to mitigate the negative impacts of the roads - Introduce a greatly enhanced visitor experience in a high quality visitor centre - Implement an environmentally sensitive method of managing visitors to and from Stonehenge - Include a tourist information element, which highlights other attractions and facilities on offer in the surrounding area and raises the profile of Wiltshire.’
‘Policy 58 : Ensuring the Conservation of the Historic Environment
Development should protect, conserve and where possible enhance the historic environment. Designated heritage assets and their settings will be conserved, and where appropriate enhanced, in a manner appropriate to their significance including:
- nationally significant archaeological remains - World Heritage Sites within and adjacent to Wiltshire - buildings and structures of special architectural or historic interest - the special character or appearance of conservation areas - historic parks and gardens - important landscapes, including registered battlefields and townscapes.
Distinctive elements of Wiltshire’s historic environment, including non-designated heritage assets, which contribute to a sense of local character and identity will be conserved, and where possible enhanced. The potential contribution of these heritage assets towards wider social, cultural, economic and environmental benefits will also be utilised where this can be delivered in a sensitive and appropriate manner in accordance with Core Policy 57. Heritage assets at risk will be monitored and development proposals that improve their condition will be encouraged. The advice of statutory and local consultees will be sought in consideration of such applications.’
‘Policy 59: The Stonehenge, Avebury & Associated Sites WHS and its Setting
The Outstanding Universal Value (OUV) of the World Heritage Site will be sustained by:
- Giving precedence to the protection of the World Heritage Site and its setting - Development not adversely affecting the World Heritage Site and its attributes of OUV. This includes the physical fabric, character, appearance, setting or views into or out of the World Heritage Site - Seeking opportunities to support and maintain the positive management of the World Heritage Site through development that delivers improved conservation, presentation and interpretation and reduces the negative impacts of roads, traffic and visitor pressure - Requiring developments to demonstrate that full account has been taken of their impact upon the World Heritage Site and its setting. Proposals will need to demonstrate that the development will have no individual, cumulative or consequential adverse effect upon the site and its OUV. Consideration of opportunities for enhancing the World Heritage Site and sustaining its OUV should also be demonstrated. This will include proposals for climate change mitigation and renewable energy schemes.’
World Heritage Site Management Plan 2015
2.2.9 The Stonehenge, Avebury and Associated Sites World Heritage Site Management Plan 2015 was launched on 18 May 2015. The Management Plan sets out the following Vision for the WHS:
SVEP Permanent Coach Park April 2016 7 Heritage Impact Assessment 11110205_SVEP_HIA_V2_CMdw_15-04-16 Chris Blandford Associates
‘The Stonehenge and Avebury World Heritage Site is universally important for its unique and dense concentration of outstanding prehistoric monuments and sites which together form a landscape without parallel. We will work together to care for and safeguard this special area and provide a tranquil, rural and ecologically diverse setting for it and its archaeology. This will allow present and future generations to explore and enjoy the monuments and their landscape setting more fully. We will also ensure that the special qualities of the World Heritage Site are presented, interpreted and enhanced where appropriate, so that visitors, the local community and the whole world can better understand and value the extraordinary achievements of the prehistoric people who left us this rich legacy. We will realise the cultural, scientific and educational potential of the World Heritage Site as well as its social and economic benefits for the community.’
2.2.10 In addressing the above Vision, the Management Plan presents a series of eight priorities, of which the following are relevant to the proposed development:
3. Reduce the dominance and negative impact of roads and traffic and ensure any improvements to the A303 support this
4. Improve the interpretation and enhance the visitor experience of the wider landscape
5. Ensure any development is consistent with the protection and where appropriate enhancement of the monuments and their settings and the wider WHS landscape and its setting.
2.2.11 The Management Plan includes the following policies relevant to assessment of the proposed Scheme:
Policy 1d – Development which would impact adversely on the WHS, its setting and its attributes of OUV should not be permitted
Policy 1f – Any additional tourist facilities and attractions must contribute to the understanding and enjoyment of the WHS and its attributes of OUV as well as ensuring visitor dispersal and the positive management of visitor pressures
Policy 2b – Put in place appropriate additional guidance to ensure that development within the setting of the WHS protects and enhances the Site and its attributes of OUV
Policy 3c – Maintain and enhance the setting of monuments and sites in the landscape and their interrelationships and astronomical alignments with particular attention given to achieving an appropriate landscape setting for the monuments and the WHS itself
Policy 6a – Identify and implement measures to reduce the negative impacts of roads, traffic and parking on the WHS and to improve road safety and the ease and confidence with which residents and visitors can explore the WHS
Stonehenge and Avebury WHS Woodland Strategy
2.2.12 The Stonehenge and Avebury WHS Woodland Strategy 2015 seeks to facilitate appropriate planting, replanting and management of woodland and trees within the WHS, but promotes a general presumption against new or replacement planting where these would cause a negative impact on the attributes of the Site’s OUV.
SVEP Permanent Coach Park April 2016 8 Heritage Impact Assessment 11110205_SVEP_HIA_V2_CMdw_15-04-16 Chris Blandford Associates
2.2.13 The WHS Woodland Strategy has been developed to encourage positive management of existing woodlands and to ensure the proposed new planting is sensitive to the WHS landscape. The Woodland Strategy sets out the following vision:
‘Woodland will be managed to ensure that the outstanding universal value of the Stonehenge and Avebury WHS is sustained. This management will ensure that the special qualities of the WHS are protected, enhanced and presented to enable visitors and the local community to better understand the extraordinary achievements of the prehistoric peoples who left us this rich legacy’.
2.2.14 Policy 3 of the Woodland Strategy seeks to:
‘Maintain suitable screen planting for extant built structures where necessary to protect the Outstanding Universal Value of the WHS.’
2.3 Impact Assessment Methodology
2.3.1 The approach to assessment of the significance of effects in this HIA follows that used in the 2009 ES. This approach is derived from the Design Manual for Roads and Bridges Volume 11, Section 3, Part 2, ‘Cultural Heritage’ (HA 208/07) (‘DMRB 11.3.2’), published in August 2007, and is consistent with the suggested procedures for Heritage Impact Assessment set out in the 2011 ICOMOS Guidance.
2.3.2 The significance of the effects of the Scheme have been assessed through a process combining an evaluation of the importance (significance) of heritage assets that could be affected by the Scheme, and the scale or severity of impacts (magnitude of change) that would arise due to the construction and operation of the Scheme, taking into account mitigation measures incorporated into the design and/or delivered during the construction and operational stages of the development.
2.3.3 The detailed HIA assessment methodology and criteria are set out in Appendix 1.
Scope of assessment
2.3.4 As defined in National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF 2012) Annex 2, the ‘Historic Environment’ comprises:
‘all aspects of the environment resulting from the interaction between people and places through time, including all surviving physical remains of past human activity, whether visible, buried or submerged, and landscaped and planted or managed flora’.
SVEP Permanent Coach Park April 2016 9 Heritage Impact Assessment 11110205_SVEP_HIA_V2_CMdw_15-04-16 Chris Blandford Associates
2.3.5 NPPF Annex 2 defines a Heritage Asset as:
‘a building, monument, site, place, area or landscape identified as having a degree of significance meriting consideration in planning decisions, because of its heritage interest. Heritage assets include designated heritage assets and assets identified by the local planning authority (including local listing)’.
2.3.6 Heritage assets that could potentially be affected by the proposed Scheme include upstanding monuments of all periods, both within and beyond the WHS boundary; any buried archaeological remains within the footprint of the proposed extension; and any built heritage features such as listed buildings or milestones within the Assessment Area.
2.3.7 The historic landscape in the Assessment Area is characterised by downland enclosed in the nineteenth century. There would be no changes to the structural elements of the landscape due to the Scheme and it is unlikely that there would be any significant change to the historic landscape character of the WHS. However, the extensive prehistoric funerary and ritual monument groups within the Study Area (see Figure 1) contribute a significant time depth to the post-medieval and modern agricultural landscape, and the relationships of these monument groups within the landscape is significant in terms of the OUV of the WHS.
Definition of the Assessment Area
Revised coach parking and VTS turnaround at Airman’s Corner
2.3.8 The existing coach park and temporary extension is situated north-east of the junction of the A360, the B3086, and the A344 at Airman’s Corner (Figure 1). The proposed permanent coach park extension (‘the Site’) includes the current site footprint with an extension to the east to accommodate the proposed new VTS turning loop.
2.3.9 The Assessment Area is defined as the area within which significant effects may occur, taking into account both the ‘visual envelope’ of the coach park and the nature and scale of change arising from the proposals. The visual envelope of the original coach park was defined in the 2009 ES by means of intervisibility analysis of a digital terrain model derived from aerial LiDAR surveys. The existing coach park site at Airman’s Corner is visible within an area extending eastwards to Fargo Plantation, northwards to the Lesser Cursus ridgeline and south to the Winterbourne Stoke ridge line. In distant views, the viewshed extends to the west of the Till valley, to the north as far as Rollestone and south as far as Oatlands Hill. For the purposes of this HIA, the viewshed of the proposed permanent coach park extension is assumed to be the same as that of the existing temporary extended coach park, taking account of its topographic situation and the screening effects of existing plantations.
SVEP Permanent Coach Park April 2016 10 Heritage Impact Assessment 11110205_SVEP_HIA_V2_CMdw_15-04-16 Chris Blandford Associates
2.3.10 Consultation with the AWG on the basis of a joint site visit in February 2016 confirmed five key viewpoints to form the basis of assessment in this HIA, comprising views to the Site from the following monuments; key viewpoint locations are shown on LVIA figure 2.1:
The Cursus (LVIA key viewpoint 2) The Monarch of the Plain round barrow (LVIA key viewpoint 3) The Lesser Cursus (LVIA key viewpoint 1) The Lesser Cursus Barrows Round barrow NE of Milestone 4, Amesbury
2.3.11 Effects on other sites and monuments within the Assessment Area would be not significant due to distance and scale of change over existing conditions.
Stones VTS turnaround
2.3.12 The existing VTS turnaround area at the Stones lies partly within the former A344 roadbed and partly within the footprint of the decommissioned former visitors’ car park. The proposed extension to the turning area would extend the paved surface to the north within the chalk grassland landscaping of the former visitors car park.
2.3.13 The Assessment Area is defined as the area within which significant effects may occur, taking into account both the ‘visual envelope’ of the existing turnaround area and the nature and scale of change arising from the proposals. The visual envelope of the former visitors’ car park was defined in the 2009 ES by means of intervisibility analysis of a digital terrain model derived from aerial LiDAR surveys.
2.3.14 Consultation with the AWG on the basis of a joint site visit in February 2016 confirmed that transit vehicles using the existing VTS turnaround area are visible within an area defined to the north by the Cursus, to the east by King Barrows Ridge and to the west by Fargo Plantation. However, within this visual envelope the built elements of the turnaround are to a great extent not visible, or insignficant. On the basis of the site visit two key viewpoints were confirmed to form the basis of assessment in this HIA, comprising views to the proposed extended VTS turnaround from the following monuments; key viewpoint locations are shown on LVIA figure 2.1:
Stonehenge (LVIA key viewpoint 5) The Cursus Barrows (LVIA key viewpoint 4)
SVEP Permanent Coach Park April 2016 11 Heritage Impact Assessment 11110205_SVEP_HIA_V2_CMdw_15-04-16 Chris Blandford Associates
2.3.15 Effects on other sites and monuments within the Assessment Area would be not significant due to distance and scale of change over existing conditions.
Assessment of Impacts on OUV
2.3.16 The attributes of the OUV of the WHS are identified in the 2015 WHS Management Plan. A number of key monument groups that convey these attributes may also be identified; see section 4.2 below. The potential impact of the Scheme on the setting of key monument groups that convey attributes of OUV has been assessed, regardless of whether or not these key monument groups lie within the Assessment Area; other key monument groups have been excluded as they have no intervisibility with the Site.
2.3.17 Authenticity and integrity are also part of the OUV of a World Heritage Site. Authenticity refers to the credibility and truthfulness of the way in which attributes carry evidence for the OUV of the Site. Integrity is a measure of the wholeness and intactness of the cultural heritage and whether it includes all attributes necessary to demonstrate its OUV. Integrity also applies more specifically to individual monuments within the WHS.
2.3.18 The UNESCO Operational Guidelines for World Heritage Sites suggest that authenticity of the WHS should be assessed through the use of general attributes such as ‘form and design’ or ‘materials and substance’. The Operational Guidelines require assessments of integrity by States parties to consider the extent to which the WHS:
Includes all elements necessary to express its OUV Is of adequate size to ensure the complete representation of the features and processes which convey the property’s significance Suffers from adverse effects of development and/or neglect
2.3.19 For the purposes of this HIA, assessment of impact on the authenticity and integrity of the WHS is achieved through assessment of impacts on the attributes of OUV. Existing Conditions
2.3.20 Baseline existing conditions for archaeology and the historic environment established to inform the 2009 ES have been relied on for the purposes of this HIA, taking into account the results of archaeological survey work undertaken since 2009.
2.3.21 The 2009 ES baseline was established through desk-based review of existing sources of information, supported where appropriate by the use of field survey. Chartered Institute for Archaeologists’ Standard and Guidance for Desk-based Assessments and Standard and
SVEP Permanent Coach Park April 2016 12 Heritage Impact Assessment 11110205_SVEP_HIA_V2_CMdw_15-04-16 Chris Blandford Associates
Guidance for Field Evaluations (CIfA 2008, revised 2014). Baseline data was sourced from the former English Heritage (now Historic England) ‘Stonehenge WHS GIS’; this included the EH Record of Scheduled Monuments (now part of the National Heritage List), data from the EH National Mapping Programme and the Wiltshire Sites and Monuments Record (now the Wiltshire and Swindon Historic Environment Record). The baseline data was extended to include the results of surveys undertaken as part of the assessment process and handled using ArcGIS to facilitate spatial querying.
2.3.22 Extensive archaeological and historical analysis and survey has been undertaken within the WHS. The data sources consulted for the 2009 ES have been supplemented by more recent research undertaken on an unprecedented scale. Key data sources relevant to this HIA include:
Published Works:
The Stonehenge Environs Project (Richards 1990); Stonehenge in its Landscape: Twentieth-century Excavations (Cleal, Walker and Montague 1995); Stonehenge World Heritage Site: An Archaeological Research Framework (Darvill 2005) Stonehenge and Avebury Revised Research Framework – Stonehenge Resource Assessment Update 2005-2012 (draft) (Darvill 2012) Stonehenge Environmental Improvements Programme: Environmental Statement (Chris Blandford Associates/Wessex Archaeology for English Heritage, September 2009) Airman’s Corner, Winterbourne Stoke, Wiltshire; Report on Geophysical Survey February- March 2009 (Linford and Martin, March 2009; English Heritage Research Department Report Series no. 23-2009) Airman’s Corner, Winterbourne Stoke, Wiltshire; Investigation of Earthworks (Field, May 2009; English Heritage Research Department Report Series no. 40-2009)
Unpublished Reports:
Reports on the archaeological works associated with investigation of suitable Visitor Centre sites (Timothy Darvill Archaeological Consultants/Wessex Archaeology 1990-2004); Stonehenge Military Installations (Wessex Archaeology 1998); Condition Survey and Management Recommendations for Archaeological Sites within the Stonehenge WHS (Wessex Archaeology 2003); Stonehenge and Avebury WHS Monument Condition Survey (Wessex Archaeology 2012); Stonehenge Riverside Project (draft report) (Parker-Pearson 2007);
SVEP Permanent Coach Park April 2016 13 Heritage Impact Assessment 11110205_SVEP_HIA_V2_CMdw_15-04-16 Chris Blandford Associates
Stonehenge Environmental Improvements Project: An Archaeological Desk-based Assessment of areas V, W , X, Y and Z (Leary, English Heritage June 2008) Stonehenge Environmental Improvements Project: Assessment Report on Archaeological Mitigation (draft report) (Wessex Archaeology January 2016)
Chronology
2.3.23 Where mentioned in the text, the main archaeological periods are broadly defined by the following date ranges:
Palaeolithic c. 500 000 – 10 000 BC Mesolithic c. 10 000 – 4000 BC Neolithic c. 4000 – 2500 BC Bronze Age c. 2500 – 800 BC Iron Age c. 800 BC – AD 43 Romano-British AD 43 – 410 Anglo-Saxon AD 410 – 1066 Medieval AD 1066 – 1540 Post-medieval AD 1500 – 1800 Modern AD 1800 – present
Terminology
2.3.24 Throughout this document the term ‘monument’ means an archaeological site recorded in the WHS GIS, and is used to distinguish such records from ‘events’, e.g. the occurrence of an archaeological investigation.
SVEP Permanent Coach Park April 2016 14 Heritage Impact Assessment 11110205_SVEP_HIA_V2_CMdw_15-04-16 Chris Blandford Associates
3.0 EXISTING BASELINE CONDITIONS
3.1 Introduction
3.1.1 This section sets out the existing archaeological and historic environment baseline conditions within the Assessment Area and reviews the heritage assets that could be affected, directly or indirectly, by the proposed Scheme.
3.2 Designated Heritage Assets
3.2.1 A designated heritage asset is defined in Annex 2 of NPPF as, ‘A World Heritage Site, Scheduled Monument, Listed Building, Protected Wreck Site, Registered Park and Garden, Registered Battlefield or Conservation Area designated as such under the relevant legislation’.
The Stonehenge World Heritage Site
3.2.2 The Stonehenge, Avebury and Associated Sites WHS was inscribed onto the World Heritage List in 1986. The nomination focused on the two megalithic monuments of Stonehenge and Avebury. However, it also included a number of Associated Sites within the WHS boundary; those at Stonehenge include: the Cursus; Woodhenge; Durrington Walls; and numerous Bronze Age round barrows surrounding Stonehenge. As well as these Associated Sites, the nomination document mentioned a number of other sites outside the WHS boundary, including Robin Hood’s Ball and a number of Neolithic long barrows within a 5km radius of Stonehenge.
3.2.3 The Site was inscribed onto the World Heritage List under three of the criteria set out in the 1972 UNESCO Convention:
Criterion i – represent a masterpiece of human creative genius; Criterion ii – exhibit an important interchange of human values, over a span of time or within a cultural area of the world, on developments in architecture or technology, monumental arts, town planning or landscape design; and Criterion iii – bear a unique or at least exceptional testimony to a cultural tradition to a civilisation which is living or which has disappeared.
3.2.4 The Avebury part of the WHS is geographically separate from the Stonehenge part; it is not considered further in this HIA. The Stonehenge part of the WHS is referred to hereafter as ‘the Stonehenge WHS’.
SVEP Permanent Coach Park April 2016 15 Heritage Impact Assessment 11110205_SVEP_HIA_V2_CMdw_15-04-16 Chris Blandford Associates
Statement of Outstanding Universal Value
3.2.5 A retrospective Statement of Outstanding Universal Value for Stonehenge, Avebury and Associated Sites was adopted by the UNESCO World Heritage Committee in July 2013. This included a Statement of Significance previously agreed by the UNESCO World Heritage Committee in July 2008. The full Statement of OUV is included at Appendix 2 of this HIA for completeness; within this, the Statement of Significance remains largely unchanged from that adopted in 2008 and the summary is quoted below:
The World Heritage property Stonehenge, Avebury and Associated Sites is internationally important for its complexes of outstanding prehistoric monuments. Stonehenge is the most architecturally sophisticated prehistoric stone circle in the world, while Avebury is the largest in the world. Together with inter-related monuments, and their associated landscapes, they demonstrate Neolithic and Bronze Age ceremonial and mortuary practices resulting from around 2000 years of continuous use and monument building between c. 3700 and 1600 BC. As such they represent a unique embodiment of our collective heritage.
The World Heritage property comprises two areas of chalkland in southern Britain within which complexes of Neolithic and Bronze Age ceremonial and funerary monuments and associated sites were built. Each area contains a focal stone circle and henge and many other major monuments. At Stonehenge these include the Avenue, the Cursuses, Durrington Walls, Woodhenge, and the densest concentration of burial mounds in Britain. At Avebury they include Windmill Hill, the West Kennet Long Barrow, the Sanctuary, Silbury Hill, the West Kennet and Beckhampton Avenues, the West Kennet Palisaded Enclosures, and important barrows.
Stonehenge is one of the most impressive prehistoric megalithic monuments in the world on account of the sheer size of its megaliths, the sophistication of its concentric plan and architectural design, the shaping of the stones, uniquely using both Wiltshire Sarsen sandstone and Pembroke Bluestone, and the precision with which it was built.
At Avebury, the massive Henge, containing the largest prehistoric stone circle in the world, and Silbury Hill, the largest prehistoric mound in Europe, demonstrate the outstanding engineering skills which were used to create masterpieces of earthen and megalithic architecture.
There is an exceptional survival of prehistoric monuments and sites within the World Heritage property including settlements, burial grounds, and large constructions of earth and stone. Today, together with their settings, they form landscapes without parallel. These complexes would have been of major significance to those who created them, as is apparent by the huge investment of time and effort they represent. They provide an insight into the mortuary and ceremonial practices of the period, and are evidence of prehistoric technology, architecture and astronomy. The careful siting of monuments in relation to the landscape helps us to further understand the Neolithic and Bronze Age.
3.2.6 The Statement of OUV considers the relevant UNESCO criteria for inscription as follows (the accompanying commentary is quoted in full in Appendix 2):
Criterion (i): The monuments of the Stonehenge, Avebury and Associated Sites World Heritage Property demonstrate outstanding creative and technological achievements in prehistoric times.
Criterion (ii): The World Heritage property provides an outstanding illustration of the evolution of monument construction and of the continual use and shaping of the landscape over more than 2000 years, from the early Neolithic to the Bronze Age. The monuments and landscape
SVEP Permanent Coach Park April 2016 16 Heritage Impact Assessment 11110205_SVEP_HIA_V2_CMdw_15-04-16 Chris Blandford Associates
have had an unwavering influence on architects, artists, historians and archaeologists, and still retain a huge potential for future research.
Criterion (iii): The complexes of monuments at Stonehenge and Avebury provide an exceptional insight into the funerary and ceremonial practices in Britain in the Neolithic and Bronze Age. Together with their settings and associated sites, they form landscapes without parallel.
Authenticity and Integrity
3.2.7 Authenticity and integrity are used as additional criteria in assessing the OUV of a World Heritage Site; although these were not considered for Stonehenge by the World Heritage Committee in 1986, the adopted Statement of OUV (Appendix 2) now addresses these criteria.
3.2.8 Authenticity refers to the credibility and truthfulness of the way in which attributes carry evidence for the OUV of the Site. The adopted Statement of OUV notes in relation to authenticity that there is a need to strengthen understanding of the overall relationship between remains at the Stonehenge WHS, both buried and standing. With regard to authenticity, the 2015 Management Plan notes the following pertinent to this HIA:
The known principal monuments largely remain in situ and many are still dominant features in the rural landscape. Their form and design are well-preserved and visitors are easily able to appreciate their location, setting and interrelationships which in combination represent landscapes without parallel.
At Stonehenge several monuments have retained their alignment on the Solstice sunrise and sunset, including the Stone Circle, the Avenue, Woodhenge, and the Durrington Walls Southern Circle and its Avenue.
Although the original ceremonial use of the monuments is not known, they retain spiritual significance for some people, and many still gather at both stone circles to celebrate the Solstice and other observations. Stonehenge is known and valued by many more as the most famous prehistoric monument in the world.
There is a need to strengthen understanding of the overall relationship between remains, both buried and standing, at Stonehenge and at Avebury.
3.2.9 Integrity is a measure of the wholeness and intactness of the cultural heritage and whether it includes all attributes necessary to demonstrate its OUV, e.g. whether the WHS is of adequate size to ensure the complete representation of the attributes which carry the Site’s OUV. Integrity also applies more specifically to individual sites within the WHS.
3.2.10 Integrity is a measure of the wholeness and intactness of the cultural heritage and whether it includes all attributes necessary to demonstrate its OUV, e.g. whether the WHS is of adequate size to ensure the complete representation of the attributes which carry the Site’s OUV.
SVEP Permanent Coach Park April 2016 17 Heritage Impact Assessment 11110205_SVEP_HIA_V2_CMdw_15-04-16 Chris Blandford Associates
Integrity also applies more specifically to individual sites within the WHS. With regard to integrity, the 2015 Management Plan notes pertinent to this HIA:
The boundaries of the property capture the attributes that together convey Outstanding Universal Value at Stonehenge and Avebury. They contain the major Neolithic and Bronze Age monuments that exemplify the creative genius and technological skills for which the property is inscribed. The Avebury and Stonehenge landscapes are extensive, both being around 25 square kilometres, and capture the relationship between the monuments as well as their landscape setting.
[…] At Stonehenge the boundary will be reviewed to consider the possible inclusion of related, significant monuments nearby such as Robin Hood’s Ball, a Neolithic causewayed enclosure.
The setting of some key monuments extends beyond the boundary. Provision of buffer zones or planning guidance based on a comprehensive Setting Study should be considered to protect the setting of both individual monuments and the overall setting of the property.
3.2.11 As well as endorsing the Statement of Significance, the Stonehenge World Heritage Committee and the Avebury World Heritage Steering Group also recognised the importance of other values in addition to OUV that have to be taken into account in management decisions, including ‘… the archaeological and historical significance of other periods from the Mesolithic onwards, continually augmented by new discoveries, social value and local needs, educational resource, ecological value, tourism, agriculture and other economic activities’.
Attributes of OUV
3.2.12 The 2015 Management Plan identifies a series of seven Attributes of Outstanding Universal Value derived from the adopted Statement of OUV (above):
1. Stonehenge itself as a globally famous and iconic monument. 2. The physical remains of the Neolithic and Bronze Age funerary and ceremonial monuments and associated sites. 3. The siting of Neolithic and Bronze Age funerary and ceremonial sites and monuments in relation to the landscape. 4. The design of Neolithic and Bronze Age funerary and ceremonial sites and monuments in relation to the skies and astronomy. 5. The siting of Neolithic and Bronze Age funerary and ceremonial sites and monuments in relation to each other. 6. The disposition, physical remains and settings of the key Neolithic and Bronze Age funerary, ceremonial and other monuments and sites of the period, which together form a landscape without parallel. 7. The influence of the remains of Neolithic and Bronze Age funerary and ceremonial monuments and their landscape settings on architects, artists, historians, archaeologists and others.
SVEP Permanent Coach Park April 2016 18 Heritage Impact Assessment 11110205_SVEP_HIA_V2_CMdw_15-04-16 Chris Blandford Associates
Scheduled Monuments
3.2.13 The landscape surrounding Stonehenge contains archaeological features such as barrow cemeteries/groups, other henges, and earthworks (e.g. linear boundaries). Evidence of these features survives as upstanding monuments or buried features, but is also recorded from earlier fieldwork, aerial photography and historic documents. The WHS includes 175 Scheduled Monuments including approximately 415 individual archaeological items or features.
Listed Buildings
3.2.14 Within the Assessment Area, the Grade II listed Airman’s Cross memorial was formerly positioned at the junction of the A360 and the A344; this was relocated to a position outside the new visitor centre building in 2013 following remodeling of the road junction: its setting will not be affected by the proposed Scheme.
Registered Parks and Gardens
3.2.15 There are no Registered Parks or Gardens within the Assessment Area.
Conservation Areas
3.2.16 There are no Conservation Areas within the Assessment Area.
Historic hedgerows and boundaries
3.2.17 Much of the downland in the WHS is shown as enclosed on tithe maps of the 1840s and associated field boundaries are therefore taken to be ‘Important’ under the Hedgerow Regulations 1997 (as amended). The proposed Scheme would not affect any historic hedgerows.
Area of Special Archaeological Significance
3.2.18 The whole of the WHS and the surrounding area is identified as an Area of Special Archaeological Significance within the adopted Local Plan. This designation covers a very extensive area north of Salisbury, including much of Salisbury Plain; the archaeological significance of the designated area relates to the rich prehistoric landscape, which extends across this part of southern Wiltshire.
SVEP Permanent Coach Park April 2016 19 Heritage Impact Assessment 11110205_SVEP_HIA_V2_CMdw_15-04-16 Chris Blandford Associates
3.3 Historic Development of the Study Area
3.3.1 Appendix K of the 2015 Management Plan provides a detailed archaeological description of the WHS. A detailed rehearsal of the development of Stonehenge and its landscape can be found in the 2005 Research Framework (Darvill 2005); a summary description is included at section 5.3 of the 2009 ES (Appendix 3).
3.3.2 The following overview of the Stonehenge WHS is summarised from section 2.2 of the 2015 Management Plan:
Stonehenge occupies a unique position in our national heritage. Its archaeological importance is unquestionable. Together with other late Neolithic monuments such as the Avenue and Durrington Walls, it is of huge significance for our understanding of the Neolithic period.
The landscape that we see today in both parts of the WHS is the culmination of millennia of human activity, but the remains observed in these landscapes point to the vast scale of monumental construction and to the extensive exchange network that existed during the Neolithic and Bronze Age, indicating a highly developed society. The WHS contains much more than the stone monuments alone. Stonehenge [lies] at the heart of [a] very dense archaeological landscapes. These landscapes contain monument complexes comprising significant concentrations of long barrows and barrow cemeteries mainly of early Bronze Age date. They also include henges, earthworks such as the Stonehenge Cursus monuments [ … ], and evidence of early settlements and field systems, as well as remains of later ages. The nature of the recorded archaeological evidence is varied and includes built, buried and surface remains occurring at different densities within the WHS. It is recognised that visibility of features does not always equate with importance. Some built monuments may be highly visible in the landscape, but other less well-preserved and/or buried sites may also be important for our understanding of the period.
There are more than 700 known archaeological features (including find spots) recorded within the Stonehenge part of the WHS, and 175 Scheduled Monuments (many of them covering extensive areas and multiple sites) which are afforded statutory protection because of their national importance. These 175 Scheduled Monuments include approximately 415 individual archaeological items or features.
Stonehenge in its landscape has long been considered to be impressive and important. Artists, including Turner, Constable, and James Barry, were inspired by the Romantic magnificence of the monument in its landscape; this cultural influence contributes to the iconic status of Stonehenge.
The landscape of the WHS provides evidence from different periods of changing human activities and land use over 10,000 years. In particular, the unusually extensive survival of the densest and most varied complex of Neolithic and Bronze Age monuments in England are a visible part of the present day landscape.
3.4 Monument Groups and Outstanding Universal Value
3.4.1 Based on the discussion of the attributes of the OUV of the Stonehenge WHS in sections 2.3.8 – 2.3.30 of the 2015 Management Plan, the following key monument groups which express attributes of OUV may be identified (this is not an exhaustive list):
SVEP Permanent Coach Park April 2016 20 Heritage Impact Assessment 11110205_SVEP_HIA_V2_CMdw_15-04-16 Chris Blandford Associates
Stonehenge and the Stonehenge Avenue The Stonehenge barrow group The Cursus Normanton Down barrow group The Cursus barrows The King Barrows Coneybury henge Durrington Walls Woodhenge The Durrington Down barrow groups The Monarch of the Plain round barrow The Lesser Cursus and associated barrows The Winterbourne Stoke barrow group, and outlying barrows north of this Lake barrows Wilsford Barrows Lake Down barrows Vespasian’s Camp barrows Robin Hood’s Ball and various long barrows outside the WHS boundary
3.4.2 Of these, consultation with the AWG on the basis of a joint site visit in February 2016 confirmed the proposed Scheme has the potential to affect the settings of the following key monument groups; other key monument groups listed above have no intervisibility with the Scheme and/or are located at distance such that visual effects would be negligible:
Stonehenge and the Stonehenge Avenue The Cursus The Cursus barrows The Monarch of the Plain The Lesser Cursus and associated barrows
3.4.3 Beyond the WHS boundary, an unnamed Bronze Age round barrow (Figure 2, 1620) NW of Airman’s Corner is situated on the same ridge as the Lesser Cursus barrow cemetery and may be seen as part of the same barrow group; the barrow is also intervisible with the Cursus and therefore contributes to the OUV of the WHS.
3.4.4 The components of these potentially affected monument groups are discussed below; numbers in brackets refer to the gazetteer of sites and monuments in the assessment area at Appendix 4.
SVEP Permanent Coach Park April 2016 21 Heritage Impact Assessment 11110205_SVEP_HIA_V2_CMdw_15-04-16 Chris Blandford Associates
Stonehenge and the Stonehenge Avenue
3.4.5 The Stonehenge monument, a focal point within the WHS, is unrivalled in its design and unique engineering. Its relatively good survival adds to its OUV as an iconic monument. It is also unique in expressing all seven attributes of the OUV of the WHS.
3.4.6 Stonehenge was formed in several phases. The first phase comprised the bank and ditch of the henge and the Aubrey Holes, which may have held timber posts or stones before they were removed and cremation burials placed in the holes. Phase 2 is represented by timber structures of uncertain form. Phase 3 comprises the stone settings. There were a number of different arrangements of the stones and the exact layout and date of each of these arrangements is continually discussed. The first setting is thought to have been of bluestones which were moved into different positions when the larger sarsen stones were brought to the site. The settings which survive today represent the last of several phases and, as with some earlier phases, are aligned on the midsummer sunrise and/or midwinter sunset axis.
3.4.7 The Avenue is thought to be contemporary to the construction of the stone circle and originally consisted of twin parallel banks with external ditches c.34m apart, extending for nearly 3 kilometres from the River Avon to the north eastern entrance of Stonehenge. Only the one-third nearest to Stonehenge survives as extant earthworks. The final approach to Stonehenge is aligned with the sunrise of the summer solstice, suggesting that the Avenue acted as a ceremonial approach. It has also been suggested that the route was used to transport the bluestones from the River Avon to their final destination.
3.4.8 The North and South barrows within the Stonehenge monument add to the expression of the attributes of OUV, together with the moderate preservation of a short length of bank and internal ditches in the northern part of the Stonehenge monument.
3.4.9 As part of the Stonehenge Environmental Improvements Project the A344 has been closed to vehicular traffic and the former footbed of the road past the Stones restored to grassland, reuniting Stonehenge and the Avenue.
3.4.10 The Stonehenge Triangle is managed by English Heritage on behalf of the Secretary of State. The Avenue north of the former A344 to King Barrow Ridge lies within National Trust land and benefits from open access.
SVEP Permanent Coach Park April 2016 22 Heritage Impact Assessment 11110205_SVEP_HIA_V2_CMdw_15-04-16 Chris Blandford Associates
The Cursus
3.4.11 The Neolithic Cursus (1044) is represented by an earthwork ‘enclosure’ with a bank and outer ditch surviving. The extensive monument provides views of Stonehenge from its eastern end; the King Barrows; Cursus Barrows; Durrington Down barrows; Normanton Down Group; and the Lesser Cursus and associated barrows.
3.4.12 The monument is roughly 3km long and between 100-150m wide aligned east-west, and its eastern end crosses the head of the Stonehenge Bottom dry valley. It has been suggested that the Cursus acts as a boundary between areas of settlement and ceremonial activity, and was probably a processional way (English Heritage 2009, 155). It has further been suggested that it is also aligned on the equinox sunrise which rises over the eastern long barrow. A long barrow is situated at the eastern end of the Cursus (837). The side ditches of this long barrow have been ploughed away and the mound has been eroded by a track.
3.4.13 The Cursus became a focus for barrow construction in the Bronze Age, with an irregularly spaced linear group of barrows (924) on the south-east edge of the Cursus. A bowl barrow (1340) lies within the western terminus.
3.4.14 Beyond the WHS boundary, a long barrow (1664) on Winterbourne Stoke Down also expresses attributes of OUV and is intervisible with the western end of the Cursus 2.3km away; the direct line of sight between the monuments falls to the south of the existing coach park, along the dry valley south of the A344 in which the new visitor centre is located.
3.4.15 The Cursus lies on National Trust land and benefits from open access along its entire length.
The Lesser Cursus and Associated Barrows
3.4.16 Lying approximately 750m north-west of the western end of the Stonehenge Cursus, the Lesser Cursus is a 400m long and 60m wide earthwork orientated west-south-west – east-north-east. Although its banks and ditches survived into the 20th century, ploughing since World War II has levelled it and it is now visible only as a cropmark.
3.4.17 The Neolithic Lesser Cursus (1442) has an open east-north-east end and, despite having been heavily ploughed, was still discernible in 1912. Excavations in 1983 revealed a ditch with internal bank that subsequently enlarged towards the east. The prominence of the Lesser Cursus on the landscape may not have been great compared to that of the much larger Stonehenge Cursus (Cleal et al. 1995, 477). Beyond the WHS boundary, long barrow 1664 lies
SVEP Permanent Coach Park April 2016 23 Heritage Impact Assessment 11110205_SVEP_HIA_V2_CMdw_15-04-16 Chris Blandford Associates
on the crest of the same ridge just over 1km southwest of the Lesser Cursus; the long barrow also expresses attributes of OUV.
3.4.18 The group includes a total of 11 round barrows. Several barrow types are represented, including bell barrows (1583, 1523) bowl barrows (1480, 1493, 1513, 1542 and 1567) three confluent bowl barrows (1495), a disc barrow (1527) and a saucer barrow (1469). A further, predominantly Bronze Age, barrow cemetery comprising seven barrows is arranged in an irregular east-west line to the west of the Lesser Cursus (1534). Beyond the WHS boundary, round barrow 1620 is situated on the same ridge and may be seen as part of the same barrow group; an undated pit circle (1978) east of the barrow 1620 also appears to be aligned with the Lesser Cursus and the barrow cemetery.
3.4.19 Within the WHS, the Lesser Cursus and associated barrows lie on National Trust land and benefit from open access.
The Monarch of the Plain
3.4.20 The bell barrow known as the Monarch of the Plain is situated south of the Cursus and on the western edge of Fargo Plantation. It forms part of the Cursus barrow cemetery comprising 16 round barrows in all, including seven bowl barrows, six bell barrows, a twin bell barrow and a disc barrow.
3.4.21 The barrow has a mound 28m in diameter and 3.5m high. It is surrounded by a sloping raised berm 6m wide, which in turn is surrounded by a ditch 6m wide and 0.5m deep from which material was quarried during the construction of the monument. The overall diameter is therefore 52m. The monument survives well and is known from partial excavation to contain archaeological remains and environmental evidence relating to the monument and the landscape in which it was constructed.
3.4.22 The location has views westwards across the Site and over Winterbourne Stoke Down towards the valley of the River Till.
3.5 Sites and Monuments within the Assessment Area
Revised coach parking and VTS turnaround at Airman’s Corner
3.5.1 The site of the proposed permanent coach park extension and VTS turnaround is situated to the north-east of the junction of the A360 and B3086; the WHS boundary runs along the former line of the A360 and B3086, on the eastern side of the existing coach park and ancillary
SVEP Permanent Coach Park April 2016 24 Heritage Impact Assessment 11110205_SVEP_HIA_V2_CMdw_15-04-16 Chris Blandford Associates
building. As part of the Stonehenge Environmental Improvements Scheme completed in 2013, the B3086 was realigned along its previous, historic course and new planting to screen the ancillary building, coach drop-off and coach park in views from the north, east and west was provided using previously developed land along the former line of the B3086, with existing trees along the northern edge of the A344 retained to screen views from the south. The coach park extension implemented in 2015 extended the (temporary) developed area to the north east of the original (2013) coach park to provide an additional 26 coach parking spaces on hardstanding constructed above existing ground levels; no additional landscaping planting was provided as part of this temporary scheme.
3.5.2 The proposed Scheme would provide a revised permanent coach parking layout for up to 53 coaches, largely within the footprint of the existing temporary coach park; parking for up to 26 motorhomes would utilise the original coach park footprint. The developed area would be extended eastwards adjacent to the former A344 to provide a new VTS turning loop linked to the coach park by a footpath.
3.5.3 The area from which the most visible elements of the Scheme (i.e. coaches) would be visible extends within the WHS to Fargo Plantation and the Cursus in the east; north to the Lesser Cursus; and south to the Winterbourne Stoke Ridge. Outside the WHS, the ‘visual envelope’ extends north to Rollestone Camp; west to Fore Down and beyond to High Down, north of Winterbourne Stoke; and south towards Oatlands Hill: views from these areas would be at distances of 2-3km (Figure 2). Within this Assessment Area, some 63 upstanding monuments fall within the ‘visual envelope’, including:
The Great Cursus (1044) and a barrow on its western end (1362); The Monarch of the Plain (1333) and a bowl barrow south-west of the Cursus (1360); Barrows associated with the Lesser Cursus (1495, 1513, 1523, 1534, 1583, 1599); Three barrows north of the Winterbourne Stoke Group (1533, 1562, 1589); Barrows amongst the Winterbourne Stoke Group (1490, 1497, 1508, 1512, 1514, 1519, 1522, 1524-6, 1540, 1545, 1551, 1554, 1556, 1559, 1578-9, 1581, 1585-8, 1592, 1594, 1597, 1600); Barrows amongst the Winterbourne Stoke West Group (1802-5, 1812-16) and the later Coniger earthwork enclosure (1810); Earthwork traces of a Romano-British settlement on Winterbourne Stoke Down (1703); Round barrows (1689, 1640, 1609) and a long barrow (1664) on Winterbourne Stoke Down; A round barrow north-west of Airman’s Corner (1620); and A group of ploughed barrows amongst the Rollestone Field Group (1637-8, 1640, 1644, 1647, 1653-4, 1662, 1671). SVEP Permanent Coach Park April 2016 25 Heritage Impact Assessment 11110205_SVEP_HIA_V2_CMdw_15-04-16 Chris Blandford Associates
3.5.4 This ‘visual envelope’ includes the following monument groups expressing attributes of OUV:
The Great Cursus and barrows on its western end; The Lesser Cursus and associated barrows; The Winterbourne Stoke group of barrows and three barrows to the north of this; and The Monarch of the Plain round barrow, part of the Cursus barrow cemetery.
3.5.5 In addition to these monument groups, the coach park extension would also be visible from a long barrow (1664) outside the WHS on Winterbourne Stoke Down, which has line of sight to the Cursus; the long barrow contributes to the OUV of the WHS. An upstanding scheduled round barrow (1620) north-west of the junction appears to form part of a ridgeline barrow cemetery that contributes to the OUV of the WHS, as does an undated circular pit arrangement with no surface expression identified by geophysical survey close by (1978).
Previous archaeological investigation
3.5.6 The proposed development site has previously been ploughed and no extant earthworks survive: previous geophysical survey (WA 2009a) recorded numerous ploughing trends here. The geophysical survey identified large numbers of possible pit-type anomalies within the footprint of the Scheme, with an apparent concentration (4005) to the north of the existing coach park; a possible ring ditch (1541) plotted from aerial photographs north-east of the proposed VTS turning loop was not identified by the geophysical survey.
3.5.7 Previous evaluation trial trenching has examined the footprints of the original coach park and ancillary building and the temporary coach park extension. Within the original coach park area, trenches 6-9 (WA 2009b) revealed two undated tree throws and topsoil test pitting (test pits 63-68) recovered only small quantities of worked flint and burnt flint; no significant archaeological remains were found and an archaeological watching brief during construction works encountered no archaeological remains (WA 2016). A group of possible pits (1988) north-east of the junction recorded by geophysical survey in 1992 were not identified by the further geophysical survey and trial trenching undertaken in 2009 (WA 2009a and b).
3.5.8 An archaeological watching brief during realignment of the B3086 and construction of the original coach park and ancillary building identified no significant archaeological features (WA 2016). Evaluation trenching undertaken in advance of the temporary coach park extension (WA 2015a) also identified no significant archaeological features or deposits in any of the ten trial trenches excavated; hand sieving of topsoil from ten test pits recovered a small assemblage of worked flint evenly spread across the evaluated area, consistent with low-level background activity of later Neolithic to Bronze Age date (3000 – 1100 BC). A subsequent archaeological watching brief during excavation of trenches and a soakaway for surface water drainage and SVEP Permanent Coach Park April 2016 26 Heritage Impact Assessment 11110205_SVEP_HIA_V2_CMdw_15-04-16 Chris Blandford Associates
installation of a petrol interceptor tank identified no evidence for archaeological features, deposits or finds (WA 2015b).
3.5.9 The proposed Scheme would affect a small area of previously unevaluated land adjacent to the former A344 for construction of the new VTS turning circle. Although the results of previous evaluations and watching brief work suggest a low potential for significant archaeological remains to exist here, the survival of such remains cannot be ruled out. Consultation with the Wiltshire Council Assistant County Archaeologist concluded that there would be little value in excavating any additional trial trenches to inform the HIA and planning application, but confirmed that archaeological investigation would be required prior to development, to offset any loss in archaeological remains.
3.5.10 The existing loading platform hardstanding at the Visitor Centre was constructed on imported material; the hardstanding would be broken out and replaced by soft landscaping.
Extended VTS turnaround at the Stones
3.5.11 The existing VTS turnaround at the Stones occupies the former A344 roadbed and part of the former visitors’ car park, which was decommissioned, landscaped and restored to chalk grassland as part of the SEIP scheme. The paved turning area is bounded on its southern side by a raised embarkation/disembarkation platform. On the northern side the paved area blends into the chalk grassland with no change in level, demarcated by a timber post and wire fence.
3.5.12 The existing turnaround at the Stones would be enlarged to allow a separate disembarkation platform on the north side. The proposal extends the existing paved area for turning at the Stones by around 270m2 to the north and east; the extension to the carriageway surface would match the existing materials. On the north edge of the enlarged turning area, a new platform would be constructed for unloading visitors arriving at the Stones, with a new path for visitors to move away without conflict with other visitors queuing to return. The existing platform on the south side of the turnaround would be used exclusively for loading returning passengers; the existing platform height would be reduced to allow compatibility with buses. The increased area of turning loop would be subtly blended into the existing landscape levels with chalk grassland mix sown to further integrate the loop area, defined by a post and wire fence.
3.5.13 Based on viewshed analysis undertaken in respect of the former visitors car park at Stonehenge, the theoretical area from which the most visible elements of the Scheme (i.e. transit vehicles) would be visible extends within the WHS to Fargo Plantation and the Cursus in the north and west; east to King Barrow Ridge and south to the Lesser Cursus; and south to the Winterbourne Stoke Ridge. This ‘visual envelope’ includes the following monument groups expressing attributes of OUV:
SVEP Permanent Coach Park April 2016 27 Heritage Impact Assessment 11110205_SVEP_HIA_V2_CMdw_15-04-16 Chris Blandford Associates
Stonehenge and the Avenue; the Heel Stone, the North Barrow and the South Barrow; Barrows within the Stonehenge Triangle; The Cursus; The Cursus Barrows and barrows between the A344 and Fargo Plantation; The King Barrows; The King Barrow on Coneybury Hill; and Barrows on Durrington Down.
3.5.14 Site inspection with the AWG in February 2016 confirmed that the proposed extension to the turnaround area at the Stones was either invisible or insignificant in views from the majority of the key viewpoints nearby. Neither the built form of the existing turning area or transit vehicles are visible from the Stones. The turning area is not visible from barrows within the Stonehenge Triangle, barrows on Durrington Down or in long-distance views from the King Barrow on Coneybury Hill. The turning area is visible at a distance of more than 1km from six of the New King Barrows (901-3, 896-7, 891), two monuments amongst the Old King Barrows (839, 844) and two barrows west of the King Barrows (927, 976).
Previous archaeological investigation
3.5.15 Previous investigations within the former visitors’ car park and pedestrian underpass at Stonehenge have excavated and recorded a number of groups of features, including:
Four Mesolithic pits, thought to relate to the earliest phase of ritual/ceremonial activity at Stonehenge (1131, 1099); A group of stakeholes and associated flint tools of probable Neolithic date (1138); Part of a Late Neolithic palisade ditch excavated ahead of construction of the underpass (1108); A crouched burial of Late Bronze Age or Romano-British date (1098); and Late Bronze Age pottery sherds (1107).
3.5.16 As part of the SEIP works the surface of the decommissioned former visitors’ car park was punctured to allow drainage, covered with topsoil and restored to grass. An archaeological watching brief during groundworks to remove former hedgerows and islands within the car park and the puncturing of the tarmac surface identified no archaeological features (WA 2016). Following puncturing of the former car park surface the area was infilled with imported material to a depth of 300 mm and re-contoured to blend in with the surrounding landscape: imported materials were mapped and this data forms part of the SEIP project archive.
SVEP Permanent Coach Park April 2016 28 Heritage Impact Assessment 11110205_SVEP_HIA_V2_CMdw_15-04-16 Chris Blandford Associates
4.0 ASSESSMENT OF EFFECTS AND MITIGATION
4.1 Proposed Works
4.1.1 The Scheme would provide a total of 53 coach parking spaces and parking for up to 26 motorhomes, a new Coach Visitors Facilities (CVF) building and a new VTS turning loop at Airman’s Corner; and an extended turning area and new disembarkation platform at the Stones. The proposed layout and design of the Scheme are included as Appendix 5.
Permanent coach parking and VTS turnaround at Airman’s Corner
4.1.2 This section reviews and evaluates the likely impacts on the archaeological and historic environment resource associated with the construction and operation of the proposed coach park extension. The principal impacts on heritage assets comprise visual impact on their settings; and damage to or loss of buried archaeological remains.
4.1.3 Construction of the Scheme would result in impacts on the setting of upstanding monuments, due to the introduction of temporary structures into the landscape, and/or due to construction or operational activities. Any adverse effects on the settings of monuments due to construction noise or traffic movements would be temporary and transient; no new lighting is proposed in respect of the Scheme.
4.1.4 The existing temporary coach park would be retained and modified as a coach parking area. Provision of the revised arrangement to provide parking for up to 53 coaches and 26 motorhomes would produce additional visual effects within the Assessment Area due to the presence of additional large vehicles, reflections from vehicle glazing and additional vehicle movements. These new visual effects would be transient during operational hours.
4.1.5 Buried archaeological remains would be at risk of direct damage during construction activities. Topsoil stripping operations and associated plant movements have the potential to result in damage to buried remains, unless these are buried particularly deeply. The creation of drainage channels and other excavations may result in the removal of archaeological remains. Smaller–scale ground disturbance during site clearance (removal of fences) may also result in removal of or damage to remains. Landscaping and planting can also adversely affect the longer-term survival of buried remains, even where no direct ground disturbance is involved. Archaeological remains within the topsoil (i.e. artefactual material such as pottery and worked or burnt flint) may also be affected by these construction activities, and also by related activities such as the removal and redistribution of topsoil within the development site, including filling of areas. Any effects due to damage or loss of archaeological remains would be permanent.
SVEP Permanent Coach Park April 2016 29 Heritage Impact Assessment 11110205_SVEP_HIA_V2_CMdw_15-04-16 Chris Blandford Associates
Construction Method
4.1.6 The original coach park and the existing temporary coach park extension included the formation of fully reversible areas of temporary hardstanding using a permeable build-up. The proposed Scheme would retain this construction base for the permanent coach park extension, maintaining as many of the existing kerb lines and below ground drainage routes as possible.
4.1.7 The proposed permanent access road, coach park circulation loop, lay-bys, main coach park bays and motorhome areas would be finished in tarmac with an appropriate sub-base construction, drained via a system of conventional slot drains and gullies. The overflow car parking spaces in the central island would be constructed with a permeable build-up, drained via below ground tanking to the existing petrol interceptor. An additional soakaway would be added to the existing soakaway, to provide double the existing capacity to take account of the increase in paved area and the CVF building. Coach bays on the island would be reinforced gravel in order to blend in with proposed landscaping.
4.1.8 The proposed CVF building would be blockwork construction on 1m deep strip footings with a timber roof and would be erected within the footprint of the existing temporary coach park extension. Foul drainage would be routed to the existing pumping tank below the ancillary building. Surface water drainage will flow via the existing surface water drainage system to the existing oil interceptor and soakaway.
4.1.9 The existing VTS loading area at the Visitor Centre would be replaced with a new turning loop on the north side of the A344 adjacent to the coach park at Airman’s Corner, connecting to the road to the east and west of the existing shuttle area. The existing loading platform hardstanding at the Visitor Centre would be broken out and replaced by soft landscaping.
4.1.10 The proposed new VTS turning loop would be finished in tarmac with an appropriate sub-base construction and would tie in to the existing A344 road levels, requiring a localised 500mm excavation at the tie-in. It is anticipated that topsoil would be stripped to formation level over the full footprint of the turning loop, including the central island. The completed turning loop would be drained via a system of conventional slot drains and gullies to a new soakaway north of the turning loop.
4.1.11 The new pedestrian footpath and visitor assembly area linking the coach park to the dedicated platform for coach visitors on the north side of the turning area would be constructed on top of the existing topsoil, which would be retained in situ. A compacted granular sub-base (minimum 150mm thick) will be laid on top of the existing topsoil; the thickness of the sub- base and the need for geogrid soil reinforcement will be dependent on the stiffness of the
SVEP Permanent Coach Park April 2016 30 Heritage Impact Assessment 11110205_SVEP_HIA_V2_CMdw_15-04-16 Chris Blandford Associates
topsoil achieved following its preparation by herbicide spraying, deep raking and rolling to provide a suitable sub-grade for pavement construction. Where the new footpaths adjoin existing paved areas, the existing landscape margins, comprising topsoil placed during the original construction of the coach parking facility on a geotextile separating layer on the pre- existing topsoil, will be removed; the new sub-base will then be laid on imported granular fill placed on a new geotextile separating layer on the pre-existing topsoil.
4.1.12 Pedestrian pathways would be finished to match the specification already in use in the existing coach park scheme, with concrete pavers in high traffic areas around the CVF Building entrances.
4.1.13 Topsoil stripped from the proposed VTS turning loop, including any artefacts within it, would be retained on site and laid on existing topsoil within the proposed landscaping areas along the northern and eastern margins of the Site, subject to review of the suitability of the topsoil for re- use. Although there could be some adverse effect on archaeological remains within the topsoil retained in situ due to rolling, the coach park site has been ploughed previously and it is anticipated that any artefacts may therefore have been subject to plough damage. Stripped topsoil would be separated from existing topsoil by means of a geotextile separating layer.
4.1.14 A temporary contractors’ compound in the vicinity of the existing coach park will be required for the duration of the works. The contractor’s compound would not require the removal of any topsoil, which would be protected in situ, nor installation of any below ground services.
4.1.15 Any buried archaeological remains that survive within the proposed development area would be vulnerable to damage/removal during construction activities, as outlined above. Potential impacts on buried remains could arise from the following:
Clearance of existing fences Construction of the proposed VTS turning loop, including topsoil reduction and preparation Construction of the new CVF building and strip footings Installation of below ground services (drainage and new soakaway) Landscaping, planting and fencing of the permanent coach park extension and VTS turning loop
Extended VTS turnaround at the Stones
4.1.16 The proposed Scheme extends the existing paved area for turning at the Stones by around 270m2 to the north and east. On the north edge of the enlarged turning area, a new platform would be constructed for unloading visitors arriving at the Stones, with a new path for visitors
SVEP Permanent Coach Park April 2016 31 Heritage Impact Assessment 11110205_SVEP_HIA_V2_CMdw_15-04-16 Chris Blandford Associates
to move away without conflict with other visitors queuing to return. Pedestrian access from Byway 12 would allow visitors arriving on foot to join visitors disembarking from the VTS as they approach the Stones.
4.1.17 The existing platform on the south side of the turnaround would be reduced in height to allow compatibility with buses and used exclusively for loading returning passengers.
Construction method
4.1.18 The extension to the turning loop area would be finished in tarmac with an appropriate sub- base construction and would tie in to the existing turning loop levels requiring a localised 500mm excavation at the tie-in; the extended carriageway surface would match the existing materials. The new unloading platform on the north of the extension would be constructed above existing levels to a maximum height of approximately 300mm. The platform would be joined at its western end by the new footpath from Byway 12, which would be constructed to the same specification and surface finish as existing footpaths at the Stones. The footpath and turning area would be defined by post and wire fences.
4.2 Mitigation Strategy
Permanent coach parking and VTS turnaround at Airman’s Corner
Reversible construction method
4.2.1 The proposed permanent coach park extension would utilise the existing reversible construction of the temporary coach park extension (Figure 3). Below-ground excavations within the coach park footprint would be limited to areas of new paving, installation of additional foul water drainage, surface water collector drains and additional soakaway capacity. There would be no loss of archaeological remains over the majority of the coach park footprint.
Archaeological mitigation
4.2.2 The construction of the proposed VTS turning loop and its associated surface water drainage and soakaway will involve new excavations in a part of the Site that has not previously been subject to intrusive archaeological evaluation. Although the results of previous archaeological evaluation trenching, test pitting and watching briefs in the area all suggest a low potential for significant archaeological remains to exist here, the survival of such remains cannot be ruled out. Consultation with the Wiltshire Council Assistant County Archaeologist concluded that
SVEP Permanent Coach Park April 2016 32 Heritage Impact Assessment 11110205_SVEP_HIA_V2_CMdw_15-04-16 Chris Blandford Associates
archaeological investigation would be required prior to development, to offset any loss in archaeological remains.
4.2.3 The potential impact of construction of the VTS turning loop on any buried archaeological remains would be mitigated by a programme of prior archaeological investigation to allow for identification and appropriate recording of any archaeological remains located. The removal of topsoil over the footprint of the proposed VTS turning loop would be undertaken under archaeological supervision, with provision for detailed excavation of any as yet unknown remains that are revealed and publication and dissemination of the results of archaeological works.
4.2.4 The installation of the footings of the new CVF building, new foul drainage, surface water collector drains and soakaways would require localised below ground excavation. The great majority of these works are situated in areas that have previously been developed and subject to an archaeological watching brief, with negative findings (Figure 3). No archaeological mitigation is therefore proposed in respect of Construction works in these areas.
4.2.5 The archaeological investigation works would comprise:
Stripping of topsoil over footprint of the proposed VTS turning loop would be undertaken under archaeological supervision construction works Archaeological investigation and recording of any remains encountered Mapping of topsoil redistribution Off-site works to assess data and materials recovered during the watching brief Preparation of an appropriate report describing the results of the watching brief and placing them in their archaeological context Preparation and deposition of finds and archive
4.2.6 Following completion of all mitigation fieldwork, an assessment report would be prepared setting out the range of data recovered, its significance and potential for further analysis. Following appropriate further analysis, the results of all archaeological works undertaken in connection with the Scheme would be published in both academic and popular report formats, as appropriate.
4.2.7 The archaeological mitigation strategy would be implemented in accordance with a written scheme of investigation to be approved by the Wiltshire Council Assistant County Archaeologist. The proposed mitigation strategy will be designed in accordance with the Statement of Principles Governing Archaeological Work in the WHS (Appendix L of the 2015 Management Plan) and with the WHS Research Framework (Darvill 2005). Responsibility for
SVEP Permanent Coach Park April 2016 33 Heritage Impact Assessment 11110205_SVEP_HIA_V2_CMdw_15-04-16 Chris Blandford Associates
implementation of the archaeological mitigation programme would fall to the appointed construction contractor.
Landscape mitigation
4.2.8 A landscaping strategy combining low-level boundary planting with carefully placed grove planting would provide partial visual screening to the extended coach park using a mix of native trees and shrubs to sensitively integrate the coach park extension into the historic landscape while not obstructing key views between monuments. To avoid archaeological impacts, landscaping would be planted into subtle bunds above the existing ground level; these bunds would blend into the existing ground levels, with deeper areas adjacent to the proposed access roads considered suitable for tree and shrub planting and chalk grassland closer to existing ground levels.
4.2.9 Planting between the coach park and the B3086 along the western edge of the Site would employ dense groups of trees adjacent to the parking with grassland zones between to allow views out over the landscape. A more linear tree line and dense shrub planting to the other side of the footpath are proposed along the footpath, with a raised timber planter c. 500mm tall to the eastern side of the internal road planted with chalk grassland to create a subtle link with the wider landscape. Within the central island a chalk grassland mix is proposed, with a dense stand of shrubs to strengthen demarcation from the parking areas.
4.2.10 The gap in the existing beech line along the southern edge of the site would be planted with additional beech trees, and a number of trees will be removed (details to be confirmed) to provide an access into the VTS turning loop.
Extended VTS turnaround at the Stones
Archaeological mitigation
4.2.11 The footprint of the proposed extension to the existing paved turnaround area would be confined within the area of the former A344, verge and former visitors car park and the area of fill imported during the SEIP works; the full extent of the proposed Scheme footprint here has been subject to prior archaeological investigation and/or is situated on made ground above the decommissioned former car park (Figure 3).
4.2.12 Consultation with the AWG has confirmed that no further archaeological mitigation is required in respect of the proposed works here.
SVEP Permanent Coach Park April 2016 34 Heritage Impact Assessment 11110205_SVEP_HIA_V2_CMdw_15-04-16 Chris Blandford Associates
Landscape mitigation
4.2.13 Minimal landscape interventions are proposed in respect of the extended VTS turnaround. The increased area of turning loop would be subtly blended into the existing landscape levels with chalk grassland mix sown to further integrate the loop area and footpaths. Post and wire fences in keeping with the agricultural landscape and offering a minimal visual impact would be used to define the extended turning area and footpaths.
4.3 Construction Effects
Permanent coach parking and VTS turnaround at Airman’s Corner
Direct impacts
4.3.1 Previous geophysical survey indicates that construction of the proposed VTS turning loop would not affect any known archaeological remains. However, the survival of archaeological remains cannot be ruled out and a programme of prior archaeological investigation is proposed to allow for identification and appropriate recording of any archaeological remains located. The removal of topsoil over the footprint of the proposed VTS turning loop would be undertaken under archaeological supervision.
4.3.2 The potential loss of archaeological remains present due to construction of the VTS turning loop and associated drainage works would be a Major adverse impact on remains of Unknown importance (significance); the significance of the resulting effect is Uncertain.
Visual impacts
4.3.3 Visibility analysis indicates that the proposed development would be visible within an area bounded by the Lesser Cursus ridgeline to the north; Fargo Plantation to the east; the Winterbourne Stoke ridgeline to the south; and Fore Down to the west. Long distance views (2.5km +) would be possible from Rollestone in the north, Oatlands Hill in the south, and from west of the Till valley. Construction activities would be visible within this viewshed and would have temporary impacts on the settings of monuments; the structure of the extended coach park itself has been designed to be minimally intrusive: impacts on the settings of monuments due to construction of the permanent coach park extension would be limited and mitigated by a low-key landscape planting programme designed to integrate the extended coach park into the historic landscape and partially screen visual impacts.
SVEP Permanent Coach Park April 2016 35 Heritage Impact Assessment 11110205_SVEP_HIA_V2_CMdw_15-04-16 Chris Blandford Associates
4.3.4 Consultation with the AWG on the basis of a joint site visit in February 2016 confirmed five key viewpoints to form the basis of assessment in this HIA, comprising views to the Site from:
The Cursus The Monarch of the Plain round barrow The Lesser Cursus The Lesser Cursus Barrows Round barrow NE of Milestone 4, Amesbury
4.3.5 The following visual impacts would arise.
The Cursus and the Monarch of the Plain
4.3.6 The Cursus (1044) and the Monarch of the Plain (1333) lie over 1km from the Site and would be affected by the following Scheme proposals (see Key Viewpoints 2 and 3, LVIA Figure 2.5b and c):
The surface of the extended coach park itself would be visible from the Cursus and the Monarch of the Plain in Year 0 before landscape planting matures. Compared to the existing temporary coach park, there would be a Negligible adverse permanent impact on the setting of the monuments. The proposed new CVF building would be visible from the Cursus and the Monarch of the Plain in Year 0 before landscape planting matures. There would be a Minor adverse permanent impact on the setting of the monuments. The proposed new VTS turning loop would be visible from the Cursus and the Monarch of the Plain in Year 0 before landscape planting matures. There would be a Minor adverse permanent impact on the setting of the monuments. Construction activities on the Site and related construction traffic movements on the A360 would have a Moderate adverse temporary visual impact on the setting of the monuments.
4.3.7 Although there would be Moderate adverse effects due to construction activities, these would be temporary. Taking account of the distance of the monuments from the Site and the scale of the intrusion, in Year 0 there would be a Minor adverse permanent impact overall on the setting of the Very High value scheduled monuments, resulting in a Moderate adverse effect.
The Lesser Cursus and associated Barrows
4.3.8 The Lesser Cursus lies over 750m from the Site on a prominent ridge; it is no longer upstanding. Barrows associated with the Lesser Cursus include upstanding examples (1495,
SVEP Permanent Coach Park April 2016 36 Heritage Impact Assessment 11110205_SVEP_HIA_V2_CMdw_15-04-16 Chris Blandford Associates
1513, 1523, 1534, 1583) and examples with no surface expression (1463, 1469, 1475, 1480, 1493). These barrows lie between 400m and 700m away from the Site and would be affected by the following Scheme proposals (see Key Viewpoint 1, LVIA Figure 2.5a):
The proposed permanent coach park extension, CVF building and VTS turning loop would be visible from the monuments in Year 0 before landscape planting matures. There would be a Negligible adverse permanent impact, taking account of the scale of the intrusion and degree of change over exiting conditions. Construction activities on the site and related construction traffic movements on the A360 would have a Moderate adverse temporary impact on the setting of the monuments.
4.3.9 Although there would be Moderate adverse effects due to construction activities, these would be temporary. Taking account of the distance of the monuments from the site and the scale of the intrusion, there would be a Minor adverse permanent impact overall on the setting of the Very High value scheduled monuments, resulting in a Moderate adverse effect.
Unnamed barrow 1620
4.3.10 A scheduled barrow north-west of Airman’s Corner (1620) and a non-designated, undated timber circle would be affected by the following Scheme proposals:
The proposed permanent coach park extension would be visible in views towards the Cursus. There would be a Minor adverse permanent impact, taking account of the scale of the intrusion. Construction activities on the site and related construction traffic movements on the A360 and B3086 would have a temporary Minor adverse impact on the setting of the monument.
4.3.11 Although there would be Minor adverse effects due to construction activities, these would be temporary. Taking account of the scale of the intrusion and the retention of existing screen planting on the western edge of the coach park, there would be a Minor adverse permanent impact overall on the setting of the High value scheduled barrow, resulting in a Slight adverse effect.
4.3.12 There would be no significant adverse impact on the settings of other monuments within the viewshed of the Scheme due to construction activities, including:
Three barrows north of the Winterbourne Stoke Group (1533, 1562, 1589);
SVEP Permanent Coach Park April 2016 37 Heritage Impact Assessment 11110205_SVEP_HIA_V2_CMdw_15-04-16 Chris Blandford Associates
Barrows amongst the Winterbourne Stoke Group (1490, 1497, 1508, 1512, 1514, 1519, 1522, 1524-6, 1540, 1545, 1551, 1554, 1556, 1559, 1578-9, 1581, 1585-8, 1592, 1594, 1597, 1600); Barrows amongst the Winterbourne Stoke West Group (1802-5, 1812-16) and the later Coniger earthwork enclosure (1810); Earthwork traces of a Romano-British settlement on Winterbourne Stoke Down (1703); Round barrows (1689, 1640, 1609) and a long barrow (1664) on Winterbourne Stoke Down; and A group of ploughed barrows amongst the Rollestone Field Group (1637-8, 1640, 1644, 1647, 1653-4, 1662, 1671).
4.3.13 Construction noise exposure would be temporary. There would be no significant noise or vibration impact on any monuments within the Assessment Area due to construction of the Scheme.
Extended VTS turnaround at the Stones
Direct impacts
4.3.14 The footprint of the proposed extension to the existing VTS turnaround area has been subject to prior archaeological investigation and/or is situated on made ground above the decommissioned former visitors’ car park. There would be no change and no impact on any archaeological remains.
Visual impacts
4.3.15 Consultation with the AWG has confirmed that the built elements of the turnaround are to a great extent not visible, or insignificant. Two key viewpoints were confirmed to form the basis of assessment in this HIA:
Stonehenge and the Avenue, the Heel Stone, the North Barrow and the South Barrow; and The Cursus Barrows.
4.3.16 On the basis of a joint site visit with the AWG in February 2016 it was confirmed that the existing turning area and drop off platform are not visible from the Stonehenge monument, including the Avenue, the Heel Stone, the North Barrow and the South Barrow, due to the topography (see Key Viewpoint 5, LVIA Figure 2.5e). The proposed turning area extension, unloading platform and footpath would likewise not be visible from the Stonehenge Monument.
SVEP Permanent Coach Park April 2016 38 Heritage Impact Assessment 11110205_SVEP_HIA_V2_CMdw_15-04-16 Chris Blandford Associates
4.3.17 Temporary barrier fencing used to manage visitor movements at the VTS drop off is visible in some views from the Stonehenge monument: the proposed timber post and wire fencing demarcating the extended turning area and footpaths would likely also be visible. The scale of the changes over existing conditions would be minimal.
4.3.18 The overall effect of the scheme proposals on the setting of the Stonehenge monument would be not significant.
4.3.19 The surface of the proposed turning area extension and the new unloading platform and footpath would be visible in views from the Cursus Barrows towards the Stones (see Key Viewpoint 4, LVIA Figure 2.5d). The scale of the change compared with the existing turning circle would be small and insignificant compared to the existing service hub facilities entrance and associated metal railings that are also visible in this view. There would be a Negligible adverse permanent impact on the setting of the Very High value scheduled Cursus Barrows and Stonehenge monument. There would be a Slight adverse effect overall.
4.3.20 There would be no significant adverse impact on the settings of other monuments within the theoretical ‘visual envelope’ of the Scheme due to construction, including:
Barrows within the Stonehenge Triangle; The Cursus; The King Barrows; The King Barrow on Coneybury Hill; and Barrows on Durrington Down.
4.3.21 Construction noise exposure would be temporary. There would be no significant noise or vibration impact on any monuments within the Assessment Area due to construction of the Scheme.
4.4 Operational Effects
4.4.1 This section reviews and evaluates the likely impacts on the archaeological and historic environment resource associated with the operation of the proposed Scheme. The operation phase is taken to include the effects of use of the Scheme, including traffic changes elsewhere, taking into account proposed mitigation.
4.4.2 The principal operational impacts on heritage assets comprise the effects of visual (including light) and noise intrusion on the settings of upstanding monuments arising from use of the
SVEP Permanent Coach Park April 2016 39 Heritage Impact Assessment 11110205_SVEP_HIA_V2_CMdw_15-04-16 Chris Blandford Associates
extended coach park and associated movement of vehicles. These impacts would also be transient, as they would be confined to the operating hours of the visitor facilities, and would also vary in magnitude seasonally according to visitor numbers; assessments here are based on a ‘worst case’ peak scenario.
Permanent coach parking and VTS turnaround at Airman’s Corner
4.4.3 Consultation with the AWG on the basis of a joint site visit in February 2016 confirmed five key viewpoints to form the basis of assessment in this HIA, comprising views to the Site from:
The Cursus The Monarch of the Plain round barrow The Lesser Cursus The Lesser Cursus Barrows Round barrow NE of Milestone 4, Amesbury
4.4.4 The following visual impacts would arise during the operational phase.
4.4.5 Operation of the permanent extended coach park and new VTS turnaround at Airman’s Corner would have impacts due to the visual intrusion of traffic entering and leaving the site and circulating within it; and the visibility of parked coaches and motorhomes. These impacts would be temporary and transient during operational hours.
4.4.6 The extended coach park would not be lit. The scale of change compared to operation of the existing temporary extended coach park would be minimal; the impact of vehicle lighting within the extended coach park is considered to be not significant.
The Cursus and the Monarch of the Plain
4.4.7 The Cursus (1044) and the Monarch of the Plain (1333) lie over 1km from the Site. The proposed landscape planting has been designed to provide partial screening of the permanent extended coach park, the CVF building and the new VTS turning area when fully mature in Year 15 of operation. Although the provision of motorhome parking and the VTS turning loop, together with related vehicle movements represents a significant change over existing conditions compared to operation of the temporary coach park extension, adverse effects due to operation of the permanent extended coach park would be temporary and transient.
Coaches entering, circulating and parked in the extended coach park would be visible from the Cursus and the Monarch of the Plain in Year 0 before landscape planting matures. By
SVEP Permanent Coach Park April 2016 40 Heritage Impact Assessment 11110205_SVEP_HIA_V2_CMdw_15-04-16 Chris Blandford Associates
Year 15 the landscape planting would be fully developed integrating the permanent coach park extension into the historic landscape. Compared to the existing temporary coach park, there would be a Negligible adverse temporary transient impact on the setting of the monuments. The proposed new VTS turning loop would be visible from the Cursus and the Monarch of the Plain in Year 0 before landscape planting matures. There would be a Moderate adverse temporary transient impact on the setting of the monuments, reducing to Negligible adverse in Year 15 when the landscape planting would be fully developed providing partial screening of the VTS turning loop in views from the Cursus and Monarch of the Plain.
4.4.8 Overall, there would be a Moderate adverse transient impact on the settings of the Very High value Cursus and Monarch of the Plain in Year 0 due to operation of the proposed Scheme, resulting in a Large adverse effect. This would reduce in Year 15 to a Negligible adverse transient impact and a Slight adverse effect.
The Lesser Cursus and associated Barrows
4.4.9 The Lesser Cursus lies over 750m from the Site on a prominent ridge; it is no longer upstanding. Barrows associated with the Lesser Cursus include upstanding examples (1495, 1513, 1523, 1534, 1583) and examples with no surface expression (1463, 1469, 1475, 1480, 1493) lie between 400m and 700m away from the Site.
4.4.10 Coaches entering, circulating and parked in the extended coach park would be visible in Year 0 before landscape planting matures. The majority of coaches would be only partially visible as a result of the landform falling away. There would be a Minor adverse temporary transient impact, taking account of the scale of the intrusion reducing to Negligible adverse in Year 15 when the landscape planting would be fully developed, providing partial screening.
4.4.11 Taking account of the distance from the monuments and the nature of the intrusion, operation of the extended coach park would have a Minor adverse temporary transient impact on the settings of the Very High value scheduled Lesser Cursus and barrows in Year 0, resulting in a Moderate adverse effect. This would reduce in Year 15 to a Negligible adverse transient impact and a Slight adverse effect.
Unnamed barrow 1620
4.4.12 Operation of the proposed permanent extended coach park would be highly visible in views from a scheduled barrow north-west of Airman’s Corner (1620) in Year 0 before landscape planting matures. The proposed landscape planting has been designed to provide partial
SVEP Permanent Coach Park April 2016 41 Heritage Impact Assessment 11110205_SVEP_HIA_V2_CMdw_15-04-16 Chris Blandford Associates
screening of the permanent extended coach park; the barrow is visible in views from the Monarch of the Plain and the proposed landscape planting has been designed to retain intervisibility unobstructed.
4.4.13 Taking account of the scale of the intrusion, there would be a temporary transient Moderate adverse impact overall on the setting of the High value scheduled barrow in Year 0 due to operation of the proposed permanent coach park extension, resulting in a Moderate adverse effect. This would reduce in Year 15 to a Minor adverse transient impact and a Slight adverse effect.
4.4.14 There would be no significant adverse impact on the settings of other monuments within the viewshed of the Scheme due to operation of the permanent coach park extension and VTS turning loop compared to existing conditions, including:
Three barrows north of the Winterbourne Stoke Group (1533, 1562, 1589); Barrows amongst the Winterbourne Stoke Group (1490, 1497, 1508, 1512, 1514, 1519, 1522, 1524-6, 1540, 1545, 1551, 1554, 1556, 1559, 1578-9, 1581, 1585-8, 1592, 1594, 1597, 1600); Barrows amongst the Winterbourne Stoke West Group (1802-5, 1812-16) and the later Coniger earthwork enclosure (1810); Earthwork traces of a Romano-British settlement on Winterbourne Stoke Down (1703); Round barrows (1689, 1640, 1609) and a long barrow (1664) on Winterbourne Stoke Down; and A group of ploughed barrows amongst the Rollestone Field Group (1637-8, 1640, 1644, 1647, 1653-4, 1662, 1671).
4.4.15 Operational noise exposure would be temporary and transient. There would be no significant noise or vibration impact on any monuments within the Assessment Area due to operation of the permanent extended coach park and VTS turning loop.
Extended VTS turnaround at the Stones
4.4.16 Consultation with the AWG has confirmed that the built elements of the turnaround are to a great extent not visible, or insignificant. Two key viewpoints were confirmed to form the basis of assessment in this HIA:
Stonehenge and the Avenue, the Heel Stone, the North Barrow and the South Barrow; and The Cursus Barrows.
SVEP Permanent Coach Park April 2016 42 Heritage Impact Assessment 11110205_SVEP_HIA_V2_CMdw_15-04-16 Chris Blandford Associates
4.4.17 Operation of the proposed extended VTS turnaround would result in a negligible change to the settings of the Stonehenge monument group and the Cursus Barrows. Compared to operation of the existing VTS turnaround and drop-off the effects of the VTS vehicle movements and pedestrian movements would be not significant.
4.4.18 There would be no significant adverse impact on the settings of other monuments within the theoretical ‘visual envelope’ of the Scheme due to operation of the extended VTS turnaround, including:
Barrows within the Stonehenge Triangle; The Cursus; The King Barrows; The King Barrow on Coneybury Hill; and Barrows on Durrington Down.
4.4.19 There would be no significant noise or vibration impact on any monuments within the Assessment Area due to operation of the extended VTS turnaround.
SVEP Permanent Coach Park April 2016 43 Heritage Impact Assessment 11110205_SVEP_HIA_V2_CMdw_15-04-16 Chris Blandford Associates
5.0 EFFECTS ON THE OUTSTANDING UNIVERSAL VALUE OF THE WHS
5.1 Introduction
5.1.1 This section assesses the effects of the Scheme on the OUV of the WHS. The attributes which together express the OUV of the WHS as set out in the 2015 Management Plan are summarised below:
1. Stonehenge itself as a globally famous and iconic monument. 2. The physical remains of the Neolithic and Bronze Age funerary and ceremonial monuments and associated sites. 3. The siting of Neolithic and Bronze Age funerary and ceremonial sites and monuments in relation to the landscape. 4. The design of Neolithic and Bronze Age funerary and ceremonial sites and monuments in relation to the skies and astronomy. 5. The siting of Neolithic and Bronze Age funerary and ceremonial sites and monuments in relation to each other. 6. The disposition, physical remains and settings of the key Neolithic and Bronze Age funerary, ceremonial and other monuments and sites of the period, which together form a landscape without parallel. 7. The influence of the remains of Neolithic and Bronze Age funerary and ceremonial monuments and their landscape settings on architects, artists, historians, archaeologists and others.
5.1.2 Consultation with the AWG on the basis of a joint site visit in February 2016 identified that the following key monument groups that express attributes of OUV could be affected by the Scheme; other key monument groups that express attributes of OUV have no intervisibility with the Site and/or are located at distance and would not, therefore, be affected by the Scheme:
Stonehenge and the Stonehenge Avenue The Cursus The Cursus barrows The Monarch of the Plain The Lesser Cursus and associated barrows
5.1.3 Assessment of the construction and operational effects of the Scheme has identified a series of potential effects on these key monument groups; these are discussed below.
5.2 Stonehenge and the Stonehenge Avenue
5.2.1 The existing turning area and drop-off platform at the Stones are not visible from the Stonehenge monument, including the Avenue, the Heel Stone, the North Barrow and the South Barrow, due to the topography. The proposed turning area extension, unloading platform and footpath would likewise not be visible from the Stonehenge monument.
SVEP Permanent Coach Park April 2016 44 Heritage Impact Assessment 11110205_SVEP_HIA_V2_CMdw_15-04-16 Chris Blandford Associates
5.2.2 Temporary barrier fencing used to manage visitor movements at the VTS drop off is visible in some views from the Stonehenge monument: the proposed timber post and wire fencing demarcating the extended turning area and footpaths would likely also be visible.
5.2.3 There would be no change to the character of the Stonehenge monument due to the proposed Scheme, taking into account the current effects of operation of the existing VTS turning area. Any effect on the setting of the Stonehenge monument would be not significant taking into account the scale and visibility of the proposed construction and the temporary and transient nature of the operational effects.
5.3 The Cursus
5.3.1 The setting of the Cursus would be affected during construction and operation of the proposed permanent coach park extension, CVF building and VTS turning loop. A landscape planting programme would integrate the extended coach park into the historic landscape and partially screen visual impacts in key views. The increased number of coaches entering and leaving the Site and standing at the coach park and coach drop-off would present a highly visible intrusive element due to vehicle movements and reflection of light from vehicle glazing during operational hours. When not in operation, the permanent coach park extension, CVF building and VTS turning loop have been designed to be minimally intrusive in form, siting and profile.
5.3.2 The proposed extended VTS turnaround and off-loading platform at the Stones would not adversely affect the setting of the Cursus taking into account the scale of the development and the current effects of operation of the existing VTS turnaround.
5.3.3 There would be a minimal increase in the developed area compared to the existing temporary coach park extension. Although there would be an increased number of parked vehicles and associated vehicle movements, there would be no change to the character of the Cursus due to the proposed Scheme, taking into account the current effects of operation of the existing temporary coach park extension. There would be a Moderate adverse effect on the setting of a small part of the extensive Cursus monument in Year 0. However, this would reduce in Year 15 to a Slight adverse transient effect during operational hours once the proposed landscape planting is fully developed.
5.3.4 Although the extended coach park would be visible in long distance views between the western end of the Cursus and a long barrow (1664) situated beyond the WHS boundary, which also expresses attributes of OUV, the landscape planting scheme has been designed to avoid any impediment to the direct line of sight between these monuments due to construction of the permanent coach park extension, CVF building and VTS turning loop.
SVEP Permanent Coach Park April 2016 45 Heritage Impact Assessment 11110205_SVEP_HIA_V2_CMdw_15-04-16 Chris Blandford Associates
5.4 The Cursus Barrows
5.4.1 The Cursus Barrows lie within 300m of the proposed extended VTS turnaround and off-loading platform, within NT open access land.
5.4.2 Operation of the proposed extended VTS turnaround would result in a negligible change to the settings of the Cursus Barrows compared to operation of the existing VTS turning area and drop-off. There would be no adverse effect on the character of any of the Cursus Barrows due to construction and operation of the extended VTS turnaround. The effects of the proposed Scheme on the Cursus Barrows as an attribute of OUV would be not significant.
5.5 The Lesser Cursus and Associated Barrows
5.5.1 The Lesser Cursus and associated barrows lie within 1000m of the Site and would be affected by construction and operation of the extended coach park, which would be visible in views from the monuments south towards the Winterbourne Stoke Group. Barrows associated with the Lesser Cursus include upstanding examples and examples with no surface expression, and lie within NT open access land between 400m and 700m away from the Site.
5.5.2 A landscape planting programme would integrate the extended coach park, CVF building and VTS turning loop into the historic landscape and partially screen visual impacts in key views. Although there would be an increased number of parked vehicles and associated vehicle movements which would present an intrusive element due to vehicle movements and reflection of light from vehicle glazing during operational hours, the scale of the change would be minimal taking into account the current effects of operation of the existing temporary coach park extension. Overall, the proposed Scheme would have a Moderate adverse effect on the settings of the Lesser Cursus and associated barrows. However, this would reduce in Year 15 to a Slight adverse effect once the proposed landscape planting is fully developed; this would be a transient effect during operational hours.
5.6 The Monarch of the Plain
5.6.1 The setting of the Monarch of the Plain barrow, part of the Cursus barrow group, would be affected during construction and operation of the proposed permanent coach park extension, CVF building and VTS turning loop. The surface of the VTS turning loop, the CVF building and the extended coach park would be visible in views from the Monarch of the Plain west towards the unnamed barrow north-west of Airman’s Corner (1620), which forms part of the same ridgeline barrow cemetery as the Lesser Cursus barrows. A landscape planting programme would partially screen visual impacts in this key view whilst not impeding direct line of sight SVEP Permanent Coach Park April 2016 46 Heritage Impact Assessment 11110205_SVEP_HIA_V2_CMdw_15-04-16 Chris Blandford Associates
between these monuments. The increased number of coaches entering and leaving the Site and standing at the coach park and coach drop-off would present a highly visible intrusive element due to vehicle movements and reflection of light from vehicle glazing during operational hours. When not in operation, the permanent coach park extension, CVF building and VTS turning loop have been designed to be minimally intrusive in form, siting and profile.
5.6.2 There would be a minimal increase in the developed area compared to the existing temporary coach park extension. Although there would be an increased number of parked vehicles and associated vehicle movements, there would be no change to the character of the Monarch of the Plain due to the proposed Scheme, taking into account the current effects of operation of the existing temporary coach park extension. There would be a Moderate adverse effect on the setting of the monument in Year 0. However, this would reduce in Year 15 to a Slight adverse transient effect during operational hours once the proposed landscape planting is fully developed.
SVEP Permanent Coach Park April 2016 47 Heritage Impact Assessment 11110205_SVEP_HIA_V2_CMdw_15-04-16 Chris Blandford Associates
6.0 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
6.1 Effects on the Outstanding Universal Value of the WHS
6.1.1 There would be limited adverse effects on the settings and intervisibility of key monument groups that express attributes of OUV – the Great Cursus, the Lesser Cursus and associated barrows and the Monarch of the Plain barrow – due to increased numbers of coaches and motorhomes entering, leaving and standing at the extended coach park; these would be temporary and transient during operational hours. New landscape planting would integrate the extended coach park, CVF building and VTS turning loop into the historic landscape and partially screen visual impacts in key views whilst respecting and retaining intervisibility between monument groups.
6.1.2 When considered in the context of the existing coach park, ancillary building, car park and visitor centre at Airman’s Corner in the round, the scale of change associated with the proposed permanent coach park, CVF building and VTS turning loop at Airman’s Corner would be comparatively small. There would be no change to the character or legibility of any of the key Scheduled Monument groups or the visual relationships between them.
6.1.3 The setting of the WHS includes downland to the west and north of the current boundary, which includes a number of Scheduled Monuments that convey attributes of OUV. Adverse effects on the setting of the WHS due to construction and operation of the coach park would be minor in the context of the existing coach park, visitors’ car park and visitor centre, and the adjacent A360/B3086.
6.1.4 When considered in the context of the existing VTS turnaround area, the scale of change associated with the proposed extension to the VTS turnaround area near the Stones would be minor. There would be no significant permanent adverse effect on the settings of the Stonehenge Monument and the Cursus Barrows, and the visual relationship between them, as a result of the extended VTS turnaround area.
6.1.5 There would be no effect on the authenticity of the WHS due to the proposed Scheme. There would be no direct effect on the fabric of any monument and adverse effects on the settings of individual monuments would be limited. The scheme has been developed with minimal landscape mitigation to avoid introduction of prominent new earthwork forms and retain intervisibility between key monuments both within and beyond the WHS boundary. The location, setting and visual interrelationships of the monuments would remain legible and readily appreciable to visitors.
SVEP Permanent Coach Park April 2016 48 Heritage Impact Assessment 11110205_SVEP_HIA_V2_CMdw_15-04-16 Chris Blandford Associates
6.1.6 There would be no effect on the integrity of the WHS due to the proposed Scheme. The Scheme has been designed to avoid any loss of known archaeological remains through the reuse of the fully reversible existing coach park construction. New excavations on previously undeveloped land would be limited to the footprint of the proposed VTS turning loop at Airman’s Corner and associated drainage. Landscape mitigation would break up the visual impact of permanent coach park extension, CVF building and VTS turning loop and retain intervisibility between key monuments both within and beyond the WHS boundary.
6.1.7 On balance, taking into account the relatively small scale of the proposed changes, the reversible and to a large extent transient nature of the potential adverse effects of the Scheme and the visitor benefits of providing enhanced coach parking facilities, the Scheme would have no permanent adverse effect on the OUV of the WHS, its authenticity, integrity and setting.
6.1.8 In relation to the Outstanding Universal Value of the Stonehenge WHS as expressed in the 2015 Management Plan, the proposed Scheme would have the following effects:
Stonehenge itself as a globally famous and iconic monument: - there would be no significant change to the setting of Stonehenge and associated monuments The physical remains of the Neolithic and Bronze Age funerary and ceremonial monuments and associated sites: - there would be no loss of known physical remains relating to Neolithic and Bronze Age funerary and ceremonial monuments and associated sites The siting of Neolithic and Bronze Age funerary and ceremonial sites and monuments in relation to the landscape: - any adverse effect on the settings of key monument groups in their landscape setting would be reversible and in the large part temporary The design of Neolithic and Bronze Age funerary and ceremonial monuments in relation to the skies and astronomy: - there would be no new lighting provision at the permanent coach park extension and VTS turning loop and no adverse effect on this attribute The siting of Neolithic and Bronze Age funerary and ceremonial monuments in relation to each other: - there would be no permanent adverse effects on the settings of key monument groups that are intervisible with each other and with Stonehenge - new planting under the Scheme would be minimal and has been designed to retain intervisibility between key monuments both within and beyond the WHS boundary - the effects of new development under the Scheme proposals would be reversible
SVEP Permanent Coach Park April 2016 49 Heritage Impact Assessment 11110205_SVEP_HIA_V2_CMdw_15-04-16 Chris Blandford Associates
The disposition, physical remains and settings of the key Neolithic and Bronze Age funerary, ceremonial and other monuments and sites of the period, which together form a landscape without parallel: - there would be no permanent adverse effects on the disposition, physical remains and settings of key monument groups Neolithic and Bronze Age funerary, ceremonial and other monuments and sites - the effects of new development under the Scheme proposals would be reversible The influence of the remains of Neolithic and Bronze age funerary and ceremonial monuments and their landscape settings on architects, artists, historians, archaeologists and others: - the Scheme would have no adverse effects on this attribute.
6.2 Effects on Archaeological Remains
6.2.1 The Scheme has been designed to avoid any loss of known archaeological remains or adverse effect on the integrity of the WHS. New excavations on previously undeveloped land would be limited to the footprint of the proposed VTS turning loop at Airman’s Corner and associated drainage. Mitigation in respect of any potential direct effects on archaeological remains will be delivered through a strategy comprising archaeological investigation of the new VTS turning loop site at Airman’s Corner; use of a reversible construction method; and provision for the identification and recording of any remains encountered during construction of the new VTS turning loop.
SVEP Permanent Coach Park April 2016 50 Heritage Impact Assessment 11110205_SVEP_HIA_V2_CMdw_15-04-16 Chris Blandford Associates
REFERENCES
Chartered Institute for Archaeologists 2014 Standard and Guidance for Desk-based Assessments
Chris Blandford Associates 2014 Stonehenge Visitor Enhancement Project: Heritage Impact Assessment of Proposed Temporary Coach Park Extension
Chris Blandford Associates/Wessex Archaeology 2009 Stonehenge Environmental Improvements Project: Environmental Statement
Darvill, T. 2005 Stonehenge World Heritage Site: an archaeological research framework. London: English Heritage and Bournemouth University
Department for Communities and Local Government 2012 the National Planning Policy Framework. London: The Stationery Office for DCLG
ICOMOS 2011 Guidance on Heritage Impact assessments for Cultural World Heritage Properties. Paris: International Council on Monuments and Sites
Simmonds, S and Thomas, B 2015 Stonehenge, Avebury and Associated Sites World Heritage Site Management Plan 2015 World Heritage Site Coordination Unit on behalf of the Stonehenge World Heritage Site Committee
Wessex Archaeology 2009a Airman’s Corner Wiltshire: Detailed Gradiometer Survey Report. Ref. 71420.01
Wessex Archaeology 2009b Land at Airman’s Corner Wiltshire: Archaeological Evaluation Report. Ref. 71651.02
Wessex Archaeology 2011 Stonehenge and Avebury World Heritage Site: Condition Survey Salisbury: Wessex Archaeology on behalf of English Heritage
Wessex Archaeology 2015a SVEP Airman’s Corner, Winterbourne Stoke, Wiltshire: Archaeological Evaluation Report. Ref. 107320.02
Wessex Archaeology 2015b SVEP Airman’s Corner, Winterbourne Stoke, Wiltshire: Archaeological Watching Brief. Ref. 107321.03
Wessex Archaeology 2016 Stonehenge Environmental Improvements Project: Assessment Report on Archaeological Mitigation Draft Report, Ref. 76862.04
SVEP Permanent Coach Park April 2016 51 Heritage Impact Assessment 11110205_SVEP_HIA_V2_CMdw_15-04-16 Chris Blandford Associates
GLOSSARY
Academic Report – a report containing all the evidence, analysis and synthesis necessary to fulfil an archaeological recording programme. See also the Popular Report. Archaeological Recording – work commissioned for the purpose of investigating, analysing, interpreting and publishing important archaeological remains, which may be damaged or destroyed by the Scheme. Assessment Report – the product of a process of review of material, which results from a programme of Archaeological Recording, before decisions regarding the appropriate level of post excavation analysis and publication are taken. Asset – the overall historic environment resource comprises individual assets, which may be archaeological remains, historic buildings or historic landscape character units. Chartered Institute for Archaeologists (CIfA) – the CIfA represents professional archaeologists and promotes good practice amongst archaeological contractors. CIfA registered organisations are required to adhere to certain minimum standards of practice. Context – knowledge or beliefs which supply the framework for appreciating historical assets and values, where tangible or visible evidence is lacking at the site. Desk-Based Assessment – a data collection and analysis exercise utilising existing sources of cultural heritage data (such as Historic Environment Records, Listed Building data, historic maps etc.). The purpose is to identify relevant known cultural heritage resources. DMRB – Design Manual for Roads and Bridges. Evaluation – the process of identifying cultural heritage resources, including the initial studies and fieldwork carried out to assess the cultural heritage potential and the effect of the SCHEME. Evaluation may form part of the assessment process. Excavation – form of archaeological fieldwork generally employed as MITIGATION. Usually involves topsoil stripping followed by detailed investigation, recording, analysis interpretation and publication of archaeological features or deposits. Field Survey – fieldwork intended to provide additional information about known or potential cultural heritage resources, as part of the EVALUATION (assessment) process. It can include GEOPHYSICAL SURVEY, TEST PITTING and TRIAL TRENCHING. Field survey is distinct from MITIGATION. Geophysical Survey – a non-intrusive EVALUATION method employing remote sensing techniques, which measure particular properties of the ground. These include resistivity (electrical conduction), magnetometry (magnetic properties) ground-penetrating radar, metal detecting and others. Listed Building – a statutory designation assigned to a built structure (not limited solely to buildings) of special architectural or historic interest. Mitigation – archaeological work intended to reduce the impact of a scheme, agreed following the EVALUATION phase. Mitigation may involve, amongst others, avoiding or screening important cultural heritage features, or burying or excavating and recording archaeological material (see ARCHAEOLOGICAL RECORDING). Popular Report – a publication or presentation designed to present the results of a cultural heritage investigation simply for a lay audience in an attractive format. Research Framework or Agenda – in England these are developed nationally by English Heritage, and regionally by various consortia, as a means of prioritising cultural heritage research. The intention is to focus work on periods or processes, which are of particular national or regional interest. These may be used to inform scheme-specific scheme designs and research objectives. Scheduled Monument – the designation by the respective Secretaries of State and Ministers advised by the Department of Culture, Media and Sport and English Heritage of a site or area as worthy of protection under the terms of the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Areas Act 1979. Scheduled Monuments are of national importance. Setting – the surroundings of an asset relevant to its value, understanding or appreciation.
SVEP Permanent Coach Park April 2016 52 Heritage Impact Assessment 11110205_SVEP_HIA_V2_CMdw_15-04-16 Chris Blandford Associates
Test pitting – intrusive FIELD SURVEY technique intended to test for the presence or absence, character, survival, date and extent of potential archaeological resources through examination of the artefact content of topsoil. Time Depth – the extent to which evidence of the processes of change over time survive and can be used to construct a coherent understanding of past landscapes. Trial Trenching – intrusive FIELD SURVEY technique intended to test for the presence or absence, character, survival, date and extent of potential buried archaeological resources. Watching Brief – the monitoring of the construction by an archaeologist to identify and record unexpected finds. World Heritage Site – area of cultural or natural interest inscribed onto the UNESCO World Heritage List as of outstanding universal value according to one or more criteria.
SVEP Permanent Coach Park April 2016 53 Heritage Impact Assessment 11110205_SVEP_HIA_V2_CMdw_15-04-16 Chris Blandford Associates
FIGURES *# *# *#*#
*# *#
*# *# *#*# *# *#
#*# **# *# *#*# *# *#*# # *# *# *# *# *# *# *#*# *# *# *# *# *#*#*# *# *# *# *# *# *#*#
*# *# *# *#*#*# *# *#*#
*#*#*# #* *#*#*#*#* *#*#*# *# *# *#
*#*#*# # **#*#*# *# *# *#
*#
*# *# KEY
*# *#*# Assessment*# Area* *#*# *# *#*# *# *# *#*## * *#*# Study Area** *# *# *# *#*# *# Site Boundary*# *# *# *#*# # **# *# *# Existing Coach Park and # *# #*# *# *#* *#*#*#*# *#* *#Temporary*# Extension *#*#*# *#*# *# *# *# *# *# Monument Groups *# # *# *# * *# World Heritage Site *#*#*# *# *# *# *# Scheduled Monuments *#*#
*#*# Registered Historic Parks *# *#*#*#*# *# *#*# *# and Gardens *#*# *# *#*#*# *# #* *# *#*# *# *# *#*#*# *# Listed Buildings *# *# *#*# *# *# *# Lesser Cursus Conservation Areas *# *# *# *# Ridge *# *# *# *#*# Fargo *# Cursus Ridge
King Airman’s *# Corner Barrow Ridge Fore Down *# *# *# Stonehenge *#*# Stonehenge *# *# *# The *# Bottom *# *# *# *# *# Coniger Winterbourne *# *# Stoke Ridge *# *#*# *# *#*# Longbarrow *# *# *#*# *# *#*# *# ## *#*# Crossroads *#*#*#*#* *#*#*# *# *# *#*#*# *#*#*# *# *#*#*#*#*# *# *# *#*# *# *# *# # * *#*# *# Normanton Down Ridge *# *# *# *# *# *# *# *# *# *# *# *#*# *# # *#*#*
*based on existing complete scheme viewshed modelled for the SEIP Environmental Statement (2009) *# *# *# ** As defined by the SEIP *#*# *# *#*#*# Environmental Statement (2009) *# *# *# *# *# *# N *# *# 0 0.5 1 Kilometre #**# *# *#* *#*# Contains Ordnance Survey data © Crown*#*# copyright and database right 2016 *# *# *#*#*# *#*# *#*# 0 0.5 km STONEHENGE VISITOR ENHANCEMENT PROJECT FIGURE 1 HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT DESIGNATED SITES & ENGLISH HERITAGE *# MONUMENTS IN THE STUDY & April 2016 ASSESSMENT AREAS 11110205_HIA Figures_15-04-16.indd
*# # *# *#
*# *# *#*#*# *# *#*#
*# *# *# *#*#*#
*# KEY
Assessment Area*
Site Boundary
Existing Coach Park and Temporary Extension 1644 1638 1647 1637 World Heritage Site 1668 1653 1662 2082 1733 1671 Scheduled Monuments 1763 1721 2125 Sites and Monuments 1411 1786 1523 1500 1382 Prehistoric 1542 1428 1567 1495 1442 1513 1796 1583 1534 Mesolithic 1527 937 1599 1963 1363 924 1978 1956 1976 1493 1475 1377 Neolithic 1620 1964 1795 1480 1353 1949 1576 1469 975 929 842 1350 1988 1349 1351 1067 1983 Bronze Age 2183 1541 1463 1423 1352 1219 1180 873 1362 1340 2014 1961 1014 917 844 2093 1438 13971376 1361 12811260 1231 1159 890 1664 1601 1563 1387 1333 1305 916 852 1683 1139 1050 1003 858 Iron Age 1603 1427 2100 1259 1207 933 889 2136 1558 1422 1396 1345 1298 1179 1962 1640 1360 1206 1421 1342 1272 943 1499 1239 1059 927 910 Romano-British 1626 1591 1395 1375 1226 1026 991 1703 1649 1609 1391 985 909 1590 1533 1479 1131 1650 1503 1138 1099 Saxon 1058 976 905 1830 1834 1706 1418 1707 1589 1562 1485 1488 1056 1489 1107 915 2078 1661 1108 Medieval 1636 1465 1098 1057 908 914 18171818 1546 980 912 1816 1809 1515 1464 930 911 1815 1810 1641 1584 1478 Post-Medieval 18051800 1580 1814 1597 1498 1468 932 1813 1798 15871508 1490 1812 1712 1594 1586 18041803 1592 1582 1497 Modern 1807 1802 1588 1579 1496 1512, 1514, 1519, 1600 1578 1522, 1524, 1525, 1566 1596 1559 1526, 1545, 1554 Unknown 1605 1684 1581 2086 1623 1602 1585 2071 1532, 1539, 1540, 1613 1564 1551, 1556, 1557 2054 20562055 1593 1607 1574 1575 2068 2059 2060 2052 2058 1633 2053 2057 1604 1779 1634 1630 1632 1629 1734 1696 1679 1658 1645
1705 1654 2123 1676 1702
*based on existing coach park viewshed modelled for the SEIP 2147 Environmental Statement (2009) N 0 0.5 1 Kilometre
Contains Ordnance Survey data © Crown copyright and database right 2016
STONEHENGE VISITOR ENHANCEMENT PROJECT FIGURE 2 HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT SCHEDULED MONUMENTS ENGLISH HERITAGE AND RECORDED SITES IN THE April 2016 ASSESSMENT AREA 11110205_HIA Figures_15-04-16.indd
0 0.75 1.5 Kilometers KEY
Planning Application Site Boundary
BYWAY 12 World Heritage Site Boundary
Built Scheme Elements Re-Using Previously A344 Developed Land
Reversible Built Scheme Elements on Previously Undeveloped Land (Archaeology Preserved in Situ)
Built Scheme Elements on Previously Undeveloped Land
B3086 Landscaping
BYWAY 12
A344 A344
B3086
N 0 25 50 metres
N 0 25 50 metres 93
92
OVERVIEW PLAN - NTS STONEHENGE VISITOR ENHANCEMENT PROJECT FIGURE 3 HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT SCHEME ELEMENTS RE-USING PREVIOUSLY ENGLISH HERITAGE DEVELOPED LAND/REVERSIBLE SCHEME ELEMENTS April 2016 11110205_HIA Figures_15-04-16.indd
A344
/ / /
/ / /
/
/ / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / /
DO NOT SCALE FROM THIS DRAWING. CHECK ALL DIMENSIONS ON SITE. NOTIFY ARCHITECT OF ALL DISCREPANCIES KEY: REV DATE NOTES DRAWN PROJECT STONEHENGE VISITOR TITLE PERMANENT COACH VISITOR FACILITIES P1 18.11.2015 Issued for comment P2 27.11.2015 Areas updated NC ENHANCEMENT PROJECT & VISITOR TRANSIT SYSTEM PLANNING APPLICATION BOUNDARY P3 27.11.2015 Areas updated LOCATION PLAN P4 04.04.2016 Areas updated P5 13.04.2016 contractors compound area included, planning issue N CHECKED SCALE 1:1250 @ A1 / DATE NOVEMBER 2015 NO 1515 / 253 REV P5 NC 0m 50m 15 HIGH STREET, WHITTLESFORD, CAMBRIDGE, CB22 4LT c o w p e r g r i f f i t h Tel: 01223 835998 Fax: 01223 837327 A R C H I T E C T S L L P Email: architects@cowpergri th.co.uk
93
92
OVERVIEW PLAN - NTS
/ / /
/ / /
/
/ / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / /
DO NOT SCALE FROM THIS DRAWING. CHECK ALL DIMENSIONS ON SITE. NOTIFY ARCHITECT OF ALL DISCREPANCIES KEY: REV DATE NOTES DRAWN PROJECT STONEHENGE VISITOR TITLE PERMANENT COACH VISITOR FACILITIES P1 18.11.2015 Issued for comment P2 27.11.2015 Areas updated NC ENHANCEMENT PROJECT & VISITOR TRANSIT SYSTEM PLANNING APPLICATION BOUNDARY P3 27.11.2015 Areas updated LOCATION PLAN P4 04.04.2016 Areas updated P5 13.04.2016 contractors compound area included, planning issue N CHECKED SCALE 1:1250 @ A1 / DATE NOVEMBER 2015 NO 1515 / 253 REV P5 NC 0m 50m 15 HIGH STREET, WHITTLESFORD, CAMBRIDGE, CB22 4LT c o w p e r g r i f f i t h Tel: 01223 835998 Fax: 01223 837327 A R C H I T E C T S L L P Email: architects@cowpergri th.co.uk APPENDIX 1 Heritage Impact Assessment Methodology
HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGY
Evaluation of Resource
The NPPF refers to the consideration of the ‘significance’ of heritage assets. However, in this HIA, following the approach taken in the 2009 ES, the term ‘significance’ is used to denote the magnitude of likely environmental impacts against the sensitivity of a receptor. Therefore, to avoid confusion, when referring to the NPPF, the terms ‘importance’, ‘value’ or ‘sensitivity’ (rather than significance) are used within this assessment.
The value of historic environment assets is assessed in relation to statutory designations, international or national, and priorities or recommendations set out in national research agendas. Professional judgement is used to determine the importance of the resource. The value of the asset is assigned using the following scale:
Very High High Medium Low Negligible Unknown
The importance of archaeological remains is assessed using the Secretary of State’s non-statutory criteria for the selection of monuments for scheduling, as modified by English Heritage for use in their Monuments Protection Programme. The criteria are:
Period Rarity Documentation (archaeological) Documentation (historical) Group value (association) Group value (clustering) Survival Diversity (features) Potential Amenity value
These criteria are applicable to the assessment of all sites, whether scheduled or not. The application of these criteria is a matter of professional judgement: the importance of scheduled monuments and listed structures is indicated by their designation. Within the WHS, assets that express attributes of the OUV of the WHS are considered to be of enhanced importance for the purpose of this assessment.
Grading Archaeology Built heritage Historic landscape Very High Assets of acknowledged Structures inscribed as of World heritage sites international importance. universal importance as world inscribed for their historic Assets that can contribute heritage sites. landscape qualities. significantly to Other buildings of recognised Historic landscapes of acknowledged international international importance. international value, research objectives. whether designated or Assets that express attributes not. of the OUV of the WHS. Extremely well-preserved historic landscapes with exceptional coherence, time-depth, or other critical factors. High Scheduled monuments Scheduled monuments with Designated historic (including proposed sites). standing remains. landscape of outstanding Undesignated sites of Grade I and II* listed interest. schedulable quality and buildings. Undesignated landscapes importance. Other listed buildings that can of outstanding interest. Assets that can contribute be shown to have exceptional Undesignated landscapes significantly to qualities in their fabric or of high quality and acknowledged national historical associations not importance, and of research objectives. adequately reflected in the demonstrable national listing grade. value. Conservation areas containing Well preserved historic very important buildings. landscapes, exhibiting Undesignated structures of considerable coherence, clear national importance. time-depth or other critical factors. Medium Designated or undesignated Grade ii listed buildings. Designated special assets that can contribute Historic (unlisted) buildings historic landscapes. significantly to regional that can be shown to have Undesignated historic research objectives. exceptional qualities or landscapes that would historical associations. justify special historic Conservation areas containing landscape designation. buildings that contribute Landscapes of regional significantly to its historic value. character. Averagely well preserved Historic townscapes or built- historic landscapes with up areas with important reasonable coherence, historic integrity in their time-depth or other buildings, or built settings. critical factors. Low Designated or undesignated ‘locally listed’ buildings. Robust undesignated assets of local importance. Historic (unlisted) buildings of historic landscapes. Assets compromised by poor modest quality in their fabric Historic landscapes with preservation and/or poor or historical associations. importance to local survival of contextual Historic townscape or built- interest groups. associations. up areas of limited historic Historic landscapes Assets of limited value, but integrity in their buildings, or whose value is limited by with potential to contribute built settings. poor preservation and/or to local research objectives. poor survival of contextual associations. Negligible Assets with little or no Buildings of no architectural Landscapes little or no surviving archaeological or historical merit; buildings significant historical interest. of an intrusive character. interest. Unknown The importance of the asset Buildings with some hidden N/a has not been ascertained. (i.e. Inaccessible) potential for historic significance.
Assessment of Magnitude of Impact
The assessment of the magnitude of impact is the identification of the degree of the effect of the Scheme upon archaeology and the historic environment. The magnitude of impact is ranked without regard to the value of the asset. Impacts can be direct or indirect; primary or secondary; temporary or permanent; reversible or irreversible; and may arise as a consequence of construction or operation of the proposed development. For the purpose of this assessment, the following definitions have been applied.
Direct impacts are those that arise as a primary consequence of the Scheme. Direct impacts can result in the physical loss of part or all of an asset, and/or changes to its setting. English Heritage’s Conservation Principles state that setting is, ‘the surroundings in which a place is experienced, its local context, embracing present and past relationships to the adjacent landscape’.
Direct impacts resulting in physical loss are usually permanent and irreversible; normally occur as a consequence of construction of the Scheme; and are confined within the development footprint (‘the trace’). The magnitude of these impacts will depend on the proportion of the asset affected, and whether its key characteristics would be affected.
Direct impacts that affect the setting of an asset can occur as a consequence of construction or operation of the Scheme and can affect assets some distance from the development. Assessment of impacts on setting refers to perceptible visual and aural (noise) effects that can be appreciated at a given time. Such impacts may be temporary or permanent, reversible or irreversible depending on the extent to which the cause of the impact can be removed. Impacts may also be transient where occurrence is sporadic or of limited duration, for example related to hours of operation or the frequency of passage of vehicles.
Indirect impacts occur as a secondary consequence of construction or operation of the development, and can result in physical loss or changes to the setting of an asset beyond the development footprint. Severity of impacts has been judged taking into account their direct and indirect effects and whether they are temporary or permanent, reversible or irreversible. The cumulative effect of separate impacts has also been considered. The magnitude of impact (summation of direct and indirect impacts) is assigned one of the following descriptors; impacts may be adverse or beneficial and hence a nine-point scale results with ‘no change’ as its centre point:
Major beneficial Moderate beneficial Minor beneficial Negligible beneficial No Change Negligible adverse Minor adverse Moderate adverse Major adverse
For the purposes of this assessment, monuments with no visible surface expression are considered to have no setting as they cannot suffer visual intrusion or obstruction of views to them. However, monuments without surface expression may be components of monument groups that express attributes of the OUV of the WHS, the setting of which may be affected by visual impacts. Similarly, key views between monuments that express attributes of OUV may suffer visual impacts. Impacts on context and relationships between monuments are therefore considered through assessment of impact on key monument groups expressing attributes of OUV. Monuments with a visible surface expression have been identified from the condition survey undertaken for English Heritage.
Grading Archaeology Built heritage Historic landscape Major Changes to most or all key Change to key historic Change to most or all key archaeological materials, building elements, such that historic landscape such that the resource is the resource is totally elements, parcels or totally altered. altered. components; extreme Comprehensive changes to Comprehensive changes to visual effects; gross setting. the setting. change of noise or change to sound quality; fundamental changes to use or access; resulting in total change to historic landscape character unit. Moderate Changes to many key Changes to many key Change to many key archaeological materials, historic building elements, historic landscape such that the resource is such that the resource is elements, parcels or clearly modified. significantly modified. components; visual Considerable changes to Changes to the setting of an change to many key setting that affect the historic building, such that it aspects of the historic character of the asset. is significantly modified. landscape; noticeable differences in noise or sound quality; considerable changes to use or access; resulting in moderate changes to historic landscape character. Minor Changes to key Change to key historic Change to few key archaeological materials, building elements, such that historic landscape such that the resource is the asset is slightly different. elements, parcels or slightly altered. Change to setting of an components; slight visual Slight changes to setting. historic building, such that it changes to few key is noticeably changed. aspects of historic landscape; limited changes to noise levels or sound quality; slight changes to use or access; resulting in limited change to historic landscape character. Negligible Very minor changes to key Slight changes to historic Very minor changes to archaeological materials, building elements or setting key historic landscape or setting. that hardly affect it. elements, parcels or components; virtually unchanged visual effects; very slight changes in noise levels or sound quality; very slight changes to use or access; resulting in a very small change to historic landscape character. No change No change. No change to fabric or No change to elements, setting. parcels or components; no visual or audible changes; no changes in amenity or community factors.
Determination of Significance of Effect
Significance of effect is a product of the importance of the resource and the magnitude of the impact (change) upon it. Significance of effect on archaeology and the historic environment is assigned one of the following descriptors; effects may be adverse or beneficial, hence a nine-point scale results, with Neutral as its centre point:
Very Large beneficial Large beneficial Moderate beneficial Slight beneficial Neutral Slight adverse Moderate adverse Large adverse Very Large adverse
The significance of the effects of construction and operation of the Scheme are assessed separately, taking into account agreed mitigation measures. The overall effects of the Scheme on any part of the archaeological resource are assessed as a combination of the impacts of construction and operation.
The table below is reproduced from DMRB 11.3.2 (Annexes 5, 6 and 7) and illustrates how the value of the asset and the magnitude of impact are combined to produce an assessment of the significance of effect, as agreed by the AWG; effects may be adverse or beneficial. Where a range of significance is indicated in the table, professional judgment has been used to take account of relevant factors, such as the nature of the resource and impact, in arriving at a single level of significance.
MAGNITUDE OF IMPACT VALUE No Change Negligible Minor Moderate Major
Moderate/ Large/ Very High Neutral Slight Large Very Large Very Large
Moderate/ Moderate/ Large/ High Neutral Slight Slight Large Very Large
Neutral/ Moderate/ Medium Neutral Slight Slight Moderate Large
Neutral/ Neutral/ Slight/ Low Neutral Slight Slight Slight Moderate
Neutral/ Neutral/ Negligible Neutral Neutral Slight Slight Slight
APPENDIX 2 Adopted Statement of Outstanding Universal Value 2013
ADOPTED STATEMENT OF OUTSTANDING UNIVERSAL VALUE 2013
Statement of Outstanding Universal Value, Adopted June 2013 Stonehenge, Avebury and Associated Sites United Kingdom Date of Inscription 1986-2008
The World Heritage property comprises two areas of chalkland in Southern Britain within which complexes of Neolithic and Bronze Age ceremonial and funerary monuments and associated sites were built. Each area contains a focal stone circle and henge and many other major monuments. At Stonehenge these include the Avenue, the Cursuses, Durrington Walls, Woodhenge, and the densest concentration of burial mounds in Britain. At Avebury, they include Windmill Hill, the West Kennet Long Barrow, the Sanctuary, Silbury Hill, the West Kennet and Beckhampton Avenues, the West Kennet Palisade Enclosures, and important barrows.
The World Heritage property is of Outstanding Universal Value for the following qualities:
Stonehenge is one of the most impressive prehistoric megalithic monuments in the world on account of the sheer size of its megaliths, the sophistication of its concentric plan and architectural design, the shaping of the stones, uniquely using both Wiltshire Sarsen sandstone and Pembroke Bluestone, and the precision with which it was built.
At Avebury, the massive Henge, containing the largest prehistoric stone circle in the world, and Silbury Hill, the largest prehistoric mound in Europe, demonstrate the outstanding engineering skills which were used to create masterpieces of earthen and megalithic architecture.
There is an exceptional survival of prehistoric monuments and sites within the World Heritage property including settlements, burial grounds, and large constructions of earth and stone. Today, together with their settings, they form landscapes without parallel. These complexes would have been of major significance to those who created them, as is apparent by the huge investment of time and effort they represent. They provide an insight into the mortuary and ceremonial practices of the period, and are evidence of prehistoric technology, architecture, and astronomy. The careful siting of monuments in relation to the landscape helps us to further understand the Neolithic and Bronze Age.
UNESCO CRITERIA FOR INSCRIPTION ON THE WORLD HERITAGE LIST
Criterion (i): The monuments of the Stonehenge, Avebury, and Associated Sites World Heritage Sites property demonstrate outstanding creative and technological achievements in prehistoric times.
Stonehenge is the most architecturally sophisticated prehistoric stone circle in the world. It is unrivalled in its design and unique engineering, featuring huge horizontal stone lintels capping the outer circle and the trilithons, locked together by carefully shaped joints. It is distinguished by the unique use of two different kinds of stones (Bluestones and Sarsens), their size (the largest weighing over 40t), and the distance they were transported (up to 240km).The sheer scale of some of the surrounding monuments is also remarkable: the Stonehenge Cursus and the Avenue are both about 3km long, while Durrington Walls is the largest known henge in Britain, around 500m in diameter, demonstrating the ability of prehistoric peoples to conceive, design, and construct features of great size and complexity.
Avebury prehistoric stone circle is the largest in the world. The encircling henge consists of a huge bank and ditch 1.3km in circumference, within which 180 local, unshaped standing stones formed the large outer and two smaller inner circles. Leading from two of its four entrances, the West Kennet and Beckhampton Avenues of parallel standing stones still connect it with other monuments in the landscape. Another outstanding monument, Silbury Hill, is the largest prehistoric mound in Europe. Built around 2400 BC, it stands 39.5m high and comprises half a million tonnes of chalk. The purpose of this imposing, skilfully engineered monument remains obscure.
Criterion (ii): The World Heritage Property provides an outstanding illustration of the evolution of monument construction and of the continual use and shaping of the landscape over more than 2000 years, from the early Neolithic to the Bronze Age. The monuments and landscape have had an unwavering influence on architects, artists, historians, and archaeologists, and still retain huge potential for future research.
The megalithic and earthen monuments of the World Heritage Property demonstrate the shaping of the landscape through monument building for around 2000 years from c 3700 BC, reflecting the importance and wide influence of both areas.
Since the 12th century when Stonehenge was considered one of the wonders of the world by the chroniclers Henry of Huntington and Geoffrey of Monmouth, the Stonehenge and Avebury sites have excited curiosity and been the subject of study and speculation. Since early investigations by John Aubrey, Inigo Jones, and William Stukeley, they have had an unwavering influence on architects, archaeologists, artists, and historians. The two parts of the World Heritage Property provide an excellent opportunity for further research.
Today, the property has spiritual associations for some.
Criterion (iii): The complexes of monuments at Stonehenge and Avebury provide an exceptional insight into the funerary and ceremonial practices in Britain in the Neolithic and Bronze Age. Together with their settings and associated sites, they form landscapes without parallel.
The design, position, and inter-relationship of the monuments and sites are evidence of a wealthy and highly organised prehistoric society able to impose its concepts on the environment. An outstanding example is the alignment of the Stonehenge Avenue (probably a processional route) and Stonehenge stone circle on the axis of the midsummer sunrise and midwinter sunset, indicating their ceremonial and astronomical character. At Avebury the length and size of some of the features such as the West Kennet Avenue, which connects the Henge to the Sanctuary over 2km away, are further evidence of this.
A profound insight into the changing mortuary culture of the periods is provided by the use of Stonehenge as a cremation cemetery, by the West Kennet Long Barrow, the largest known Neolithic stone-chambered collective tomb in southern England, and by the hundreds of other burial sites illustrating evolving funerary rites.
Integrity
The boundaries of the property capture the attributes that together convey Outstanding Universal Value at Stonehenge and Avebury. They contain the major Neolithic and Bronze Age monuments that exemplify the creative genius and technological skills for which the property is inscribed. The Avebury and Stonehenge landscapes are extensive, both being around 25 square kilometres, and capture the relationship between the monuments as well as their landscape setting.
At Avebury the boundary was extended in 2008 to include East Kennet Long Barrow and Fyfield Down with its extensive Bronze Age field system and naturally occurring Sarsen Stones. At Stonehenge the boundary will be reviewed to consider the possible inclusion of related, significant monuments nearby such as Robin Hood's Ball, a Neolithic causewayed enclosure.
The setting of some key monuments extends beyond the boundary. Provision of buffer zones or planning guidance based on a comprehensive setting study should be considered to protect the setting of both individual monuments and the overall setting of the property.
The survival of the Neolithic and Bronze Age monuments at both Stonehenge and Avebury is exceptional and remarkable given their age – they were built and used between around 3700 and 1600 BC. Stone and earth monuments retain their original design and materials. The timber structures have disappeared but postholes indicate their location. Monuments have been regularly maintained and repaired as necessary.
The presence of busy main roads going through the World Heritage property impacts adversely on its integrity. The roads sever the relationship between Stonehenge and its surrounding monuments, notably the A344 which separates the Stone Circle from the Avenue. At Avebury, roads cut through some key monuments including the Henge and the West Kennet Avenue. The A4 separates the Sanctuary from its barrow group at Overton Hill.
Roads and vehicles also cause damage to the fabric of some monuments while traffic noise and visual intrusion have a negative impact on their settings. The incremental impact of highway-related clutter needs to be carefully managed.
Development pressures are present and require careful management. Impacts from existing intrusive development should be mitigated where possible.
Authenticity
Interventions have been limited mainly to excavations and the re-erection of some fallen or buried stones to their known positions in the early and mid-twentieth century in order to improve understanding. Ploughing, burrowing animals and early excavation have resulted in some losses but what remains is remarkable in its completeness and concentration. The materials and substance of the archaeology supported by the archaeological archives continue to provide an authentic testimony to prehistoric technological and creative achievement.
This survival and the huge potential of buried archaeology make the property an extremely important resource for archaeological research, which continues to uncover new evidence and expand our understanding of prehistory. Present day research has enormously improved our understanding of the property.
The known principal monuments largely remain in situ and many are still dominant features in the rural landscape. Their form and design are well-preserved and visitors are easily able to appreciate their location, setting and interrelationships which in combination represent landscapes without parallel.
At Stonehenge several monuments have retained their alignment on the Solstice sunrise and sunset, including the Stone Circle, the Avenue, Woodhenge, and the Durrington Walls Southern Circle and its Avenue.
Although the original ceremonial use of the monuments is not known, they retain spiritual significance for some people, and many still gather at both stone circles to celebrate the Solstice and other observations. Stonehenge is known and valued by many more as the most famous prehistoric monument in the world.
There is a need to strengthen understanding of the overall relationship between remains, both buried and standing, at Stonehenge and at Avebury.
Protection and Management Requirements
The UK Government protects World Heritage properties in England in two ways: firstly, individual buildings, monuments and landscapes are designated under the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 and the 1979 Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Areas Act, and secondly through the UK Spatial Planning system under the provisions of the Town and Country Planning Acts. The individual sites within the property are protected through the Government's designation of individual buildings, monuments, gardens and landscapes.
Government guidance on protecting the Historic Environment and World Heritage is set out in National Planning Policy Framework and Circular 07/09. Policies to protect, promote, conserve and enhance World Heritage properties, their settings and buffer zones are also found in statutory planning documents. The protection of the property and its setting from inappropriate development could be further strengthened through the adoption of a specific Supplementary Planning Document.
At a local level, the property is protected by the legal designation of all its principal monuments. There is a specific policy in the Local Development Framework to protect the Outstanding Universal Value of the property from inappropriate development, along with adequate references in relevant strategies and plans at all levels. The Wiltshire Core Strategy includes a specific World Heritage Property policy. This policy states that additional planning guidance will be produced to ensure its effective implementation and thereby the protection of the World Heritage property from inappropriate development. The policy also recognises the need to produce a setting study to enable this. Once the review of the Stonehenge boundary is completed, work on the setting study shall begin. The Local Planning Authority is responsible for continued protection through policy development and its effective implementation in deciding planning applications with the management plans for Stonehenge and Avebury as a key material consideration. These plans also take into account the range of other values relevant to the site in addition to Outstanding Universal Value. Avebury lies within the North Wessex Downs Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty, a national statutory designation to ensure the conservation and enhancement of the natural beauty of the landscape.
About a third of the property at both Stonehenge and Avebury is owned and managed by conservation bodies: English Heritage, a non-departmental government body, and the National Trust and the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds which are both charities. Agri-environment schemes, an example of partnership working between private landowners and Natural England (a non-departmental government body), are very important for protecting and enhancing the setting of prehistoric monuments through measures such as grass restoration and scrub control. Much of the property can be accessed through public rights of way as well as permissive paths and open access provided by some agri-environment schemes. Managed open access is provided at Solstice. There are a significant number of private households within the property and local residents therefore have an important role in its stewardship.
The property has effective management plans, coordinators and steering groups at both Stonehenge and Avebury. There is a need for an overall integrated management system for the property which will be addressed by the establishment of a coordinating Stonehenge and Avebury Partnership Panel whilst retaining the Stonehenge and Avebury steering groups to enable specific local issues to be addressed and to maintain the meaningful engagement of the community. A single property management plan will replace the two separate management plans.
An overall visitor management and interpretation strategy, together with a landscape strategy needs to be put in place to optimise access to and understanding of the property. This should include improved interpretation for visitors and the local community both on site and in local museums, holding collections excavated from the property as well as through publications and the web. These objectives are being addressed at Stonehenge through the development of a visitor centre and the Interpretation, Learning and Participation Strategy. The updated Management Plan will include a similar strategy for Avebury. Visitor management and sustainable tourism challenges and opportunities are addressed by specific objectives in both the Stonehenge and Avebury Management Plans.
An understanding of the overall relationship between buried and standing remains continues to be developed through research projects such as the ‘Between the Monuments’ project and extensive geophysical surveys. Research Frameworks have been published for the Site and are regularly reviewed. These encourage further relevant research. The Woodland Strategy, an example of a landscape level management project, once complete, can be built on to include other elements of landscape scale planning.
It is important to maintain and enhance the improvements to monuments achieved through grass restoration and to avoid erosion of earthen monuments and buried archaeology through visitor pressure and burrowing animals.
At the time of inscription the State Party agreed to remove the A344 road to reunite Stonehenge and its Avenue and improve the setting of the Stone Circle. Work to deliver the closure of the A344 will be complete in 2013. The project also includes a new Stonehenge visitor centre. This will provide world class visitor facilities including interpretation of the wider World Heritage property landscape and the removal of modern clutter from the setting of the Stone Circle. Although substantial progress is being made, the impact of roads and traffic remains a major challenge in both parts of the World Heritage
property. The A303 continues to have a negative impact on the setting of Stonehenge, the integrity of the property and visitor access to some parts of the wider landscape. A long-term solution remains to be found. At Avebury, a World Heritage Site Traffic Strategy will be developed to establish guidance and identify a holistic set of actions to address the negative impacts that the dominance of roads, traffic and related clutter has on integrity, the condition and setting of monuments and the ease and confidence with which visitors and the local community are able to explore the wider property
Criteria
These are the definitions used in this Statement and in Article 1 of the World Heritage Convention for monuments, groups of buildings, and sites:
These are the original definitions for Criteria i, ii and iii which were current and in use in 1985/6: Criterion i – represent a unique artistic achievement, a masterpiece of creative genius. Criterion ii – have exerted great influence, over a span of time or within a cultural area of the world, on developments in architecture, monumental arts or town planning and landscaping. Criterion iii – bear a unique or at least exceptional testimony to a civilisation which has disappeared.
APPENDIX 3 SEIP Environmental Statement, Chapter 5 (Archaeology and the Historic Environment)
5.0 ARCHAEOLOGY & THE HISTORIC ENVIRONMENT
5.1 Introduction
5.1.1 The Stonehenge Environmental Improvements Project (‘the Scheme’) seeks to deliver a world class visitor experience commensurate with the international significance of the Stonehenge World Heritage Site (WHS), while avoiding or minimising any adverse effects on the Outstanding Universal Value (OUV) of the WHS. The objectives of the proposed Scheme are to deliver:
• An improved landscape setting for Stonehenge; • A new, sensitively designed and environmentally sustainable Stonehenge visitor centre; and • Better interpretation of the Stones and the Stonehenge WHS.
5.1.2 This section identifies and evaluates the nature, extent and significance of the archaeological and historic environment resources likely to be impacted on, directly or indirectly, by the proposed Scheme and determines the likely significance of effects arising from the proposed development, after mitigation.
Consultation
5.1.3 An Archaeological Working Group (AWG), comprising representatives of Wiltshire Council, English Heritage (the Stonehenge Curatorial Unit and the World Heritage and International Team), Natural England and The National Trust, was established to advise on the scope and methodology of the assessment process and associated surveys in respect of archaeology and the historic environment. Regular meetings of the AWG have reviewed the assessment methodology, the scope and results of all surveys undertaken as part of the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) process, and the Scheme design.
5.1.4 In accordance with the guidance set out in PPG16, Wiltshire Council and the Stonehenge Curatorial Unit of English Heritage was consulted formally with regard to the archaeological and historic environment aspects of the Scheme.
5.1.5 During consultations as part of the scoping phase of the EIA process, the principal issues raised by consultees for consideration as part of the EIA were as follows:
• The need to minimise adverse impacts on the OUV of the WHS (Stonehenge Curatorial Unit; Wiltshire Council); and • The need to assess impacts on historic environment features not contributing to the OUV of the WHS (Stonehenge Curatorial Unit; Wiltshire Council).
Stonehenge Environmental September 2009 107 Improvements Project Environmental Statement 11110202R ES Chapter 5 0_Archaeology_WA_Final_30-09-09 Wessex Archaeology
5.2 Assessment Methodology
Purpose of the Assessment
5.2.1 English Heritage’s Conservation Principles, Policies and Guidance (2008) provide a comprehensive framework for the sustainable management of the historic environment. Paragraphs 161 and 162 of the Guidance state: ‘Balanced and justifiable decisions about change in the historic environment depend upon understanding who values a place and why they do so, leading to a clear statement of its significance and, with it, the ability to understand the impact of the proposed change on that significance… Every reasonable effort should be made to eliminate or minimise adverse impacts on significant places. Ultimately, however, it may be necessary to balance the public benefit of the proposed change against the harm to the place. If so, the weight given to heritage values should be proportionate to the significance of the place and the impact of the change upon it.’
5.2.2 Taking the above into account, this assessment has sought to:
• Determine the nature and importance of the archaeological and historic environment resource within the Assessment Area (referred to as ‘Existing Conditions’); and • Determine the impacts (both positive and negative) that may occur as a result of the proposed Scheme (including mitigation measures) and assess the magnitude of these impacts and the resultant significance of effect on the archaeological and historic environment resource of the Assessment Area (the Impact Assessment).
Study Area
5.2.3 The Study Area for the assessment comprises land within an approximately square boundary defined by the OS grid co-ordinates SU 407074, 139300 for the bottom left hand corner and SU 413969, 145999 for the top right hand corner (Figure 5.1). The Study Area has been defined to provide a broad context for the assessment and is further subdivided for the purposes of assessment as follows.
5.2.4 Within the Study Area, land adjacent to and visible from the Scheme (i.e. within the ‘visual envelope’ of the Scheme, as defined by a LiDAR survey) and/or within 500m of existing roads (A360/A344/A303(T)) and junctions is referred to as, ‘the Assessment Area’. Within the Assessment Area, the footprint of the Scheme is referred to as ‘the Trace’; this includes the Existing Visitor Car Park and Facilities at the Stones; the A344; and the proposed New Visitor Facilities at Airman’s Corner.
Stonehenge Environmental September 2009 108 Improvements Project Environmental Statement 11110202R ES Chapter 5 0_Archaeology_WA_Final_30-09-09 Wessex Archaeology
Archaeology and the Historic Environment
5.2.5 For the purpose of this assessment, ‘Archaeology and the Historic Environment’ is taken to comprise all aspects of the historic environment, including archaeological remains – above and below ground, including palaeo-environmental remains; prehistoric monuments and earthworks; historic buildings – including historic structures, Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas; and the historic landscape – the character of the historic landscape, including field patterns, boundaries and extant historic elements of the landscape. These elements, together with the people and events associated with them, define the cultural heritage of the Study Area.
5.2.6 Archaeological and historic environment resources relevant to this assessment include:
• Palaeo-environmental deposits; • Archaeological surface deposits and artefacts; • Archaeological sites and monuments; • Buried archaeological features, for example detected via non-intrusive geophysical survey; • Historic structures; • Historic landscape elements, including field systems and settlements; • Individual historic landscape features, including historic route-ways and hedgerows; • The historic landscape character of the Study Area; • 19th and 20th century military features; and • Contemporary and historic cultural appreciation of the Study Area.
5.2.7 The resources referred to within the Study Area and used for the purposes of this assessment are discussed with reference to the following periods:
• Palaeolithic c. 500,000 – 10,000 BC • Mesolithic c. 10,000 – 4000 BC • Neolithic c. 4000 – 2500 BC • Bronze Age c. 2500 – 800 BC • Iron Age c. 800 BC – AD 43 • Romano-British AD 43 – 410 • Anglo-Saxon AD 410 – 1066 • Medieval AD 1066 – 1540 • Post-medieval AD 1500 – 1800 • Modern AD 1800 – present
Planning and Legislative Context
5.2.8 The legal framework and international, national and local planning context for the assessment of effects on Archaeology and the Historic Environment is described in Section 4.0 of this Environmental Statement (ES). In summary, the relevant policy guidance is provided by the following.
International Agreements • UNESCO Convention Concerning the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage (‘The World Heritage Convention’, 1972) • Operational Guidelines for the Implementation of the World Heritage Convention (2008)
Stonehenge Environmental September 2009 109 Improvements Project Environmental Statement 11110202R ES Chapter 5 0_Archaeology_WA_Final_30-09-09 Wessex Archaeology
• European Convention for the Protection of the Archaeological Heritage of Europe (revised 1992) • European Landscape Convention (2004)
National Legal and Regional Planning Framework • Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Areas Act 1979 • Town and Country Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 • Hedgerow Regulations 1997 (as amended) • Wiltshire Structure Plan to 2016 (adopted April 2006) • Salisbury District Council Adopted Local Plan (adopted June 2003)
Policy and Guidance • Regional Planning Guidance 10 • Draft South West Regional Spatial Strategy • Planning Policy Guidance Note 15 - Planning and the Historic Environment (1994) • Planning Policy Guidance Note 16 - Archaeology and Planning (1990) • Consultation paper on a new Planning Policy Statement 15: Planning for the Historic Environment (July 2009) (DCLG/DCMS) • Circular on the Protection of World Heritage (July 2009) (DCLG/DCMS) • English Heritage Guidance Note on the Protection and Management of World Heritage Sites in England (July 2009) • English Heritage Conservation Principles: Policies and Guidance for the Sustainable Management of the Historic Environment (2008) • Stonehenge World Heritage Site Management Plan 2009 (January 2009) • National Trust Land Use Plan (2001), as adopted by the Stonehenge WHS Committee • Statement of Principles Governing Archaeological Work in the Stonehenge World Heritage Site (January 2002), as endorsed by the Stonehenge WHS Committee (Appendix D of the 2009 Management Plan) • Sustainable Access and Interpretation Principles, as endorsed by the WHS Management Plan Implementation Group (July 2002) (with minor revisions, June 2003)
The Stonehenge World Heritage Site Management Plan 2009
5.2.9 A revised Management Plan for the Stonehenge WHS was published in January 2009, replacing the 2000 Management Plan, and provides an important framework for the assessment. It includes a Statement of Significance endorsed by the UNESCO World Heritage Committee in July 2008, which sets out the OUV of the WHS and identifies a number of attributes that hold or carry the OUV (see 5.3.7 below and Volume 2, Appendix A5.1). Environmental Impact Assessments for development proposals affecting the WHS should consider the impact of the proposal on the WHS and its OUVi. Impact on OUV can be evaluated through assessment of impact on the attributes which express the OUV of the site.
Data Sources
5.2.10 Extensive archaeological and historical analysis and survey has been undertaken within the WHS. A list of relevant published and unpublished sources used in the assessment can be found in Volume 2, Appendix A5.1. Key data sources include:
Stonehenge Environmental September 2009 110 Improvements Project Environmental Statement 11110202R ES Chapter 5 0_Archaeology_WA_Final_30-09-09 Wessex Archaeology
Published Works • The Stonehenge Environs Project (Richards 1990); • Stonehenge in its Landscape: Twentieth-century excavations (Cleal, Walker and Montague 1995); • Stonehenge World Heritage Site: An Archaeological Research Framework (Darvill 2005); • A303 Stonehenge Improvement: Environmental Statement (Balfour Beatty Costain/Halcrow Gifford for the Highways Agency, June 2003); • A303 Stonehenge: Historic Landscape Survey (Mott MacDonald 2002), in the A303 Stonehenge Improvement: Environmental Statement; • Archaeology on the A303 Stonehenge Improvement (Leivers and Moore 2008); • Stonehenge Visitor Facilities and Access Scheme: Environmental Statement (Chris Blandford Associates/Wessex Archaeology for English Heritage, August 2004).
Unpublished Reports • Reports on archaeological works associated with the proposed A303 improvements (John Samuels Archaeological Consultants/Wessex Archaeology 1991-2003); • Reports on the archaeological works associated with investigation of suitable Visitor Centre sites (Timothy Darvill Archaeological Consultants/Wessex Archaeology 1990-2004); • Stonehenge Military Installations (Wessex Archaeology 1998); • Condition Survey and Management Recommendations for Archaeological Sites within the Stonehenge WHS (Wessex Archaeology 2003); • Field walking surveys in the Stonehenge WHS (Wessex Archaeology 2002-2008); • Stonehenge Riverside Project (draft report) (Parker-Pearson et al 2007).
Databases • The English Heritage ‘Stonehenge WHS’ GIS database, which includes the EH Record of Scheduled Monuments, data from the EH National Mapping Programme and the Wiltshire Sites and Monuments Record; • The National Monuments Record, English Heritage, Swindon; • The List of Buildings of Special Architectural or Historic Interest; • The English Heritage Register of Historic Parks and Gardens; • The National Trust Sites and Monuments Record (NTSMR).
Surveys
5.2.11 The following surveys have been undertaken as part of the EIA process for the Scheme:
• Archaeological baseline assessment of the Study Area (Wessex Archaeology 2009); • Geophysical surveys of the Airman’s Corner site (English Heritage 2009, Wessex Archaeology, 2009); • Earthwork survey of the Airman’s Corner site (English Heritage 2009); • Analysis of LiDAR data sourced from existing datasets held by the Environment Agency and/or aerial survey commissioned for the Scheme (Wessex Archaeology 2009); and • Archaeological test pitting and trial trenching surveys and Archaeological Watching Brief during geotechnical site investigation works at Airman’s Corner (Wessex Archaeology 2009).
5.2.12 All survey work was undertaken in accordance with an Archaeological Evaluation Strategy (see Volume 2, Appendix A5.6) agreed with the AWG; and with the Statement of Principles Governing Archaeological Work in the Stonehenge WHS (2002) endorsed by the Stonehenge WHS Committee. An important part of the Evaluation Strategy is that archaeological work be undertaken in a staged manner, with each stage drawing upon the results of previous stages. Individual Written Schemes of Investigation (WSIs) for the surveys were drawn up for approval
Stonehenge Environmental September 2009 111 Improvements Project Environmental Statement 11110202R ES Chapter 5 0_Archaeology_WA_Final_30-09-09 Wessex Archaeology
by Wiltshire Council and English Heritage Stonehenge Curatorial Unit; the geophysical surveys were undertaken in accordance with a specification issued by the English Heritage Research and Standards Department’s metric survey team.
Impact Assessment Methodology
5.2.13 There is no single accepted or standard guidance for the assessment of the likely impacts and effects of development on archaeology and the historic environment. Although developed for use on trunk road schemes, the Design Manual for Roads and Bridges Volume 11, Section 3, Part 2 ‘Cultural Heritage’ (HA 208/07) (‘DMRB 11.3.2’), published in August 2007 sets out a detailed methodology for considering the historic environment, which to date represents the most comprehensive published guidance. The significance of the effects of the Scheme are assessed through a process combining an evaluation of the importance of the archaeological and historic environment resource (‘assets’) and the scale of impact (magnitude of change) that would arise due to the construction and operation of the Scheme, taking into account mitigation measures incorporated into the design and/or delivered during the construction and operation stages of the development. The methodology and criteria defined in DMRB 11.3.2 as applied in this assessment have been modified as appropriate to reflect the nature, scale and context of the Scheme, taking account of English Heritage’s Conservation Principles.
5.2.14 The application of the DMRB methodology was discussed and agreed with the AWG as part of the scoping process for the EIA. The approach is consistent with the EIA for the previous proposals set out in the Stonehenge Visitor Facilities and Access Scheme ES (2004), for which planning permission was granted in 2007. This applied an approach derived from a consideration of guidance outlined in a previous version of DMRB 11.3.2 (August 1994), similar to that used to assess the effects of the Highways Agency’s proposed A303(T) Stonehenge Improvements.
Scope of Assessment
5.2.15 Under the methodology set out in DMRB 11.3.2, archaeology, historic buildings and the historic landscape are considered as individual sub-topics, reflecting the differing nature of the historic environment resource and the need to apply different criteria in assessing the significance of impact. For each sub-topic, 3 levels of assessment are identified: scoping, simple assessment and detailed assessment. The level of assessment appropriate for each sub- topic was agreed with the AWG.
5.2.16 Scoping assessment indicated that the baseline archaeological resource that could potentially be affected by the Scheme includes upstanding monuments and buried remains of all periods,
Stonehenge Environmental September 2009 112 Improvements Project Environmental Statement 11110202R ES Chapter 5 0_Archaeology_WA_Final_30-09-09 Wessex Archaeology
both within and beyond the WHS boundary. A detailed assessment of the likely effect on archaeology has been undertaken and the approach is described below.
5.2.17 Historic buildings that could be affected by the Scheme are restricted to a small number of memorials and turnpike milestones; potential effects on these would be limited to changes to setting, and possible relocation. It was considered, therefore, that detailed assessment of the effects of the Scheme on historic buildings was not appropriate. Effects on historic buildings, where relevant, have instead been considered as part of the assessment of effects on archaeology.
5.2.18 The historic landscape in the Study Area is characterised by downland enclosed in the 19th century. The extensive prehistoric funerary and ritual monument groups within the Study Area contribute a significant time depth to the post-medieval and modern agricultural landscape, and the relationships of these monument groups within the landscape is significant in terms of the OUV of the WHS. Changes to the structural elements of the landscape due to the Scheme would be relatively minor in nature; would be confined to development of land at Airman’s Corner and the removal of the A344 between Byway 12 and Stonehenge Bottom; and would affect features whose alteration is unlikely significantly to affect the historic landscape character of the WHS. It was considered, therefore, that effects on individual historic landscape features and relationships within the landscape would be best addressed as part of the assessment of effects on archaeology, and in particular the effects on OUV. As for historic buildings, therefore, detailed assessment of the effects of the Scheme on historic landscape was ‘scoped out’.
Existing Conditions
5.2.19 Baseline existing conditions for archaeology and the historic environment were established through desk-based review of existing sources of information, supported where appropriate by the use of field survey. The methodology for the collection of baseline data conforms to the Institute for Archaeologists’ Standard and Guidance for Desk-based Assessments and Standard and Guidance for Field Evaluations (IfA 2008). Data was compiled using a GIS, capturing all monument and event data within the Study Area and updated with the results of surveys undertaken for the Scheme.
Evaluation of Resource
5.2.20 The value of historic environment assets is assessed in relation to statutory designations, international or national, and priorities or recommendations set out in national research agendas. Professional judgement is used to determine the importance of the resource. The value of the asset is assigned using the following scale:
Stonehenge Environmental September 2009 113 Improvements Project Environmental Statement 11110202R ES Chapter 5 0_Archaeology_WA_Final_30-09-09 Wessex Archaeology
• Very High • High • Medium • Low • Negligible • Unknown
5.2.21 The importance of archaeological remains is assessed using the Secretary of State’s non- statutory criteria for the selection of monuments for scheduling, as modified by English Heritage for use in their Monuments Protection Programme. The criteria are:
• Period • Rarity • Documentation (archaeological) • Documentation (historical) • Group value (association) • Group value (clustering) • Survival • Diversity (features) • Potential • Amenity value
5.2.22 These criteria are applicable to the assessment of all sites, whether scheduled or not. The application of these criteria is a matter of professional judgement: the importance of scheduled monuments and listed structures is indicated by their designation. Within the WHS, assets that express attributes of the OUV of the WHS are considered to be of enhanced importance for the purpose of this assessment.
5.2.23 Table 5.1 below is adapted from DMRB 11.3.2 (combining the tables for each sub-topic as set out in Annexes 5, 6 and 7), and provides a guide as agreed by the AWG for assessing the value of archaeological and historic environment resources.
Table 5.1 - Value of Archaeological and Historic Environment Resources Grading Archaeology Built heritage Historic landscape Very High Assets of acknowledged international Structures inscribed as of universal World Heritage Sites inscribed importance. importance as World Heritage Sites. for their historic landscape Assets that can contribute significantly Other buildings of recognised qualities. to acknowledged international international importance. Historic landscapes of research objectives. international value, whether Assets that express attributes of the designated or not. OUV of the WHS. Extremely well-preserved historic landscapes with exceptional coherence, time- depth, or other critical factors. High Scheduled Monuments (including Scheduled Monuments with standing Designated historic landscape proposed sites). remains. of outstanding interest. Undesignated sites of schedulable Grade I and II* Listed Buildings. Undesignated landscapes of quality and importance. Other Listed Buildings that can be outstanding interest. Assets that can contribute significantly shown to have exceptional qualities Undesignated landscapes of to acknowledged national research in their fabric or historical high quality and importance, objectives. associations not adequately reflected and of demonstrable national in the listing grade. value. Conservation Areas containing Very Well preserved historic Important buildings. landscapes, exhibiting Undesignated structures of clear considerable coherence, time-
Stonehenge Environmental September 2009 114 Improvements Project Environmental Statement 11110202R ES Chapter 5 0_Archaeology_WA_Final_30-09-09 Wessex Archaeology
Grading Archaeology Built heritage Historic landscape national importance. depth or other critical factors.
Medium Designated or undesignated assets that Grade II listed buildings. Designated special historic can contribute significantly to regional Historic (unlisted) buildings that can landscapes. research objectives. be shown to have exceptional Undesignated historic qualities or historical associations. landscapes that would justify Conservation Areas containing special historic landscape buildings that contribute significantly designation. to its historic character. Landscapes of regional value. Historic townscapes or built-up areas Averagely well preserved with important historic integrity in historic landscapes with their buildings, or built settings. reasonable coherence, time- depth or other critical factors. Low Designated or undesignated assets of ‘Locally Listed’ buildings. Robust undesignated historic local importance. Historic (unlisted) buildings of landscapes. Assets compromised by poor modest quality in their fabric or Historic landscapes with preservation and/or poor survival of historical associations. importance to local interest contextual associations. Historic Townscape or built-up areas groups. Assets of limited value, but with of limited historic integrity in their Historic landscapes whose potential to contribute to local buildings, or built settings. value is limited by poor research objectives. preservation and/or poor survival of contextual associations. Negligible Assets with little or no surviving Buildings of no architectural or Landscapes of little or no archaeological interest. historical merit; buildings of an significant historical interest. intrusive character. Unknown The importance of the asset has not Buildings with some hidden (i.e. n/a been ascertained. inaccessible) potential for historic significance.
Assessment of Magnitude of Impact
5.2.24 The assessment of the magnitude of impact is the identification of the degree of the effect of the Scheme upon archaeology and the historic environment. The magnitude of impact is ranked without regard to the value of the asset. Impacts can be direct or indirect; primary or secondary; temporary or permanent; reversible or irreversible; and may arise as a consequence of construction or operation of the proposed development. For the purpose of this assessment, the following definitions have been applied.
5.2.25 Direct impacts are those that arise as a primary consequence of the Scheme. Direct impacts can result in the physical loss of part or all of an asset, and/or changes to its setting. English Heritage’s Conservation Principles state that setting is, ‘the surroundings in which a place is experienced, its local context, embracing present and past relationships to the adjacent landscape’.
5.2.26 Direct impacts resulting in physical loss are usually permanent and irreversible; normally occur as a consequence of construction of the Scheme; and are confined within the development footprint (‘the trace’). The magnitude of these impacts will depend on the proportion of the asset affected, and whether its key characteristics would be affected.
5.2.27 Direct impacts that affect the setting of an asset can occur as a consequence of construction or operation of the Scheme and can affect assets some distance from the development.
Stonehenge Environmental September 2009 115 Improvements Project Environmental Statement 11110202R ES Chapter 5 0_Archaeology_WA_Final_30-09-09 Wessex Archaeology
Assessment of impacts on setting refers to perceptible visual and aural (noise) effects that can be appreciated at a given time. Such impacts may be temporary or permanent, reversible or irreversible depending on the extent to which the cause of the impact can be removed. Impacts may also be transient where occurrence is sporadic or of limited duration, for example related to hours of operation or the frequency of passage of vehicles.
5.2.28 Indirect impacts occur as a secondary consequence of construction or operation of the development, and can result in physical loss or changes to the setting of an asset beyond the development footprint.
5.2.29 Severity of impacts has been judged taking into account their direct and indirect effects and whether they are temporary or permanent, reversible or irreversible. The cumulative effect of separate impacts has also been considered. The magnitude of impact (summation of direct and indirect impacts) is assigned one of the following descriptors; impacts may be adverse or beneficial and hence a nine-point scale results with ‘no change’ as its centre point:
• Major beneficial • Moderate beneficial • Minor beneficial • Negligible beneficial • No Change • Negligible adverse • Minor adverse • Moderate adverse • Major adverse
5.2.30 Table 5.2 below is adapted from DMRB 11.3.2 and provides a guide for assessing magnitude of impact in respect of archaeological assets, as agreed by the AWG.
Table 5.2 - Assessing Impact Magnitude Grading Archaeology Built heritage Historic landscape Major Changes to most or all key Change to key historic building Change to most or all key archaeological materials, such that elements, such that the resource is historic landscape elements, the resource is totally altered. totally altered. parcels or components; Comprehensive changes to setting. Comprehensive changes to the extreme visual effects; gross setting. change of noise or change to sound quality; fundamental changes to use or access; resulting in total change to historic landscape character unit. Moderate Changes to many key Changes to many key historic Change to many key historic archaeological materials, such that building elements, such that the landscape elements, parcels or the resource is clearly modified. resource is significantly modified. components; visual change to Considerable changes to setting Changes to the setting of an historic many key aspects of the historic that affect the character of the building, such that it is significantly landscape; noticeable asset. modified. differences in noise or sound quality; considerable changes to use or access; resulting in moderate changes to historic landscape character. Minor Changes to key archaeological Change to key historic building Change to few key historic materials, such that the resource is elements, such that the asset is landscape elements, parcels or
Stonehenge Environmental September 2009 116 Improvements Project Environmental Statement 11110202R ES Chapter 5 0_Archaeology_WA_Final_30-09-09 Wessex Archaeology
Grading Archaeology Built heritage Historic landscape slightly altered. slightly different. components; slight visual Slight changes to setting. Change to setting of an historic changes to few key aspects of building, such that it is noticeably historic landscape; limited changed. changes to noise levels or sound quality; slight changes to use or access; resulting in limited change to historic landscape character. Negligible Very minor changes to key Slight changes to historic building Very minor changes to key archaeological materials, or setting. elements or setting that hardly affect historic landscape elements, it. parcels or components; virtually unchanged visual effects; very slight changes in noise levels or sound quality; very slight changes to use or access; resulting in a very small change to historic landscape character. No change No change. No change to fabric or setting. No change to elements, parcels or components; no visual or audible changes; no changes in amenity or community factors.
5.2.31 For the purposes of this assessment, monuments with no visible surface expression are considered to have no setting as they cannot suffer visual intrusion or obstruction of views to them. However, monuments without surface expression may be components of monument groups that express attributes of the OUV of the WHS, the setting of which may be affected by visual impacts. Similarly, key views between monuments that express attributes of OUV may suffer visual impacts. Impacts on context and relationships between monuments are therefore considered through assessment of impact on key monument groups expressing attributes of OUV (see 5.2.40 below). Monuments with a visible surface expression have been identified from the condition survey undertaken for English Heritageii.
5.2.32 The impacts of noise arising from construction activities, traffic noise due to the operation of the New Visitor Facilities, and the gain in tranquillity for the immediate surrounds of the A344 following its closure are assessed in Section 8.0 of Volume 1 of this ES.
Definition of the Assessment Area
5.2.33 For the purposes of assessment, the Scheme has been divided into the following sections:
• New Visitor Facilities, Car and Coach Parking at Airman’s Corner. • A344 works – closure to public traffic of the A344 between Airman’s Corner and Byway 12 and use for a Visitor Transit Link to a Drop-off/Pick-up point at Byway 12; and closure and removal of the A344 between its junction with the A303(T) and Byway 12. • Decommissioning works to the existing facilities at the Stones. • Changes to traffic volumes on the A303(T) between Stonehenge Bottom and Longbarrow Crossroads. • Junction improvements at Longbarrow Crossroads. • Changes to traffic volumes on the A360 road corridor between Longbarrow and Airman’s Corner. • Junction improvements at Airman’s Corner.
Stonehenge Environmental September 2009 117 Improvements Project Environmental Statement 11110202R ES Chapter 5 0_Archaeology_WA_Final_30-09-09 Wessex Archaeology
5.2.34 The Assessment Area is defined as the area within which significant effects may occur, taking into account both the visual envelope of the Scheme and the nature and scale of change arising from the proposals. The extent of the Assessment Area assumes a ‘worst case’ scenario based on the greatest predicted level of intrusion from Construction or Operation of the Scheme, and consequently varies in each section of the Scheme. Within the Assessment Area the effects on the settings of monuments would diminish with distance from the Scheme, and a scale of effects on setting may be defined to reflect this and provide a framework for transparent and consistent assessment. Within this framework, assessments have been checked by field inspection and necessarily take account of the differing scale of effects between the Construction and Operation phases, and of the proportion of the asset affected. The visual envelope of the Scheme has been defined by intervisibility analysis of a digital terrain model derived from aerial LiDAR surveys (see Volume 2, Appendix A5.5).
5.2.35 The proposed New Visitor Facilities site at Airman’s Corner is visible within an area extending eastwards to Fargo Plantation, northwards to the Lesser Cursus ridgeline and south to the Winterbourne Stoke ridge line. In distant views, the viewshed extends to the west of the Till valley, to the north as far as Rollestone and south as far as Oatlands Hill. Within this visual envelope, the magnitude of impact varies according to distance and relative visibility as shown by the viewshed modeling; this is assessed on a monument-specific basis: no scale of impacts or zones of lesser impacts have been defined for this element of the Scheme.
5.2.36 The Existing Visitor Car Park at Stonehenge is visible over an area extending north to the Cursus and Durrington Down; west of Fargo Plantation and the Winterbourne Stoke Ridge; east to King Barrow Ridge; and south as far as Coneybury Hill. Removal of the visual intrusion caused by the car park would represent a substantial change over the existing conditions. It is considered that the effect of this change would be broadly consistent over much of the Assessment Area and again, therefore, no scale of impacts or zones of lesser impacts have been defined for this element of the Scheme.
5.2.37 The Assessment Areas for the A344 between Airman’s Corner and Byway 12, and between Byway 12 and Stonehenge Bottom; the A303(T) between Stonehenge Bottom and Longbarrow Crossroads; junction improvements at Longbarrow Crossroads; the A360 between Longbarrow and Airman’s Corner; and junction improvements at Airman’s Corner are defined as extending up to 500m from these existing roads and junctions. Within this Assessment Area, the effects on the settings of monuments would diminish with distance from the Scheme. Field inspection indicates that any effects on the settings of monuments in these sections of the Scheme during the construction or operational phases would be insignificant beyond 500m, taking into account the nature of the monuments; their settings; the traffic on the existing roads; and the nature of the impact or changes due to the Scheme. Within this distance, a scale of effects on
Stonehenge Environmental September 2009 118 Improvements Project Environmental Statement 11110202R ES Chapter 5 0_Archaeology_WA_Final_30-09-09 Wessex Archaeology
setting has been defined to provide a framework for transparent and consistent assessment of the impacts of removal of traffic from the A344; operation of the Visitor Transit System along the closed A344; changes to traffic flows on the A303(T) and A360; and junction improvements at Longbarrow Crossroads and Airman’s Corner, as set out in Table 5.3.
Table 5.3 – Scale of Effects on Setting Section Magnitude of Impact (change) 0-100m 100-200m 200-500m > 500m A344 closure Major Moderate Minor Negligible/No change A344 Visitor Transit System Minor Negligible Negligible/No change No change operation A360 road corridor Major Moderate Minor Negligible/No change Junction improvements Major Moderate Minor Negligible/No change A303(T) road corridor Negligible/No change
5.2.38 The proposed Visitor Transit System would utilise the existing A344 between Airman’s Corner and Byway 12. Transit vehicles 2.4m high would travel along the route at a frequency of up to 2 vehicles (1 in each direction) every 5 minutes at peak times. The scale of impact due to operation of the Visitor Transit System has been defined in the table above taking into account the scale of the transit vehicles and the projected frequency of movements.
5.2.39 The scales of impact due to removal of traffic from the A344; changes to traffic flows on the A360; and junction improvements at Longbarrow and Airman’s Corner (see table above) have been defined taking into account the visibility of the roads and the frequency of movement of large vehicles, such as coaches up to 4m high, along the existing roads. For the A303(T), the scale of impact (above) takes into account existing traffic conditions; additional traffic movements on the A303(T) due to closure of the A344; amelioration of existing frequent queuing at Stonehenge Bottom due to closure of the junction with the A344; and amelioration of existing queuing on the A303(T) westbound due to increased capacity on the roundabout at Longbarrow Crossroads.
5.2.40 A number of key monument groups that express attributes of the OUV of the WHS may be identified (see 5.3.7 and 5.3.60-62 below). The potential impact of the proposals on the setting of key monument groups within the Study Area has been assessed for each section of the Scheme, regardless of whether or not these key monument groups lie within the Assessment Area for the Scheme; other key monument groups have been excluded as they have no intervisibility with the Scheme.
5.2.41 Assessment of impact on the authenticity (see 5.3.8 below) of the WHS is achieved through assessment of impacts on the attributes of OUV (see 5.3.7 below). Integrity (see 5.3.8 below) refers to the wholeness or completeness of the WHS and is assessed separately.
Stonehenge Environmental September 2009 119 Improvements Project Environmental Statement 11110202R ES Chapter 5 0_Archaeology_WA_Final_30-09-09 Wessex Archaeology
Determination of Significance of Effect
5.2.42 Significance of effect is a product of the importance of the resource and the magnitude of the impact (change) upon it. Significance of effect on archaeology and the historic environment is assigned one of the following descriptors; effects may be adverse or beneficial, hence a nine- point scale results, with Neutral as its centre point:
• Very Large beneficial • Large beneficial • Moderate beneficial • Slight beneficial • Neutral • Slight adverse • Moderate adverse • Large adverse • Very Large adverse
5.2.43 The significance of the effects of construction and operation of the Scheme are assessed separately, taking into account agreed mitigation measures. The overall effects of the Scheme on any part of the archaeological resource are assessed as a combination of the impacts of construction and operation.
5.2.44 Table 5.4 is reproduced from DMRB 11.3.2 (Annexes 5, 6 and 7) and illustrates how the value of the asset and the magnitude of impact are combined to produce an assessment of the significance of effect, as agreed by the AWG; effects may be adverse or beneficial. Where a range of significance is indicated in the table, professional judgment has been used to take account of relevant factors, such as the nature of the resource and impact, in arriving at a single level of significance.
Table 5.4 – Impact Significance Matrix
MAGNITUDE OF IMPACT VALUE No Change Negligible Minor Moderate Major Moderate/ Large/Very Very High Neutral Slight Large Large Very Large
Moderate/ Moderate/ Large/Very High Neutral Slight Slight Large Large
Moderate/ Medium Neutral Neutral/Slight Slight Moderate Large
Slight/ Low Neutral Neutral/Slight Neutral/Slight Slight Moderate
Negligible Neutral Neutral Neutral/Slight Neutral/Slight Slight
Stonehenge Environmental September 2009 120 Improvements Project Environmental Statement 11110202R ES Chapter 5 0_Archaeology_WA_Final_30-09-09 Wessex Archaeology
5.3 Existing Conditions
Introduction
5.3.1 This section sets out the existing archaeological and historic environment conditions within the Study Area and reviews the assets that could be directly or indirectly affected by the Scheme. The historic development of the WHS is summarised and all known sites and monuments that could be affected by the Scheme are identified. More information on the known and potential archaeological and historic environment resources within the Study Area can be found in the Archaeological Baseline Assessment (Volume 2, Appendix A5.1).
Designated Sites and Monuments
5.3.2 The Study Area contains many archaeological and historic environment assets, not all of which are designated. Relevant designations are shown on Figure 5.2, and described below.
The Stonehenge World Heritage Site
5.3.3 The Stonehenge, Avebury and Associated Sites WHS was inscribed onto the World Heritage List in 1986. The nomination focused on the two megalithic monuments of Stonehenge and Avebury. However, it also included a number of Associated Sites within the WHS boundary; those at Stonehenge include: the Cursus; Woodhenge; Durrington Walls; and numerous Bronze Age round barrows surrounding Stonehenge. As well as these Associated Sites, the nomination document mentioned a number of other sites outside the WHS boundary, including Robin Hood’s Ball and a number of Neolithic long barrows within a 5km radius of Stonehenge.
5.3.4 The Site was inscribed onto the World Heritage List under 3 of the criteria set out in the 1972 UNESCO Convention:
• Criterion i – represent a masterpiece of human creative genius; • Criterion ii – exhibit an important interchange of human values, over a span of time or within a cultural area of the world, on developments in architecture or technology, monumental arts, town planning or landscape design; and • Criterion iii – bear a unique or at least exceptional testimony to a cultural tradition to a civilisation which is living or which has disappeared.
5.3.5 The Avebury part of the WHS is geographically separate from the Stonehenge part and benefits from its own Management Plan; it is not considered further in this assessment. The Stonehenge part of the WHS is referred to hereafter as ‘the Stonehenge WHS’.
5.3.6 A Statement of Significance setting out the OUV for Stonehenge, Avebury and Associated Sites was agreed by the UNESCO World Heritage Committee in July 2008, and is included in
Stonehenge Environmental September 2009 121 Improvements Project Environmental Statement 11110202R ES Chapter 5 0_Archaeology_WA_Final_30-09-09 Wessex Archaeology
Section 3.0 of the revised Stonehenge WHS Management Plan 2009 (see Volume 2, Appendix A1.1).
5.3.7 The Management Plan 2009 identifies a series of 7 attributes which together express the OUV of the Stonehenge WHS:
1. Stonehenge itself as a globally famous and iconic monument. 2. The physical remains of the Neolithic and Bronze Age funerary and ceremonial monuments and associated sites. 3. The siting of Neolithic and Bronze Age funerary and ceremonial sites and monuments in relation to the landscape. 4. The design of Neolithic and Bronze Age funerary and ceremonial sites and monuments in relation to the skies and astronomy. 5. The siting of Neolithic and Bronze Age funerary and ceremonial sites and monuments in relation to each other. 6. The disposition, physical remains and settings of the key Neolithic and Bronze Age funerary, ceremonial and other monuments and sites of the period, which together form a landscape without parallel. 7. The influence of the remains of Neolithic and Bronze Age funerary and ceremonial monuments and their landscape settings on architects, artists, historians, archaeologists and others.
5.3.8 Authenticity and integrity are also used as additional criteria in assessing the OUV of a World Heritage Site, although these were not considered for Stonehenge by the World Heritage Committee in 1986iii. Authenticity refers to the credibility and truthfulness of the way in which attributes carry evidence for the OUV of the Site. Integrity is a measure of the wholeness and intactness of the cultural heritage and whether it includes all attributes necessary to demonstrate its OUV, e.g. whether the WHS is of adequate size to ensure the complete representation of the attributes which carry the Site’s OUV. Integrity also applies more specifically to individual sites within the WHS.
5.3.9 The Management Plan 2009 sets out the following Vision for the Stonehenge WHS:
‘The Stonehenge WHS is globally important not just for Stonehenge, but for its unique and dense concentration of outstanding prehistoric monuments and sites, which together form a landscape without parallel. We will care for and safeguard this special area and its archaeology and will provide a more tranquil, biodiverse and rural setting for it, allowing present and future generations to enjoy it and the landscape more fully. We will also ensure that its special qualities are presented, interpreted and enhanced where necessary, so that visitors can better understand the extraordinary achievements of the prehistoric peoples who left us this rich legacy.’
5.3.10 The Management Plan 2009 identifies 7 priorities to move towards the achievement of the Vision. Amongst these, the most relevant priorities for the Scheme are to:
• remove or screen inappropriate structures or roads, in particular the A344, and keep the A303(T) improvements under review; • enhance the visitor experience by 2012 by providing improved interim facilities; and
Stonehenge Environmental September 2009 122 Improvements Project Environmental Statement 11110202R ES Chapter 5 0_Archaeology_WA_Final_30-09-09 Wessex Archaeology
• improve the interpretation of the WHS and increase access to selected monuments.
Scheduled Monuments
5.3.11 The landscape surrounding Stonehenge contains archaeological features such as barrow cemeteries/groups, other henges, and earthworks (e.g. linear boundaries). Evidence of these features survives as upstanding monuments or buried features, but is also recorded from earlier fieldwork, aerial photography and historic documents. There are 176 Scheduled Monuments within the Study Area, comprising 413 individual monuments (see gazetteer in Volume 2, Appendix A5.1) as shown on Figure 5.2. Of these, 144 Scheduled Monuments, comprising 337 monuments lie within the boundary of the World Heritage Site. The majority of these relate to prehistoric ritual and funerary practices. The remaining 32 Scheduled Monuments lie outside of the World Heritage Site and comprise 76 individual monuments.
Listed Buildings
5.3.12 There are 4 Grade II* and 42 Grade II listed buildings within the Study Area (Figure 5.2). Of these, 6 lie within the Assessment Area – the Airman’s Cross memorial; a milestone on the A344 opposite Stonehenge; 2 milestones alongside the A303(T); and 2 milestones on the A360: all are listed Grade II.
Registered Parks and Gardens
5.3.13 There are no Registered Parks and Gardens within the Study Area.
Conservation Areas
5.3.14 There are 2 Conservation Areas within, or partly within the Study Area (Figure 5.2), at West Amesbury and Winterbourne Stoke. These lie beyond the Assessment Area.
Historic Hedgerows and Boundaries
5.3.15 The Hedgerow Regulations 1997 (as amended) (‘the Regulations’) provide guidance on defining ‘Important’ hedgerows based on ecological and historic criteria. Inter alia, hedgerows are deemed to be ‘Important’ if they are documented to be of pre-enclosure date, which for the purposes of the Regulations is currently taken (by case law precedent) to mean pre-1845 (the earliest Act of Inclosure recorded in the Small Titles Act of 1896). It is generally taken that hedgerows or historic field boundaries are deemed Important under the Regulations if they can be demonstrated to exist on the appropriate parish tithe map. In the case of the present Scheme, much of the downland is shown as enclosed on tithe maps of the 1840s, and the
Stonehenge Environmental September 2009 123 Improvements Project Environmental Statement 11110202R ES Chapter 5 0_Archaeology_WA_Final_30-09-09 Wessex Archaeology
majority of field boundaries within the Study Area are therefore taken to be ‘Important’ under the Regulations. The Scheme proposals would not result in the loss of any historic hedgerows.
Area of Special Archaeological Significance
5.3.16 The whole of the Study Area, including land within and outside the WHS, is identified as an Area of Special Archaeological Significance within the Salisbury District Local Plan.
Historic Development of the Study Area
5.3.17 Although part of the Study Area lies beyond the boundaries of the Stonehenge WHS, much of the area which would be affected either directly or indirectly by the Scheme lies within it. A number of more or less comprehensive summaries of the archaeology of Stonehenge and its environs have been published, and a detailed rehearsal of the development of Stonehenge and its landscape can be found in the Research Frameworkiv. The following text is based on the detailed archaeological description of the WHS presented at Appendix G of the Management Plan, 2009 adapted to take into account the extent of the Study Area for this assessment. A more detailed discussion of the known and potential archaeological and historic environment resources within the Study Area can be found in the Archaeological Baseline Assessment at Volume 2, Appendix A5.1. Archaeological and historic environment features have been allocated a unique number sequence for ease of reference (see gazetteer in Volume 2, Appendix A5.1) and these numbers are used throughout this chapter of the ES; those in the Assessment Area are shown on Figures 5.4 and 5.5.
Palaeolithic and Mesolithic
5.3.18 Evidence of activity in the Study Area during early prehistory is sparse, with only one find of Palaeolithic date, a flint core, recorded. Mesolithic activity is better attested and includes the sockets for 4 large Mesolithic posts (c.8000 BC) found on the site of the Existing Stonehenge Car Park (1099, 1131). Such evidence is exceptionally rare in Britain, and this line of post- holes has been described as the first monument in Englandv. Environmental analysis of the contents of the post pits show the surrounding area to have been characterised by pine woodlandvi. Further evidence of Mesolithic activity comes from finds of flintwork close to the monument itself in Stonehenge Triangle (1146) and from slightly further away at King Barrow Ridge (886, 977) and Normanton Down (1122).
Neolithic
5.3.19 Evidence for Neolithic activity is dominated by ceremonial and funerary monuments and is particularly dense within the WHS; however, significant monuments of this period also exist in
Stonehenge Environmental September 2009 124 Improvements Project Environmental Statement 11110202R ES Chapter 5 0_Archaeology_WA_Final_30-09-09 Wessex Archaeology
the rest of the Study Area. Environmental evidence has shown that these monuments were built in grassland created by the removal of the natural ancient woodland documented in the area in the preceding Mesolithic periodvii.
5.3.20 The earliest monuments of this period in the Study Area comprise long barrows, the Cursus monuments, and the Robin Hood’s Ball causewayed enclosureviii (1518). The Stonehenge Cursus (1044), a long thin enclosure bounded by a ditch and bank and probably used for processional uses, was constructed around 3630-3370 BCix. The Lesser Cursus (1442), which lies on the crest of a ridge on Winterbourne Stoke Down lying between 2 dry valleys that lead into the Till Valley, was also built at the end of this period.
5.3.21 A long barrow (1664) lies just over 1km southwest of the Lesser Cursus, on the crest of the same ridge. Several long barrows are sited around the head of the Spring Bottom dry valley; these include 3 on Normanton Down (1173, 1256, 1286), the Longbarrow Crossroads barrow (1575), and barrows on Wilsford Down (1472) and Lake Down (1403). Long barrows were also sited on the crest of the Avon-Till-Stonehenge Bottom interfluve between Knighton Down and Robin Hood’s Ball (1009, 1034, 1372). Many of these monument groups are intervisible.
5.3.22 The earliest phase of Stonehenge (1075) dates to around 3000 BCx, when a circular ditched enclosure was dug. This henge monument, which is still visible today, had a circular chalk bank with an external causewayed ditch some 110m in diameter, with a principal entrance on the north-east side and a secondary one to the south. Fifty-six circular pits, known as the ‘Aubrey Holes’ after their original discoverer John Aubrey (1626-1697) were dug inside the henge, probably also at around this timexi. Excavation of these pits shows that they held timber posts, however, little is known of the nature of the superstructure indicated by these posts. Later in the period, following the rotting or removal of the posts, cremated human bones were placed in several of the resulting holes. In the period 2900 BC-2600 BC, extensive timber structures were erected at the centre and at the entrances to the henge. Cremation burials were also cut into the bank and the partially infilled henge ditches at a similar date.xii
5.3.23 Other henge monuments were constructed in the area during this period. Coneybury Henge (904) stood within the Study Area on the crest of Coneybury Hill, just over 1km to the southeast of Stonehenge; the monument today has no surface expression. Just outside the Study Area, 3km northeast of Stonehenge, lie the massive henge of Durrington Walls (c.2500 BC) and the smaller Woodhenge (built around 2300 BC). Both Durrington Walls and Woodhenge contained large concentric timber structures and would have been a major focus of the landscape at this time alongside Stonehenge. The timber structures at Durrington Walls now appear to be earlier than the encircling bank and ditch which form the henge enclosure.xiii
Stonehenge Environmental September 2009 125 Improvements Project Environmental Statement 11110202R ES Chapter 5 0_Archaeology_WA_Final_30-09-09 Wessex Archaeology
Stonehenge and the henge at Durrington do not appear to have been intervisible, although both locations are visible from Coneybury Henge.
5.3.24 The remains of 10 late Neolithic houses situated inside and just outside the Durrington Walls henge may be the surviving remains of an extensive settlement, possibly occupied on a seasonal basis.xiv Other evidence for settlement of this period, in the form of flint scatters and 1 excavated pit (867, 921, 898), has been found within the Study Area on King Barrow Ridge. Finds of Neolithic flintwork have been made across the Study Area and are densest in the WHS on the eastern side of the Avon-Till interfluve; this apparent density of activity may reflect greater levels of archaeological survey around the upstanding monuments in this part of the Study Area.
Bronze Age
5.3.25 Ceremonial traditions underwent a significant change during the early Bronze Age with new funerary monuments in the form of round barrows being adopted for prominent burials. Round barrows are the commonest class of monument in the Study Area, accounting for nearly half of the recorded monuments; many survive as earthworks, although a substantial number are visible only as cropmark ring ditches across the Study Area. The majority of these barrows are sited on the crests of ridges overlooking river valleys and major dry valleys, with many grouped together in cemeteries. Particularly extensive barrow cemeteries exist east of Winterbourne Stoke; and at Normanton Down, Lake Down, and King Barrow Ridge. The barrow groups at Winterbourne Stoke East and West are also notable as they lie facing each other, only 500m apart, on opposing sides of the Till Valley. Significant barrow groups at the Cursus and Lesser Cursus indicate that these earlier ceremonial foci retained some significance in the Bronze Age.
5.3.26 The early Bronze Age also saw significant modifications to the design and appearance of Stonehenge. The stone structures which characterise this phase of Stonehenge were erected in place of the timber structures and re-modeled several times during the period around 2550- 2000 BC.xv The stone settings initially consisted of bluestones (1073), imported from the Preseli Hills in West Wales, later being complemented by the unique stone structures visible today (1074), built around 2500 BC. These trilithons, constructed from huge shaped sandstone blocks (‘sarsens’) brought from the Marlborough Downs, epitomise Stonehenge to many and few other megalithic stone structures exist which have a similar level of architectural and technical sophistication. It was uniquely built using woodworking techniques which may have been used in the earlier structures at Durrington Walls and later ones at Woodhenge. Together with Avebury, it would have been a major centre for the region and possibly north-western Europe. There is evidence from outside the Study Area that some prehistoric people who were buried at Boscombe Down, near Stonehenge were from continental Europe.
Stonehenge Environmental September 2009 126 Improvements Project Environmental Statement 11110202R ES Chapter 5 0_Archaeology_WA_Final_30-09-09 Wessex Archaeology
5.3.27 As during the preceding Neolithic period, Stonehenge was both a focal point and a component of a structured ceremonial landscape in which inter-visibility with other monuments and spaces was likely to have been important. In the early Bronze Age, Stonehenge was linked physically with Stonehenge Bottom and the valley of the River Avon by a ceremonial approach to the site, known as The Avenue (909). There was, and still is, a strong visual relationship to the extensive barrow cemeteries surrounding the henge. These include the King Barrow Ridge barrow groups, the Cursus barrows and the Normanton Down barrow group, all built on prominent ridges within the landscape which create a well-defined area or ‘amphitheatre’ with Stonehenge at its centre.xvi
5.3.28 During the later Bronze Age (c.1600-1000 BC) evidence for settlement becomes more widespread. There is evidence of settlement from excavation and field-walking at several sites across the Study Area (899, 1321, 1391, 1511), including Longbarrow Crossroads adjacent to the Winterbourne Stoke barrow cemetery (1593). There is also evidence for the development of large-scale land division across much of the area. Several linear boundaries are recorded, both as earthworks and cropmarks across the Study Area (1278, 1499, 1738). Extensive field systems, visible as cropmarks, covered large parts of the Study Area. The majority of these features are undated, having not been sampled by excavation, but appear, on the basis of similar excavated examples, to date between the later Bronze Age to the Romano-British periods.
Iron Age and Romano-British
5.3.29 Although it is likely that some of the cropmark field systems and settlements were in use during these periods, securely dated evidence for activity that corresponds to this is extremely sparse across the whole Study Area. A hillfort, known as Vespasian’s Camp, was constructed just outside the eastern edge of the Study Area near Amesbury. A burial was cut into the partially silted-up palisade ditch adjacent to Stonehenge during the Iron Age.xvii Stake holes of possible Iron Age date (1056) were located during works at the Existing Stonehenge Car Park and may indicate further activity of some kind close to the monument during this period. Pottery and other finds of this period have been found at several sites across the Study Area including during excavation of ditches of barrows in the Net Down group (1709, 1728-9, 1750).
5.3.30 Evidence of Romano-British activity is more widespread, with finds of the period recovered from across the area. Farmsteads and small un-enclosed towns of the Roman era are known across Salisbury Plain, and a settlement dated to this period has been excavated on Winterbourne Stoke Down (1703). A further settlement known from cropmarks (1751) 800m north-north-east of this site is thought to be contemporary; both sites appear to be linked or
Stonehenge Environmental September 2009 127 Improvements Project Environmental Statement 11110202R ES Chapter 5 0_Archaeology_WA_Final_30-09-09 Wessex Archaeology
attached to a linear boundary running between the two. A burial of probable Romano-British date at Stonehenge (1070) may indicate continued interest in, if not use of the monument. Outside the Study Area, a small Roman building interpreted as a rural shrine has been recently excavated near to the Cuckoo Stone, south-west of Durrington Walls.xviii
Anglo-Saxon and Medieval
5.3.31 In common with other downland areas, there appears to have been a substantial shift in land- use in the Study Area over the course of the Anglo-Saxon period. The extensive field systems covering the downs that were characteristic of later prehistory and the Romano-British period were eventually replaced by the medieval period with a pattern of settlements in the valley floors, utilising a regime of open field agriculture on the lower slopes of the river valleys and open grazing land on the intervening downs.
5.3.32 Much of the Study Area probably served as the agricultural hinterland of settlements in the surrounding valleys and evidence for activity of these periods in the Study Area is consequently extremely sparse. In addition to a handful of stray finds of Anglo-Saxon date (883, 1310, 1489, 1844), intrusive secondary burials at the Winterbourne Stoke and Winterbourne Stoke West barrow groups have been ascribed a Saxon date (1539, 1817). The present settlements at Winterbourne Stoke (1086, 894) and Wilsford are mentioned in Domesday and it is likely that many of the other settlements in the Avon and Till Valleys had been established by the close of the Saxon period. Within the Study Area, churches at Rollestone, Winterbourne Stoke and Wilsford can be demonstrated to be of at least medieval origin, possessing fabric dating to this period (1831, 1086, 894). Earthworks relating to shrunken medieval settlement have been recorded at Rollestone, Winterbourne Stoke and Asserton (1831, 1086, 1824).
5.3.33 To the east of the Study Area, Amesbury was the centre for a royal estate during the Saxon period, and the abbey was founded in AD 979. It is probable that the town itself grew up around these establishments but little is known of the way in which the surrounding landscape was utilised. However, the remains of several Saxon sunken-featured buildings at Countess East may have been an early Saxon settlement which later shifted to the town of Amesbury.xix
5.3.34 It has been suggested that Stonehenge itself may have been used as an execution site during the Anglo-Saxon period, based on the discovery of a decapitated man buried at the monument around AD 645xx xxi and the similarity of the name ‘Stonehenge’ to the Saxon words ‘stone’ and ‘heng’, or hang.
Stonehenge Environmental September 2009 128 Improvements Project Environmental Statement 11110202R ES Chapter 5 0_Archaeology_WA_Final_30-09-09 Wessex Archaeology
Post-Medieval
5.3.35 The pattern of settlement and land-use that had been established by the medieval period continued with few modifications well into the post-medieval period. The earliest maps show the majority of the Study Area as unenclosed downland crossed by a profusion of trackways, connecting the villages in the valleys and providing access to the high ground of the downs and Salisbury Plain. Many prehistoric monuments are also shown on these maps. These appear to have been utilised as navigational landmarks; many trackways align on groups of monuments, such as those at Stonehenge and Longbarrow Crossroads, or run alongside linear monument groups, such as the King Barrows and the barrows south of the Cursus. These routeways were heavily rationalised around the end of the 18th century when several were turnpiked by act of Parliament. These include what are now the principal highways within the Study Area, the A303(T), A344 and A360. Monuments relating to this process within the Study Area include the remnants of former roads and tracks (884, 995, 1059), and milestones set up along the improved roads (1057, 1999).
5.3.36 Enclosure of common farming resources appears to have occurred at a comparatively late date in this area, with few extensive areas of enclosed farmland shown on maps prior to the middle of the 19th century. Limited enclosure of land immediately adjacent to villages had occurred by the end of the 18th century, due largely to the creation of water meadows from what was previously common meadowland on valley floors. Ordnance Survey drawings show the downs depicted as unenclosed into the early 19th century, but by the time tithe maps of the area were produced in the 1840s much of the downland had been enclosed. Much of this enclosure appears to have been informal and took place without recourse to inclosure by Act of Parliament; such Acts exist only for Figheldean and Shrewton parishes. Some farms within the Study Area, such as Greenland Farm and Middle Farm, moved out of the villages and into the newly created fields on the downs. The extent of enclosed land appears to have waned by the 1880s as large, unenclosed areas of downland are depicted on the downs above Winterbourne Stoke and Berwick St James.
5.3.37 Another significant feature of the 19th century was the ornamenting of the landscape through the addition of picturesque tree planting. These include supposed commemorative plantations, such as the Nile Clumps; those designed to enhance the skyline, such as Fargo Plantation; and those augmenting existing features, such as the Vespasian’s Camp and King Barrow plantations.
Modern
5.3.38 The acquisition of much of the land in the north of the Study Area for use as a military training ground at the close of the 19th century initially brought few physical changes to the landscape. Military sites were established across the area from the start of the 20th century onwards, but
Stonehenge Environmental September 2009 129 Improvements Project Environmental Statement 11110202R ES Chapter 5 0_Archaeology_WA_Final_30-09-09 Wessex Archaeology
were most highly concentrated in the north-eastern corner of the Study Area. The Study Area includes a number of sites of military developments which were of worldwide significance.
5.3.39 Initial military activity saw the establishment of tented camps at Larkhill, Durrington, Rollestone, Fargo and Knighton Down, and the use of an extensive area north of the Study Area for artillery practice. Several areas used for practice trenches from this early period of military use have been recorded as cropmarks (997, 1004, 1012, 1047, 1067, 1118, 1325, 1425, and 1797).
5.3.40 The first military aerodrome was founded at Larkhill in 1910 (1148) and the area became a focus for early military flight and the development of aerial warfare. The first fatalities from military flight also took place in the Study Area and monuments to commemorate these early deaths were raised at Airman’s Corner, Fargo and Larkhill (2094, 1301). During the First World War, many of the camps became more permanent, with tents being replaced by timber huts. Larkhill became the focus of extensive military training encampments, both tented and hutted. Further airfields were built at Rollestone, Lake Down and Stonehenge (2046), and a military hospital was built at Fargo. There are few traces of the early airfields, as these largely utilised grass airstrips and subsequent clearance or redevelopment has removed associated buildings. Railways were built from Amesbury to serve the growing installations in the northern part of the Study Area (1485, 1950). Although gradually removed from the 1920s onwards, sections of railway lines survive as earthworks immediately west and east of Larkhill.
5.3.41 By the 1920s extensive military facilities existed in the northern part of the Study Area, centred on Larkhill Camp. The airfield buildings at Stonehenge were due to have been removed by this date, following complaints at their siting so close to the monument. Although put up for auction for removal and re-erection elsewhere, the buyer retained them in-situ as farm buildings and they became known as the Stonehenge Pedigree Stock Farm. They were removed by the close of the decade and there are now no surface traces of these buildings.
5.3.42 The 1930s and Second World War saw further intense military activity focused on Larkhill and Rollestone; recorded activity elsewhere in the Study Area is minimal. Larkhill remains an extensive operational military facility today and has seen several programmes of reconstruction, meaning few features relating to the early development of the site remain.
Built Heritage
5.3.43 Beyond the historic settlement cores and associated Conservation Areas at Winterbourne Stoke and West Amesbury (see above), the built heritage of the Study Area is dominated by 20th century military development at Larkhill. A number of listed buildings relate to the military history of the area, including the Airman’s Cross memorial and hangars relating to the Royal
Stonehenge Environmental September 2009 130 Improvements Project Environmental Statement 11110202R ES Chapter 5 0_Archaeology_WA_Final_30-09-09 Wessex Archaeology
Aircraft Establishment and structures relating to the two World Wars at Larkhill. Other prominent military structures include Rollestone Camp and the Second World War ammunition dump.
Historic Landscape Character
5.3.44 Notwithstanding the prominent survival of prehistoric monuments, the historic landscape in the Study Area is characterised primarily by downland enclosed in the 19th century. Historic landscape survey has demonstrated that most of the extant boundaries in the WHS are modernxxii, and the enclosure landscape is characterised by large, survey planned fields presently defined by post and wire stock fencing.
5.3.45 The Study Area has been crossed by many transport routes some of which, though no longer in use, have left lasting traces in the landscape. The principal highways within the Study Area, the A303(T), A344 and A360, were all turnpike roads created in the 18th century, formalising what was previously a network of tracks crossing the southern reaches of Salisbury Plain, many of which utilised Stonehenge and other monuments as navigational landmarks.
5.3.46 The expansion and reconfiguration of the military installations throughout the 20th century has been the most conspicuous use of the southern fringe of Salisbury Plain Training Area, including the northern part of the WHS. However, the acquisition of the Plain by the military has ensured the survival of huge numbers of archaeological sites and large areas of chalk grassland, as it was not subjected to intensive agricultural techniques.xxiii
5.3.47 The acquisition of Stonehenge for the nation and the subsequent development of The National Trust estate have also been defining influences on the development of the landscape within the WHS, in particular with regard to land management. Although present land use within the Study Area is predominantly arable cultivation, a programme of grassland reversion within the WHS has sought to restore a downland pasture setting to the prehistoric monuments.
Cultural Heritage
5.3.48 Although there are few certainties about the meanings that Stonehenge has held for people through the ages, the likely cultural and ceremonial importance of the area to prehistoric peoples from at least the Mesolithic period onwards is demonstrated by the construction of successive monuments in the Study Area. It is the survival of the prehistoric features in the historic and modern landscape that has ensured that the area has, for centuries, attracted the attention of visitors, of people seeking spiritual inspiration, of scholars, artists and authors. The alignment of Stonehenge, the Avenue and the Heel Stone with the midsummer solstice sunrise
Stonehenge Environmental September 2009 131 Improvements Project Environmental Statement 11110202R ES Chapter 5 0_Archaeology_WA_Final_30-09-09 Wessex Archaeology
and midwinter solstice sunset embodies the significance of those events to the builders of Stonehenge, and this connection remains a focus for many modern Druids and pagans today.
5.3.49 Despite its relative isolation, Stonehenge has long attracted tourists. It has been the subject of scientific study and debate, of artistic and literary works, of popular festivals and religious ceremonies and of archaeological investigation.
Review of Field Survey Results
5.3.50 A series of archaeological field surveys was undertaken as part of the assessment process, in order to investigate potential direct impacts on buried archaeological remains. These comprised non-intrusive geophysical and earthwork surveys at Airman’s Corner, together with test-pitting and trial trenching in areas of proposed disturbance in order to validate the results of geophysical survey and confirm the survival, nature, state of preservation and significance of archaeological remains. This section summarises the surveys undertaken and the results of these; full reports on the surveys are presented in Volume 2, Appendices A5.3, A5.4, A5.7, A5.9. The results of previous fieldwork at the Existing Visitor Car Park at Stonehenge and at Longbarrow Crossroads are also summarised below.
Proposed New Visitor Facilities at Airman’s Corner
5.3.51 The proposed New Visitor Facilities site at Airman’s Corner lies within the WHS. The site has been the subject of a series of archaeological investigations in connection with the proposed New Visitor Facilities, including geophysical survey, archaeological test-pitting, and trial trenching.
5.3.52 Geophysical survey (Volume 2, Appendices A5.3 and A5.4) identified several anomalies of clear anthropogenic origin. North-west of the present road junction these include a circular feature; a ring of pit-type anomalies; and the former alignment of the B3086 running northwards from Airman’s Corner. The circular feature corresponds with the enclosing ditch of a Scheduled bowl barrow (1620), and several anomalies within this ditch may represent internal features related to the barrow. The ring of pits has been interpreted as the remains of a prehistoric timber circle or prehistoric pit circle (which never held timber posts), and probably represents a previously unknown prehistoric ritual monument. Both the Scheduled barrow and the ring of pits appear to form part of the linear monument group which includes the Lesser Cursus; none of these features lie within the proposed development area. Elsewhere within the geophysical survey area, a profusion of discrete circular and sub-circular anomalies were recorded; these were subsequently investigated by trial trenching (see 5.3.55 below).
Stonehenge Environmental September 2009 132 Improvements Project Environmental Statement 11110202R ES Chapter 5 0_Archaeology_WA_Final_30-09-09 Wessex Archaeology
5.3.53 An archaeological earthwork survey of the Airman’s Corner site revealed a cultivated landscape where traces of earlier activity had for the most part long been levelled (Volume 2, Appendix 5.9). A slight earthwork interpreted as a short length of levelled linear ditch orientated northwest-southeast recorded in the base of the dry valley southeast of the junction has been suggested to be of later Bronze Age date, possibly forming part of an extensive linear feature (1499) visible on aerial photographs to the northwest and southeast of the Site (Figure 5.4). However, subsequent evaluation work has suggested that this earthwork is much more recent in date. Nevertheless, based on the aerial photographic evidence a prehistoric linear feature may once have existed here.
5.3.54 Archaeological evaluation of the Airman’s Corner site comprised archaeological test-pitting and trial trenching (Volume 2, Appendix A5.7). Archaeological test pitting was undertaken to investigate and mitigate the impact of geotechnical site investigation (SI) works on the archaeological resource of the WHS and provide a random sample of the artefact content of the topsoil within the Site. A total of 40 archaeological test pits, each 1m2 was excavated at the locations of each SI intervention. Test pits were hand excavated and the topsoil was sieved for artefactual content. Finds were recovered from 34 of the 40 test pits and comprise a small assemblage of debitage from flint working, consistent with a later Neolithic or Bronze Age date; and burnt flint consistent with a broad prehistoric date range. The nature and size of the flint assemblage is typical of a ‘background’ level of activity as might be expected within the WHS; no concentrations of flint indicative of more significant activity were identified.
5.3.55 In order to investigate the survival of buried archaeological remains and deposits of geo- archaeological potential that could be affected by the proposed development, archaeological trial trenching examined the site of the New Visitor Centre building and associated services, the New Coach Drop-off/Pick-up point and Ancillary Building and associated services; New Car and Coach Parking areas, access roads and associated drainage; and the transit system access and turning area. Land required for the proposed junction improvements lies mostly within the existing highway boundary and was not included in the survey area for road safety reasons. Fifty-two trenches each 30m long and 2m wide were excavated, representing a sample in excess of 5% by area. Apart from a single undated possible post hole containing fragments of burnt flint, all features recorded were either modern (plough scars) or natural tree throw holes.
Existing Visitor Car Park at Stonehenge
5.3.56 Although no additional archaeological surveys have been undertaken in this location in respect of the current Scheme, the area of the Existing Visitor Car Park has seen significant levels of excavation and monitoring since the construction of the first facilities at the site in the mid- 1930s. These are reviewed in Volume 2, Appendix A5.1 and the results are included in the summary of the historic development of the Study Area (above).
Stonehenge Environmental September 2009 133 Improvements Project Environmental Statement 11110202R ES Chapter 5 0_Archaeology_WA_Final_30-09-09 Wessex Archaeology
Proposed Junction Improvements at Longbarrow Crossroads
5.3.57 A Late Bronze Age settlement was discovered and excavated in 1967 during works to construct the present roundabout at Longbarrow Crossroads (1593). Settlement evidence comprised the post-holes of at least 3 hut structures, a north-south aligned "stockade" trench and several pits containing Deverel-Rimbury sherds. A watching brief on road works just west of the roundabout in 1999 found further evidence of settlement. The full extent of settlement activity at this location is not known, however geophysical survey north-west of the crossroads has detected many linear and circular anomalies which are possibly further elements of this settlementxxiv.
5.3.58 No additional archaeological surveys have been undertaken in this location in respect of the current Scheme, as the area affected by the proposals is currently under dense woodland.
Baseline Sites and Monuments
5.3.59 This section presents a summary of the principal sites and monuments likely to be affected, directly or indirectly, by the Scheme. These have been identified by desk-based assessment and field visits, and with reference to the condition survey of monuments within the WHSxxv. This survey was undertaken by expert archaeologists and consequently some sites recorded to be extant may be difficult to discern in the field by those less acquainted with the form of certain sites. Assessment of effects on such sites has been checked in the field. All known sites and monuments within the Assessment Area are shown on Figures 5.4 and 5.5. The Scheme is subdivided into the following elements for ease of description, thus:
• New Visitor Facilities, Car and Coach Parking at Airman’s Corner. • A344 works - closure to public traffic of the A344 between Airman’s Corner and Byway 12 and use for a Visitor Transit System to a Drop-off/Pick-up point at Byway 12; and closure and removal of the A344 between its junction with the A303(T) and Byway 12. • Decommissioning works to the Existing Visitor Facilities at the Stones. • Junction improvements at Longbarrow Crossroads. • The A360 road corridor between Longbarrow and Airman’s Corner • Junction improvements at Airman’s Corner.
5.3.60 Based on the discussion of the attributes of the OUV of the Stonehenge WHS in Sections 3.3.7– 3.3.23 of the Management Plan 2009 (see Appendix A1.1) , and discussions with the AWG, the following key monument groups which express attributes of OUV may be identified (note: this is not an exhaustive list):
• Stonehenge and the Stonehenge Avenue; • The Stonehenge barrow group; • The Cursus; • Normanton Down barrow group; • The Cursus barrows; • The King Barrows;
Stonehenge Environmental September 2009 134 Improvements Project Environmental Statement 11110202R ES Chapter 5 0_Archaeology_WA_Final_30-09-09 Wessex Archaeology
• Coneybury henge; • Durrington Walls; • Woodhenge; • The Durrington Down barrow groups; • The Lesser Cursus and associated barrows; • The Winterbourne Stoke barrow group; • Lake barrows; • Wilsford Barrows; • Lake Down barrows; • Vespasian’s Camp barrows; and • Robin Hood’s Ball and various long barrows outside the WHS boundary.
5.3.61 Of these, the Scheme has the potential to impact the following key monument groups; other key monument groups listed above have no intervisibility with the Scheme and/or are located at distance:
• Stonehenge and the Stonehenge Avenue; • The Stonehenge barrow group; • The Cursus; • Normanton Down barrow group; • The Cursus barrows; • The King Barrows; • Coneybury henge; • The Durrington Down barrow groups; • The Lesser Cursus and associated barrows; • The Winterbourne Stoke barrow group, and barrows to the north of this.
5.3.62 The components of these potentially impacted monument groups are discussed in Volume 2, Appendix A5.1.
New Visitor Facilities, Car and Coach Parking at Airman’s Corner
5.3.63 The site is located on the western edge of the WHS and comprises land to the north-west, north-east and south-east of the existing crossroads; the WHS boundary runs north-south along the current line of the A360 and B3086. The proposed New Visitor Centre building, Car Park and access roads would be situated in the south-eastern field; ancillary facilities and Coach Drop-off/Pick-up point in the north-east; and Coach Parking in the north-western field, outside the WHS boundary. The B3086 would be realigned along its previous, historic course and would provide egress from the proposed New Coach Park. New planting would screen the Ancillary Building, Coach Drop-off/Pick-up and New Coach Park in views from the north, east and west; the majority of this new planting would utilise previously developed land along the current line of the B3086. Existing trees along the northern edge of the A344 would be retained to screen views from the south. There would be some re-contouring of levels in the location of the New Visitor Centre building. Visitor Transit System vehicles would use a Drop- off/Pick-up point on the north side of the New Visitor Centre building. A minimal lighting scheme would be provided to meet security requirements outside normal hours of operation
Stonehenge Environmental September 2009 135 Improvements Project Environmental Statement 11110202R ES Chapter 5 0_Archaeology_WA_Final_30-09-09 Wessex Archaeology
and for visitor and staff safety during twilight hours. Land within the site boundary would be managed as pasture.
5.3.64 The whole of the proposed development site has previously been ploughed. The only extant monument within the site is a dew pond (or ‘sheep pond’) of likely 19th century date in the south-eastern field, adjacent to the A360 (2136). This square earthwork feature is an example of a type widely excavated on chalk downlands in Wiltshire and elsewhere in southern England by families from the village of Imber on Salisbury Plain, and is shown on the OS First Edition map (c. 1887). A well and well house also marked on the First Edition map are no longer extant.
5.3.65 The area from which the proposed development would be visible extends within the WHS to Fargo Plantation and the Cursus in the east; north to the Lesser Cursus; and south to the Winterbourne Stoke Ridge. Outside the WHS, the visual envelope extends north to Rollestone Camp; west to Fore Down and beyond to High Down, north of Winterbourne Stoke; and south towards Oatlands Hill: views from these areas would be at distances of 2-3km. Within the Assessment Area, some 63 upstanding monuments fall within the ‘visual envelope’, including:
• The Great Cursus (1044) and a barrow on its western end (1362); • The Monarch of the Plain (1333) and a bowl barrow south-west of the Cursus (1360); • Barrows associated with the Lesser Cursus (1495, 1513, 1523, 1534, 1583, 1599); • Three barrows north of the Winterbourne Stoke Group (1533, 1562, 1589); • Barrows amongst the Winterbourne Stoke Group (1490, 1497, 1508, 1512, 1514, 1519, 1522, 1524-6, 1540, 1545, 1551, 1554, 1556, 1559, 1578-9, 1581, 1585-8, 1592, 1594, 1597, 1600); • Barrows amongst the Winterbourne Stoke West Group (1802-5, 1812-16) and the later Coniger earthwork enclosure (1810); • Earthwork traces of a Romano-British settlement on Winterbourne Stoke Down (1703); • Round barrows (1689, 1640, 1609) and a long barrow (1664) on Winterbourne Stoke Down; • A round barrow north-west of Airman’s Corner (1620); and • A group of ploughed barrows amongst the Rollestone Field Group (1637-8, 1640, 1644, 1647, 1653-4, 1662, 1671).
5.3.66 This visual envelope includes the following monument groups expressing attributes of OUV:
• The Great Cursus and barrows on its western end; • The Lesser Cursus and associated barrows; and • The Winterbourne Stoke group of barrows and barrows to the north of this.
5.3.67 In addition to these monument groups, the site would also be visible from a long barrow (1664) outside the WHS on Winterbourne Stoke Down, which has line of sight to the Cursus. An upstanding scheduled round barrow (1620) north-west of the junction appears to form part of a ridgeline barrow cemetery that contributes to the OUV of the WHS, as does a circular pit arrangement with no surface expression identified by geophysical survey close by; neither of these features lies within the proposed development area.
Stonehenge Environmental September 2009 136 Improvements Project Environmental Statement 11110202R ES Chapter 5 0_Archaeology_WA_Final_30-09-09 Wessex Archaeology
5.3.68 Trial trenching of the proposed development area did not locate any significant buried archaeological remains. A possible long-distance land division (1499) of likely Bronze Age date known from aerial photographs to the south-east and north-west may extend across the New Visitor Facilities site, although this was not located by geophysical survey or trial trenching; a slight earthwork suggested to be part of this extensive feature would not be affected by the proposed development. North-west of the junction, an extensive field system is visible on aerial photographs and in the geophysical survey results. A group of possible pits (1988) north-east of the junction were recorded by geophysical survey in 1992, but were not identified by further geophysical survey and trial trenching in 2009. Three possible ring ditches visible on aerial photographs (1563) south-east of the junction are thought to be fungus rings; no archaeological features were found during trial trenching here.
Decommissioning Works to the Existing Facilities at the Stones
5.3.69 The Existing Visitor Facilities at the Stones would be removed and replaced by operational Hub facilities for site staff; decommissioning work would be confined to the footprint of the Existing Visitor Facilities. The Existing Car Park surface would be punctured to allow drainage, covered with topsoil and restored to grass; the Hub facilities would be approached across this area via a footpath and vehicular access from what is now the A344. Visitors would approach the Stones via a footpath along the line of the existing A344. The new footpaths and the existing permanent footpath approaching the Stones would be surfaced with a green-coloured bound aggregate to reduce visibility.
5.3.70 The Assessment Area for this section of the Scheme is defined as land visible from the car park (see 5.3.73 below). Previous investigations within the Existing Visitor Car Park and pedestrian underpass have excavated and recorded a number of groups of features, including:
• Four Mesolithic pits, thought to relate to the earliest phase of ritual/ceremonial activity at Stonehenge (1131, 1099); • A group of stakeholes and associated flint tools of probable Neolithic date (1138); • Part of a Late Neolithic palisade ditch excavated ahead of construction of the underpass (1108); • A crouched burial of Late Bronze Age or Romano-British date (1098); and • Late Bronze Age pottery sherds (1107).
5.3.71 Although located by excavation, it is unclear whether all these remains have been removed completely within the footprint of the existing development.
5.3.72 In addition to Stonehenge itself, the Heel Stone, the Avenue, the North Barrow and the South Barrow (1073-5, 909, 1080, 1066), the Stonehenge Triangle contains 8 upstanding Bronze Age round barrows (1038, 1130, 1134, 1142, 1144, 1147, 1158, 1174).
Stonehenge Environmental September 2009 137 Improvements Project Environmental Statement 11110202R ES Chapter 5 0_Archaeology_WA_Final_30-09-09 Wessex Archaeology
5.3.73 The area from which the Existing Visitor Car Park is visible is very extensive, reaching as far as King Barrow Ridge to the east, the Cursus to the north and beyond as far as Larkhill, towards Coneybury Hill in the south-east, and westwards to Fargo Plantation and the Winterbourne Stoke Ridge. When in full use, the permanent and overflow car parks are highly visible within this area, especially on sunny days. This visual envelope includes the following monument groups expressing attributes of OUV:
• Stonehenge and the Avenue; the Heel Stone, the North Barrow and the South Barrow; • Barrows within the Stonehenge Triangle; • The Cursus; • The Cursus Barrows and barrows between the A344 and Fargo Plantation; • The King Barrows; • The King Barrow on Coneybury Hill; and • Barrows on Durrington Down.
5.3.74 The Existing Visitor Car Park is also visible from 6 of the New King Barrows (901-3, 896-7, 891), 2 monuments amongst the Old King Barrows (839, 844) and 2 barrows west of the King Barrows (927, 976).
5.3.75 Other upstanding monuments at least 1000m and up to 2000m away which fall within this extensive visual envelope, include the King Barrow on Coneybury Hill (865), a barrow cemetery north of the Steel Houses at Larkhill (870, 864, 859, 848, 880, 871), and a barrow adjacent to the existing A303(T) (953).
A344 Works Between Airman’s Corner and the A303(T).
5.3.76 The existing A344 between Airman’s Corner and Byway 12 would be closed to motorised vehicles other than exempt vehicles, and used as the route for a Visitor Transit System with a Drop-off/Pick-up point near to the Stones; visitors would also be able to disembark at Fargo Plantation and approach the Stones on foot. It is not considered that the predicted visitor numbers moving between the Drop-off/Pick-up points and the Stones would have any adverse effect on the setting of any monument.
5.3.77 Between Byway 12 and Stonehenge Bottom, the road would be closed to motorised vehicles and restored to grass; the junction with the A303(T) would be closed. The existing road surface in this section would be punctured to ensure infiltration surface water drainage to the underlying chalk, covered to a depth of approximately 300mm with reinforced topsoil, and seeded to match the surrounding grassland. Where the A344 crosses the Avenue, the existing road construction would be removed to existing subsoil level and replaced with 150mm of new sub-base, covered to a depth of approximately 300mm with reinforced topsoil and seeded. The spoil arising from the removed sections of road surface would be used to fill the existing A344 underpass connecting the Existing Visitor Facilities to the Stones.
Stonehenge Environmental September 2009 138 Improvements Project Environmental Statement 11110202R ES Chapter 5 0_Archaeology_WA_Final_30-09-09 Wessex Archaeology
5.3.78 While existing levels are approximately to be retained where the road is removed, some re- contouring may be necessary in the vicinity of The Avenue. Scheduled Monument Consent would be sought for the removal of the A344 in relation to affected Scheduled Monuments as appropriate.
5.3.79 Following removal of the A344, the entire length of the fence line along the southern edge of the former road between Byway 12 and Stonehenge Bottom would be removed, including the chain link fence, which provides the current northern perimeter of the Stonehenge Monument Guardianship Area. Stock fencing would be retained to the north of the former A344 route between Byway 12 and Stonehenge Bottom, and its precise alignment would be agreed by English Heritage and The National Trust in light of conservation, security, access and stock control considerations. The existing telecommunication services along the former route of the A344 between Byway 12 and Stonehenge Bottom would be retained in situ, and a suitable reinforced grass surface is to be provided in order to maintain the right of access to these services for maintenance vehicles.
5.3.80 The decommissioning and removal of the A344 road between Byway 12 and Stonehenge Bottom would include closure of the A344/A303(T) junction, following which the A303(T) carriageway would be reconfigured by the Highways Agency. The revised junction layout at Stonehenge Bottom is shown on the proposed masterplan in Figure 2.5.
5.3.81 The Assessment Area for this section of the Scheme has been defined as extending up to 500m north and south of the existing A344. An extensive field system (1418) and a long-distance land division (1499), both of likely Bronze Age date, are known south of the A344 from aerial photographs; it is not known whether archaeological remains relating to these features survive beneath the present A344. Within the Assessment Area, some 42 upstanding monuments fall within the visual envelope of the A344:
• The eastern half of the Neolithic Cursus (1044); • The Bronze Age Cursus Barrows (1139, 1159, 1179, 1207, 1219, 1231); • Four Bronze Age barrows between the A344 and Fargo Plantation (1305, 1314, 1327, 1320); • Barrows within Fargo Plantation (1314, 1320, 1327); • Two Bronze Age barrows at the western end of the Cursus (1350, 1340); • Two Bronze Age barrows in the southern part of Fargo Plantation, including the Monarch of the Plain (1333, 1345); • Three Bronze Age barrows west of the Cursus (1360, 1463) and south of the Lesser Cursus (1583); • An undated boundary earthwork north-west of Stonehenge (1026); • Two Bronze Age barrows west of the Old King Barrows (976 and 953); • Stonehenge, the Avenue, the Heel Stone, the North Barrow and the South Barrow (1073-5, 909, 1080, 1066); • Eight Bronze Age round barrows in the Stonehenge triangle (1038, 1130, 1134, 1142, 1144, 1147, 1158, 1164);
Stonehenge Environmental September 2009 139 Improvements Project Environmental Statement 11110202R ES Chapter 5 0_Archaeology_WA_Final_30-09-09 Wessex Archaeology
• A Grade II listed milestone (1057) on the A344 opposite Stonehenge; • Three Bronze Age barrows north of the Winterbourne Stoke Group (1589, 1533, 1562); • The Hewetson Memorial (1301); • The Grade II listed Airman’s Cross (2093); and • A Grade II listed milestone on the A360 (2183).
5.3.82 The visual envelope includes the following monument groups expressing attributes of OUV:
• Stonehenge and the Avenue; the Heel Stone, the North Barrow and the South Barrow; • Barrows within the Stonehenge Triangle; • The Cursus; • The Cursus Barrows and barrows between the A344 and Fargo Plantation; and • Barrows associated with the Lesser Cursus.
5.3.83 There would also be views over 1000m away from the New King Barrows, some of the Old King Barrows, the King Barrow on Coneybury Hill, the Normanton Down barrow group and the Winterbourne Stoke barrow group.
The A303(T) Road Corridor between Stonehenge Bottom and Longbarrow Crossroads
5.3.84 The A303(T) between Stonehenge Bottom and Longbarrow Crossroads passes approximately 150m to the south of Stonehenge and forms the southern boundary of the Stonehenge Triangle. The sight and sound of traffic on the road affects the visitor experience at Stonehenge and the setting of the iconic monument and associated barrows within the Stonehenge Triangle. Closure of the A344 would result in increased traffic flows on the A303(T); however, there would also be some amelioration of existing congestion, both at Stonehenge Bottom due to closure of the junction with the A344 and on the A303(T) westbound due to increased capacity on the proposed new roundabout at Longbarrow Crossroads.
5.3.85 The Assessment Area for this section of the Scheme has been defined as extending up to 500m from the existing road corridor. Within the Assessment Area, some 24 upstanding monuments fall within the visual envelope:
• Stonehenge, the Avenue, the Heel Stone, the North Barrow and the South Barrow (1073-5, 909, 1080, 1066); • Eight Bronze Age round barrows in the Stonehenge Triangle (1038, 1130, 1134, 1142, 1144, 1147, 1158, 1164); • A bowl barrow west of the Stonehenge triangle (1308); • A bowl barrow west of Normanton Gorse (1400); • A long barrow south-east of Longbarrow Crossroads (1472); • A linear feature (1278) and barrows at Normanton Gorse (1287, 1294, 1253, 1266), and north (1256-8) and west (1400) of Normanton Gorse; and • Two Grade II listed turnpike milestones (1999, 2156).
5.3.86 The visual envelope includes the following monument groups expressing attributes of OUV:
• Stonehenge and the Avenue; the Heel Stone, the North Barrow and the South Barrow;
Stonehenge Environmental September 2009 140 Improvements Project Environmental Statement 11110202R ES Chapter 5 0_Archaeology_WA_Final_30-09-09 Wessex Archaeology
• Barrows within the Stonehenge Triangle; • The King Barrow on Coneybury Hill; • Parts of the Normanton Down barrow group.
5.3.87 In addition, 2 long barrows (1256, 1472) fall within the visual envelope of the A303(T).
Junction Improvements at Longbarrow Crossroads
5.3.88 The junction of the A303(T) and A360 lies immediately adjacent to the Winterbourne Stoke Group, which comprises the Neolithic long barrow (1575) and extensive Bronze Age barrow cemeteries. The existing junction layout would be altered to provide additional capacity, with 3 lanes joining westbound on the A303(T) and southbound on the A360 and a reconfigured roundabout re-positioned to the south-west, further away from the long barrow. Trees on the existing roundabout would be removed; redundant carriageway adjacent to the long barrow would be removed and landscaped to improve the setting of the long barrow. A lighting scheme would be developed by the Highways Agency during the detailed design stage for the improved junction. This would meet or exceed standards agreed previously by English Heritage and the Highways Agency, designed to minimise any adverse effects of the lighting scheme on the WHS through adoption of the least intrusive design solution for providing the legally-required standards to enable the junction to operate safely, within the following ‘worst- case’ parameters:
• Lighting would only illuminate a similar area of the junction as is currently lit. • High pressure sodium full cut-off lamps with no direct light emitted above the horizontal to minimise excessive light spill into the surrounding area and upward 'sky glow'. • Use of movement-sensitive lamps with dimming technology to minimise light levels during periods of low traffic levels at night. • Passively safe design of lighting columns to remove need for additional safety barrier protection infrastructure. • A maximum of 21, 12m high lighting columns, noting that the number and height of columns is likely to be reduced through detailed design studies.
5.3.89 The WHS boundary crosses the existing junction, following the boundary between the parishes of Winterbourne Stoke and Wilsford-cum-Lake. There would be some additional landtake within the highway boundary south-west of the junction, land currently under dense tree and scrub cover which has prevented archaeological evaluation here. Historic maps indicate that a long-distance Bronze Age boundary, which survives as an upstanding scheduled earthwork south-east of the junction (1459), formerly extended into this area and excavation in advance of construction of the existing roundabout recorded part of a later Bronze Age settlement. It is not known whether archaeological remains survive that would be affected by the proposed re- location of the roundabout.
Stonehenge Environmental September 2009 141 Improvements Project Environmental Statement 11110202R ES Chapter 5 0_Archaeology_WA_Final_30-09-09 Wessex Archaeology
5.3.90 The Assessment Area for this section of the Scheme has been defined as extending up to 500m around the existing junction. Within the Assessment Area, some 29 upstanding monuments fall within the visual envelope:
• The Long Barrow (1575) and barrows amongst the Winterbourne Stoke Group (1512, 1514, 1519, 1522, 1524-6, 1532, 1540, 1545, 1551, 1554, 1556, 1559, 1566, 1578-9, 1581, 1586-8, 1592, 1594, 1597); • A long barrow (1472) and a bowl barrow (1454) on Wilsford Down, south-east of the junction; • A linear earthwork running NW-SE of Longbarrow Crossroads (1459); and • A Grade II listed milestone on the A360 south of the junction (2174).
5.3.91 The junction lies adjacent to the following monument group expressing attributes of OUV:
• The Winterbourne Stoke barrow group.
5.3.92 There would also be views of the junction from the Normanton Down barrow group over 1000m away.
The A360 Road Corridor between Longbarrow and Airman’s Corner
5.3.93 The A360 between Longbarrow Crossroads and Airman’s Corner lies immediately adjacent to the Winterbourne Stoke Group, which comprises the Neolithic long barrow (1575) and extensive Bronze Age barrow cemeteries. The WHS boundary follows the line of the road, with land to the east lying within the WHS. Closure of the A344 would result in increased traffic flows and queuing, including increased coach traffic, during the operational phase of the Scheme.
5.3.94 The Assessment Area for this section of the Scheme has been defined as extending up to 500m from the existing road corridor. Within the Assessment Area, some 29 upstanding monuments fall within the visual envelope:
• The Long Barrow (1575) and barrows amongst the Winterbourne Stoke Group (1512, 1514, 1519, 1522, 1524-6, 1532, 1540, 1545, 1551, 1554, 1556, 1559, 1566, 1578-9, 1581, 1586-8, 1592, 1594, 1597); • Three barrows north of the Winterbourne Stoke Group (1533, 1562, 1589); and • A round barrow (1609) on Winterbourne Stoke Down.
5.3.95 The A360 lies adjacent to the following monument groups expressing attributes of OUV:
• The Winterbourne Stoke barrow group and barrows to the north of this.
5.3.96 There would also be views of the northern part of the A360 corridor from the Cursus, and the Lesser Cursus and associated barrows, up to 1000m away.
Stonehenge Environmental September 2009 142 Improvements Project Environmental Statement 11110202R ES Chapter 5 0_Archaeology_WA_Final_30-09-09 Wessex Archaeology
Junction Improvements at Airman’s Corner
5.3.97 The junction of the A344, A360 and B3086 lies immediately adjacent to the proposed New Visitor Facilities site. The WHS boundary follows the line of the B3086 and A360 through the junction. The A344 would be realigned to join the A360 at a new roundabout located further south; the B3086 would be realigned along its previous, historic course to join the new roundabout from the north. Traffic for the New Visitor Facilities would exit the roundabout to the east along the realigned A344, approaching the coach park access road to the north and car park access road to the south. Although the land here is mostly within the existing highway boundary, there would be some additional landtake to the south-west of the existing junction. The roundabout would be constructed on fill to achieve standard highway gradients. The new junction would be lit over a wider area than the existing junction; dimmable LED lamps would be used to minimise light intrusion.
5.3.98 The Assessment Area for this section of the Scheme has been defined as extending up to 500m around the proposed junction. Within the Assessment Area the following upstanding monuments fall within the visual envelope of the A344:
• An upstanding scheduled round barrow (1620) north-west of the junction; and • Two barrows north of the winterbourne Stoke Group (1589, 1533).
5.3.99 A long-distance land division (1499) of likely Bronze Age date known from aerial photographs extends across the proposed roundabout site from north-west to south-east, it is not known whether archaeological remains survive that would be affected by the proposed re-location of the roundabout. The Airman’s Cross memorial (2093) commemorating the loss of Captain Loraine and Staff Sergeant Wilson, who were killed when their aircraft crashed south-east of the junction in 1912 on a flight from Larkhill airfield is Listed Grade II. The memorial would be relocated from its existing location within the junction to a new position within the New Visitor Facilities site. A milestone (2183) on the A360 at the junction is not listed; this would be relocated to an appropriate position adjacent to the new junction.
5.3.100 The visual envelope of the junction includes the following monument groups expressing attributes of OUV:
• The Cursus; • Barrows associated with the Lesser Cursus; • Barrows north of the Winterbourne Stoke Group.
5.3.101 There would also be views of the junction from the Winterbourne Stoke barrow group, over 1000m away.
Stonehenge Environmental September 2009 143 Improvements Project Environmental Statement 11110202R ES Chapter 5 0_Archaeology_WA_Final_30-09-09 Wessex Archaeology
5.4 Mitigation Measures
5.4.1 The objectives of the proposed Scheme are to deliver the following benefits:
• An improved landscape setting for Stonehenge; • A new, sensitively designed and environmentally sustainable Stonehenge visitor centre; and • Better interpretation of the Stones and the Stonehenge WHS.
5.4.2 Scheme assessment and design has been undertaken as an iterative process. Wherever possible, Scheme design has sought to mitigate and remove potential impacts on archaeological and cultural heritage features, both within and outside the Stonehenge WHS. These design solutions have been developed through discussions with the AWG and have, wherever possible, sought to respond to potential impacts identified in the options appraisal process.
5.4.3 The principal mitigation measures included within the Scheme design are:
• The avoidance of direct impact on archaeological remains through site selection and design; • The location and design of proposed Scheme elements to avoid adverse impact on the WHS, its setting and attributes of OUV: - location of the New Visitor Facilities so as to deliver improvements to the setting of Stonehenge; - use of existing trees and limited new planting to screen views of the proposed New Coach Park, Drop-off/Pick-up point and Ancillary Building at Airman’s Corner; • The use where possible of land which has been previously disturbed by development: - provision of Hub facilities at the Stones within the footprint of existing development; • The use where possible of existing infrastructure: - use of the existing A344 for the Visitor Transit System between Airman’s Corner and the Stones; • The use of a reversible, zero-ground impact construction method for the following elements: - the New Car Park, Coach Park, access roads, footpaths and Ancillary Building at Airman’s Corner. • Retention or relocation of historic landscape features wherever possible: - retention of the dew pond within the New Visitor Facilities site; - retention in situ of milestones and memorial stones on the A344 and at Airman’s Corner where practicable, or relocation where necessary; - relocation of the Airman’s Cross memorial within the New Visitor Facilities site, so as to facilitate public access.
Mitigation Measures to be Included During Scheme Construction
5.4.4 In addition to the above mitigation measures and environmental benefits included in the Scheme design, a comprehensive archaeological mitigation and recording strategy has been prepared in consultation with the local planning authority and the AWG (Volume 2, Appendix 5.8). The implementation of the archaeological mitigation programme would be secured by planning condition; the scope of the mitigation programme will require the written approval of
Stonehenge Environmental September 2009 144 Improvements Project Environmental Statement 11110202R ES Chapter 5 0_Archaeology_WA_Final_30-09-09 Wessex Archaeology
the planning authority prior to the commencement of any work. Responsibility for implementation of the archaeological mitigation programme would fall to the appointed construction contractor as part of the Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP).
5.4.5 The proposed mitigation strategy assumes that preservation of all remains in situ may not be appropriate and/or practicable, and therefore includes measures for archaeological investigation and recording in advance of development that would impact on known or potential archaeological deposits. The strategy has been prepared in accordance with the Statement of Principles Governing Archaeological Work in the WHS, and with the Research Framework. The strategy would ensure that scheduled monuments are avoided during construction works by marking the scheduled areas on the ground – each monument having an additional buffer zone – and adjusting final design drawings accordingly.
5.4.6 The archaeological mitigation strategy includes:
• Protection of Scheduled Monuments during construction; • Recording of the Existing Visitor Centre Facilities and structures prior to demolition; • Archaeological watching brief during works to decommission and/or remove existing facilities and infrastructure, with provision for detailed excavation of any as yet unknown remains; • Appropriate marking of the Mesolithic postholes in the Existing Visitor Car Park following restoration to grass, as part of the site interpretation strategy; • Archaeological supervision of works to restore the A344 to grass, with provision for detailed excavation of any as yet unknown remains; • Archaeological supervision of the deposition of imported topsoil and/or fill materials to ensure mapping and recording of areas of imported material, its source and any archaeological content; • Archaeological recording, removal and relocation of memorials and milestones; • Archaeological watching brief during construction of junction improvements at Airman’s Corner and Longbarrow Crossroads, with provision for detailed excavation of any as yet unknown remains; • Archaeological watching brief during construction of the New Visitor Facilities and related infrastructure at Airman’s Corner, with provision for detailed excavation of any as yet unknown remains; and • Publication and dissemination of the results of archaeological works.
5.4.7 Following completion of all mitigation fieldwork, an assessment report would be prepared setting out the range of data recovered, its significance and potential for further analysis. Following appropriate further analysis, the results of all archaeological works undertaken in connection with the Project would be published in both academic and popular report formats, as appropriate.
Stonehenge Environmental September 2009 145 Improvements Project Environmental Statement 11110202R ES Chapter 5 0_Archaeology_WA_Final_30-09-09 Wessex Archaeology
5.5 Construction Effects
Introduction
5.5.1 This section reviews and evaluates the likely impacts, direct and indirect, temporary and permanent, on the archaeological and historic environment resource associated with the construction of the proposed Scheme. For impacts on archaeology and the historic environment, the construction phase is taken to include the permanent effects of development, as well as the temporary effects of construction activities, taking into account proposed mitigation measures.
5.5.2 The assessment of construction impacts is presented under the following headings:
• New Visitor Facilities, Car and Coach Parking at Airman’s Corner. • A344 works - closure to public traffic of the A344 between Airman’s Corner and Byway 12 and use for a visitor transit link to a drop off at Byway 12, and closure and removal of the A344 between its junction with the A303(T) and Byway 12. • Decommissioning works to the existing facilities at the Stones. • Junction improvements at Longbarrow Crossroads. • Junction improvements at Airman’s Corner.
5.5.3 Within these sections, direct effects would arise within the Trace (i.e. the construction footprint of the Scheme), while upstanding monuments within the Assessment Area would experience effects on their setting. Assessment of effects on setting is informed by the results of the viewshed analysis (Volume 2, Appendix 5.5), and the photomontages (item 6.7 of Volume 3).
General Effects
5.5.4 For archaeological remains visible to the human eye (e.g. burial mounds, ancient buildings), impacts are akin to those on residential properties and include visual impact on their setting, and noise. Construction of the Scheme would result in impacts on the setting of upstanding monuments, due to the introduction of new structures, whether temporary or permanent into the landscape, or due to construction activities. Although there would be some effects on the settings of monuments, including Stonehenge and the Avenue, due to construction noise, these effects would be temporary and below the criteria for construction noise (see Section 8.0 of this ES). Any adverse effects on the settings of monuments due to construction noise, traffic movements or light intrusion arising from any night time works required (subject to Planning Authority approval) would be temporary and transient.
5.5.5 Buried archaeological remains would be at risk of direct damage during construction activities. Topsoil stripping operations and associated plant movements would normally result in damage to buried remains, unless these are buried particularly deeply. The creation of cuttings, service
Stonehenge Environmental September 2009 146 Improvements Project Environmental Statement 11110202R ES Chapter 5 0_Archaeology_WA_Final_30-09-09 Wessex Archaeology
trenches, drainage channels, balancing ponds and other excavations may result in the removal of archaeological remains. Smaller–scale ground disturbance during site clearance may also result in removal of or damage to remains. Landscaping and planting can also adversely affect the longer-term survival of buried remains, even where no direct ground disturbance is involved. Archaeological remains within the topsoil (i.e. artefactual material such as pottery and worked or burnt flint) may also be affected by these construction activities, and also by related activities such as the removal, storage and redistribution of topsoil within a development site, including filling of areas.
5.5.6 Buried archaeological remains have been identified by previous (historic) excavations at the Existing Visitor Car Park, beneath the A344 adjacent to Stonehenge, and at Longbarrow Crossroads; geophysical survey and trial trenching within the Scheme footprint at the New Visitor Facilities site at Airman’s Corner did not identify any significant buried remains here. Any buried archaeological remains that survive within the proposed development areas would be vulnerable to damage/removal during construction activities. Potential impacts on buried remains could arise from the following:
• Demolition and clearance of existing structures, hedgerows and fences (Existing Visitor Facilities at Stonehenge; A344 between Byway 12 and Stonehenge Bottom; Longbarrow Crossroads; proposed New Coach Park and Ancillary Building at Airman’s Corner); • Construction of the new Hub facilities at Stonehenge; • Construction of the main Visitor Centre building (Airman’s Corner); • Construction of the Ancillary Building (Airman’s Corner); • Construction of the Coach Drop-off/Pick-up point (Airman’s Corner); • Construction of services and drainage (Airman’s Corner); • Construction of new roundabouts at Airman’s Corner and Longbarrow Crossroads; • Landscaping, including planting (Airman’s Corner junction, Longbarrow Crossroads); • Re-grading of the Existing Visitor Car Park and the A344 between Byway 12 and Stonehenge Bottom, including relocation of BT services as required and establishment of grass; and • Screen planting and fencing (New Coach Park).
5.5.7 In order to avoid damage to buried archaeological remains, wherever possible Scheme elements have been designed to avoid or minimise the need for ground disturbance. The proposed New Car and Coach Parks, access roads and paths, and the Ancillary Building at the Airman’s Corner site, would all be constructed above existing levels using a zero-ground disturbance technique (see 5.4.4 above and the Construction Method Statement in Appendix A2.1 for details). The existing topsoil would be left in situ, rolled and covered with a geotextile layer, which would be overlain by sub-base materials and hard surfacing. This would result in the physical covering of any buried archaeological deposits for the life of the proposed development. This would be a reversible impact. Although there could be some adverse effect on archaeological remains within the topsoil due to rolling, it is considered that this would be insignificant when compared to the benefit of avoiding direct effects on buried remains.
Stonehenge Environmental September 2009 147 Improvements Project Environmental Statement 11110202R ES Chapter 5 0_Archaeology_WA_Final_30-09-09 Wessex Archaeology
5.5.8 The development of the New Visitor Facilities building constitutes the largest construction element of the proposed Scheme. Construction of the main New Visitor Centre building would involve some excavation and ground disturbance. Land to the east and west would be filled and recontoured, to provide suitable gradients for visitor movements; to achieve this, topsoil would be deposited above existing levels on a geotextile base. Construction and excavation of drainage swales, attenuation ponds, oil interceptors and associated linking drains and pipes may involve significant ground disturbance. The proposed services and drainage elsewhere within the site would be situated within fill material and would not generally involve disturbance of current ground levels.
Scheme Construction Effects (Figures 5.3-5.4)
New Visitor Facilities, Car and Coach Parking at Airman’s Corner
5.5.9 Construction of the access road leading into the site and the permanent New Car Park would affect the projected line of a possible later Bronze Age land division (1499) of Low value, which is visible on aerial photographs but was not located by geophysical survey or trial trenching. The zero-ground disturbance construction method proposed for these scheme elements has been designed to avoid damage to any remains that may survive. The proposed construction method would involve the physical covering of any remains; this would be a reversible effect. Any remains would be preserved in situ by the proposed development; there would be No change to any remains and a Neutral effect. Construction of the proposed permanent New Car Park would also affect the site of 2 ring ditches (1591) visible on aerial photographs but not located by geophysical survey or trial trenching. Again, there would be No change to any remains affected and a Neutral effect, due to the zero-ground disturbance construction method proposed for the New Car Park.
5.5.10 The route of the access road to the New Car Park has been selected to avoid the location of the dew pond (2136), which survives as an earthwork feature that would be preserved in situ. However, construction of the access road would result in comprehensive changes to the setting of the Low value pond; this would be a Major adverse permanent impact and a Slight adverse effect.
5.5.11 Archaeological evaluation by geophysical survey and trial trenching indicates that construction of the coach access road and Drop-off/Pick-up point, the Coach Park and the Ancillary Building north of the present A344 would not affect any known archaeological remains. Proposed screen planting around the New Coach Park, Drop-off/Pick-up point and Ancillary Building would affect the site of a possible cluster of pit anomalies (1988) recorded in a geophysical survey in 2002; trial trenching here did not locate any deposits of archaeological significance. Construction would utilize a zero-ground disturbance construction method; there
Stonehenge Environmental September 2009 148 Improvements Project Environmental Statement 11110202R ES Chapter 5 0_Archaeology_WA_Final_30-09-09 Wessex Archaeology
would be No change to any remains affected and a Neutral effect. Works in this area would be monitored as part of the archaeological mitigation strategy in order to ensure that any as yet unknown remains are recorded appropriately.
5.5.12 Construction of the proposed New Visitor Centre building and associated drainage and other services would involve some excavation below existing ground levels, and some re-contouring of adjacent areas; this would affect the site of 3 fungus rings previously interpreted as possible ring-ditches, identified from aerial photographs (1563). Archaeological evaluation by geophysical survey and trial trenching did not identify any deposits of archaeological significance that could be affected by construction of these scheme elements. Works in this area would be monitored as part of the archaeological mitigation strategy in order to ensure that any as yet unknown remains are recorded appropriately.
5.5.13 Visibility analysis (Volume 2, Appendix 5.5) indicates that the proposed development would be visible within an area bounded by the Lesser Cursus ridgeline to the north; Fargo Plantation to the east; the Winterbourne Stoke ridgeline to the south; and Fore Down to the west. Long distance views (2.5km +) would be possible from Rollestone in the north, Oatlands Hill in the south, and from west of the Till valley. Within this viewshed, the following visual impacts would arise.
5.5.14 A group of scheduled round barrows north of the Winterbourne Stoke group (1533, 1562, 1589) express attributes of OUV and would be affected by the following Scheme proposals:
• Construction of the access road into the site and to the New Car Park would have a Minor adverse permanent impact on the settings of the monuments, taking into account the scale of the intrusion. • Construction of the New Car Park would have a Minor adverse permanent impact on the settings of the monuments, taking into account the scale of the intrusion and the incorporation of landscape mitigation within the car park layout. • Construction of the New Visitor Centre building would have a Moderate adverse permanent impact on the settings of the monuments, taking into account the scale and nature of the intrusion. • The proposed New Coach Park and Ancillary Building would be visible in glimpsed views through the existing trees along the northern side of the present A344, at a distance of more than 500m; this would be a Negligible adverse permanent impact on the settings of the monuments. • Construction activities on the site and related construction traffic movements would have a Moderate adverse temporary impact on the setting of the monuments.
5.5.15 Although there would be Moderate adverse effects due to construction activities, these would be temporary. Taking account of the scale of the visual intrusion generated by the access roads, New Car and Coach Parks (see photomontage from viewpoint 12, item 6.7 in Volume 3, Figure 14), there would be a Moderate Adverse permanent impact overall on the settings of the Very High Value scheduled monuments, resulting in a Large Adverse effect.
Stonehenge Environmental September 2009 149 Improvements Project Environmental Statement 11110202R ES Chapter 5 0_Archaeology_WA_Final_30-09-09 Wessex Archaeology
5.5.16 The Cursus (1044) and a scheduled round barrow (1340) on the western end of the Cursus, lie over 1km from the site. They would be affected by the following Scheme proposals:
• Construction of the access road into the site and to the New Car Park would have a Negligible adverse permanent impact on the setting of the monuments, taking into account the proximity of the existing A360. • Construction of the New Car Park would have a Negligible adverse permanent impact on the setting of the monuments, taking into account the scale of the intrusion and the incorporation of landscape mitigation in the form of grasses within the car park layout. • Construction of the New Visitor Centre building would have a Minor adverse permanent impact on the setting of the monuments. • The proposed coach access, New Coach Park and Ancillary Building would be visible in Year 1, a Minor adverse temporary impact. • Construction activities on the site and related construction traffic movements on the A360 would have a Minor adverse temporary visual impact on the setting of the monuments.
5.5.17 Although there would be Moderate Adverse effects due to construction activities, these would be temporary. Taking account of the distance of the monument from the site and the location of the New Visitor Centre building in views west from the Cursus (see photomontage from viewpoint 9, item 6.7 in Volume 3, Figure 9), there would be a Minor Adverse permanent impact overall on the setting of the Very High Value scheduled monuments, resulting in a Moderate Adverse effect.
5.5.18 Barrows associated with the Lesser Cursus (1495, 1513, 1523, 1534, 1583) lie between 400m and 700m away and would be affected by the following Scheme proposals:
• The access road into the site and to the New Car Park would be visible only in glimpsed views through the existing trees on the south side of the A344. There would be a Negligible adverse permanent impact on the settings of the monuments, taking into account the proximity of the existing A360. • Construction of the New Car Park would have a Negligible adverse permanent impact on the settings of the monuments, taking into account the scale of the intrusion. • Construction of the New Visitor Centre building would have a Minor adverse permanent impact on the settings of the monuments. • The proposed coach access, New Coach Park and Ancillary Building would be visible in Year 1; this would be a Minor adverse temporary impact, taking account of the scale of the intrusion and provision of screen planting and fencing. • Construction activities on the site and related construction traffic movements on the A360 would have a Minor adverse temporary impact on the setting of the monuments.
5.5.19 Although there would be adverse effects due to construction activities, these would be temporary. Taking account of the distance of the monuments from the site (see photomontage from viewpoint 10, item 6.7 in Volume 3, Figure 11), there would be a Minor Adverse permanent impact overall on the setting of the Very High Value scheduled monuments, resulting in a Moderate Adverse effect.
5.5.20 The scheduled long barrow (1575) and round barrows amongst the Winterbourne Stoke group (1490, 1497, 1508, 1512, 1514, 1519, 1522, 1524-6, 1540, 1545, 1551, 1554, 1556, 1559,
Stonehenge Environmental September 2009 150 Improvements Project Environmental Statement 11110202R ES Chapter 5 0_Archaeology_WA_Final_30-09-09 Wessex Archaeology
1578-9, 1581, 1585-8, 1592, 1594, 1597, 1600) lie 1-1.5km from the site. The monuments would be affected by the following Scheme proposals:
• Construction of the access road into the site and to the car park would have a Negligible adverse permanent impact on the settings of the monuments, taking into account the scale of the intrusion, the proximity to the existing A360 and the distance. • Construction of the New Car Park would have a Negligible adverse permanent impact on the settings of the monuments, taking into account the scale of the intrusion, the incorporation of landscape mitigation in the form of grasses within the car park layout and the distance. • Construction of the New Visitor Centre building would have a Negligible adverse permanent impact on the settings of the monuments, taking into account the scale of the intrusion and the distance. • The proposed New Coach Park and Ancillary Building would be visible only in glimpsed views through the existing trees along the northern side of the present A344; there would be No change to the settings of the monuments, taking into account the proximity of the existing A344 and the distance. • Construction traffic movements on the A360 would have a Negligible adverse temporary impact on the setting of the monuments.
5.5.21 Taking account of the distance of the barrow group from the Airman’s Corner site and the varying visibility from individual monuments amongst the group, there would be a Negligible Adverse permanent impact overall on the setting of the Very High Value scheduled barrows, resulting in a Slight Adverse effect.
5.5.22 A scheduled round barrow west of the A360 (1609) and an unscheduled mound (1601) west of the A360, which may be the remains of a Bronze Age barrow, would be affected by the following Scheme proposals:
• Construction of the access road into the site and to the New Car Park would have a Minor adverse permanent impact on the setting of the monument, taking into account the scale of the intrusion. • Construction of the New Car Park would have a Minor adverse permanent impact on the setting of the monument, taking into account the scale of the intrusion and the incorporation of landscape mitigation within the car park layout. • Construction of the New Visitor Centre building would have a Moderate adverse permanent impact on the setting of the monument, taking into account the scale and nature of the intrusion. • The proposed Ancillary Building would be visible in glimpsed views through the existing trees along the northern side of the present A344, at a distance of more than 500m; this would be a Negligible adverse permanent impact on the setting of the monument. • Construction activities on the site and related construction traffic movements on the A360 would have a Moderate adverse temporary impact on the setting of the monument.
5.5.23 Although there would be Moderate Adverse effects due to construction activities, these would be temporary. Taking account of the scale of the visual intrusion generated by the access roads, New Car and Coach Parks, there would be a Moderate Adverse permanent impact overall on the settings of the High Value scheduled barrow and the Medium Value unscheduled mound, resulting in a Moderate Adverse effect.
Stonehenge Environmental September 2009 151 Improvements Project Environmental Statement 11110202R ES Chapter 5 0_Archaeology_WA_Final_30-09-09 Wessex Archaeology
5.5.24 A scheduled barrow north-west of Airman’s Corner (1620) would be affected by the following Scheme proposals:
• The access road into the site, the New Car Park and New Visitor Centre building would be visible in glimpsed views through the existing trees on the south side of the A344, resulting in a Negligible permanent impact on the setting of the monument. • The proposed coach access, New Coach Park and Ancillary Building would be visible in Year 1, a temporary Moderate adverse impact. • Construction activities on the site and related construction traffic movements on the A360 would have a temporary Moderate adverse impact on the setting of the monument.
5.5.25 Although there would be Moderate Adverse effects due to construction activities, these would be temporary. Taking account of the scale of the proposed built development and the provision of screen planting, there would be a Negligible Adverse permanent impact overall on the setting of the High Value scheduled barrow, resulting in a Slight Adverse effect.
5.5.26 A scheduled long barrow west of the WHS (1664), a scheduled barrow (1683) and a scheduled Romano-British settlement (1703) on Winterbourne Stoke Down lie between 0.75km and 1km from the site. The long barrow has line of sight across the Airman’s Corner site to the Cursus 2.3km away. The monuments would be affected by the following Scheme proposals:
• Construction of the access road into the site and to the New Car Park would have No change on the setting of the monument, taking into account the proximity of the existing A360. • Construction of the New Car Park would have a Negligible adverse permanent impact on the setting of the monument, taking into account the scale and nature of the intrusion and the incorporation of landscape mitigation within the car park layout. • Construction of the New Visitor Centre building between the long barrow and the Cursus would have a Negligible adverse permanent impact on the setting of the monument, taking into account the existing A360 and A344 roads and the long-distance nature of the views between the monuments. • The proposed New Coach Park and Ancillary Building would be visible in glimpsed views through the existing trees along the northern side of the present A344 in Year 1, a Negligible adverse temporary impact on the setting of the long barrow. • Construction activities on the site and related construction traffic movements on the A360 would have a Negligible adverse temporary impact on the setting of the monuments.
5.5.27 Taking account of the location of the New Visitor Centre building in long-distance views between the long barrow and the Cursus, there would be a Negligible Adverse permanent impact overall on the setting of the Very High Value scheduled long barrow, resulting in a Slight Adverse effect. There would be a Negligible Adverse permanent impact on the setting of a High Value scheduled barrow (1683) and a scheduled Romano-British settlement (1703) on Winterbourne Stoke Down, a Slight Adverse effect.
5.5.28 Ploughed barrows amongst the Rollestone Field Group (1637, 1638, 1640, 1644, 1647, 1653, 1662) lie over 1250m away and any effects due to construction of the Scheme elements are
Stonehenge Environmental September 2009 152 Improvements Project Environmental Statement 11110202R ES Chapter 5 0_Archaeology_WA_Final_30-09-09 Wessex Archaeology
considered to be Not Significant. There would be No change to the settings of the High Value scheduled monuments, a Neutral effect.
5.5.29 A group of scheduled barrows amongst the Winterbourne West group (1802-5, 1807, 1809, 1812-16, 1818) lies over 2km from the site. Any effects due to construction of the Scheme elements are considered to be Not Significant; there would be No change to the settings of the High Value scheduled monuments, and a Neutral effect.
5.5.30 Construction noise exposure would be temporary and below the criteria for construction noise. There would be No Significant Noise or Vibration Impact on any monuments within the Assessment Area for this element of the Scheme.
A344 Works
5.5.31 The closure and removal of the A344 between Stonehenge Bottom and Byway 12 would bring significant benefits for the character of the setting of Stonehenge (1073-5) and the Avenue (909) and immediately related monuments.
• Removal of the A344 would restore the physical link between Stonehenge and the Avenue (909) and deliver significant improvements to the setting of Stonehenge and the Heelstone, a Major beneficial permanent impact, resulting in a Very Large beneficial effect. • Although there may be some audible noise from works to restore the A344 to grassland, there would be no perceptible vibration at footpaths and areas used by visitors. The noise impact would be temporary and below the criteria for construction noise, and any impact would be not significant. • Construction activities and related construction traffic movements would have a temporary Moderate adverse impact on the setting of the monuments, a Large adverse effect.
5.5.32 Although there would be temporary adverse effects due to construction activities and related noise and traffic movements, these would be greatly outweighed by the permanent benefits due to removal of the A344. There would be a Major Beneficial permanent impact on the settings of the Very High Value monuments, a Very Large beneficial effect overall.
5.5.33 Although the proposed closure and removal of the A344 would alter the setting of the Grade II listed milestone (1057) opposite Stonehenge, the milestone would be retained in situ alongside the route of the historic turnpike. There would be a Negligible Beneficial permanent impact on the Medium Important milestone, and a Neutral effect overall.
5.5.34 Works to restore the line of the A344 to grass have been designed to have No Impact on known archaeological remains. Works in this area would be monitored as part of the archaeological mitigation strategy in order to ensure that any as yet unknown remains are recorded appropriately.
Stonehenge Environmental September 2009 153 Improvements Project Environmental Statement 11110202R ES Chapter 5 0_Archaeology_WA_Final_30-09-09 Wessex Archaeology
5.5.35 The proposed closure to public traffic of the A344 from Airman’s Corner to Byway 12 would retain the current road surface in situ. The proposed Visitor Transit System interchange and pedestrian paths to the Stones would be contained within the existing footprint of the A344. The proposals would have No Impact on any known archaeological remains.
Decommissioning Works to the Existing Facilities at the Stones
5.5.36 The removal of the Existing Visitor Car Park and Facilities and their replacement with the proposed Scheme would significantly enhance the setting of Stonehenge and the character of this part of the WHS. The Existing Car Park is visible over an extensive area. It is considered that the proposals would have a permanent Major Beneficial impact across the whole of this area, resulting in a Very Large Beneficial effect on the following upstanding scheduled monuments of Very High Value:
• Stonehenge, the Heel Stone, the Avenue, the North Barrow and the South Barrow, and the Station Stones (1073-5, 909, 1080, 1066, 1084); • Eight round barrows in the Stonehenge Triangle (1038, 1130, 1134, 1142, 1144, 1147, 1158); • The eastern half of the Cursus (1044); • The Cursus Barrows (1260, 1139, 1159, 1179, 1207, 1219, 1231, 1272, 1281, 1298, 1305); • Three barrows west of King Barrow ridge (927, 976, 953); • Four barrows amongst the Old King Barrows (844, 858, 839, 889); and • Seven barrows amongst the New King Barrows (891, 896-7, 900-3).
5.5.37 Although construction activities and related construction traffic movements would have a Moderate Adverse temporary impact on the settings of these upstanding monuments, a Large Adverse effect, this would be greatly outweighed by the permanent benefits due to removal of the Existing Car Park and Facilities. Any audible noise from works to decommission the Existing Visitor Facilities and construct the new Hub facilities would be temporary and below the criteria for construction noise, and any impact would be Not Significant.
5.5.38 Removal of the Existing Car Park would have a Major Beneficial permanent impact on the setting of a post-medieval trackway (1059) assessed as of Negligible Value, a Slight Beneficial effect.
5.5.39 Although the Existing Car Park is visible from the King Barrow on Coneybury Hill (865), this lies c. 1500m away and any effects are considered to be Not Significant. Four round barrows in a plantation south-east of Stonehenge (981, 982, 984, 986) are not visible from the Existing Car Park; there would be No Impact on these monuments.
5.5.40 Although it is not clear whether remains located by previous excavations have been removed completely within the footprint of the Existing Car Park and Facilities, the Scheme proposals are
Stonehenge Environmental September 2009 154 Improvements Project Environmental Statement 11110202R ES Chapter 5 0_Archaeology_WA_Final_30-09-09 Wessex Archaeology
contained within the footprint of existing ground disturbance and there should consequently be No Impact on any known archaeological remains, including a section of the palisade ditch (1108) and 4 Mesolithic pits (1131, 1099), due to construction of the new Hub facilities or restoration of the Existing Car Park to grass. The archaeological mitigation strategy includes proposals to ensure that any as yet unknown remains encountered during works within the footprint of the Existing Car Park and Facilities are recorded appropriately.
Junction Improvements at Longbarrow Crossroads
5.5.41 Construction of a reconfigured roundabout south-west of the existing roundabout would affect the former line of a Bronze Age boundary earthwork (1459) of High Value, the potential remains of a Bronze Age settlement (1593) of High Value recorded during construction of the existing roundabout in 1968, and the site of an earlier 20th century bungalow of Negligible Value recorded on historic maps. The additional land required here is currently heavily wooded, which has prevented archaeological field evaluation and may have adversely affected the survival of archaeological remains. Any remains that survive within the dense woodland here would be recorded as part of the archaeological mitigation strategy.
5.5.42 The scheduled Long Barrow and barrows amongst the Winterbourne Stoke Group (1490, 1497, 1508, 1512, 1514, 1519, 1522, 1524-6, 1540, 1545, 1551, 1554, 1556, 1559) would be affected by the following Scheme proposals:
• Relocation of the roundabout and southbound approach lanes on the A360 further from the monument, beyond the scheduled area would bring a permanent Moderate beneficial impact to the setting of the monument; • The provision of additional approach lanes on the A360 southbound and A303(T) westbound would have a permanent Minor adverse impact on the setting of the monument; • Construction activities and related construction traffic movements would have a temporary Moderate adverse impact on the settings of the monuments.
5.5.43 Although construction activities and related construction traffic movements would have a temporary adverse impact on the settings of the monuments, this would be greatly outweighed by the permanent benefits due to relocation of the roundabout. Similarly, the loss of any buried remains that survive here would be outweighed by improvements to the setting of the long barrow (see 5.5.40 above). Taking into account the proximity of the existing junction, there would be a Minor beneficial permanent impact overall on the Very High value long barrow and barrow cemeteries, a Moderate beneficial effect.
5.5.44 Construction of the new, reconfigured roundabout and the provision of additional approach lanes on the A303(T) westbound would have a permanent Negligible Adverse impact on the setting of a scheduled bowl barrow (1449) and linear earthwork (1459) on Wilsford Down. Improvements to the lighting of the junction to reduce light intrusion would have a permanent
Stonehenge Environmental September 2009 155 Improvements Project Environmental Statement 11110202R ES Chapter 5 0_Archaeology_WA_Final_30-09-09 Wessex Archaeology
Negligible Beneficial impact on the setting of the monuments. Taking into account the distance from the junction, it is considered that overall there would be No Change to the settings of the High Value scheduled monuments due to the proposed junction improvements, and a Neutral effect. Similarly, there would be No Change to the setting of a Very High Value scheduled long barrow (1472) due to the proposed junction improvements, and a Neutral effect. There would be No Change to the setting of a High Value scheduled, round barrow south-west of Longbarrow crossroads (1604), a Neutral effect.
5.5.45 There would be No Change to the setting of the Medium Value Grade II listed milestone (2174) on the A360 as a result of the proposed junction improvements, a Neutral effect.
Junction Improvements at Airman’s Corner
5.5.46 Construction of a new roundabout junction at Airman’s Corner and realignment of the A344 to the west and east of the new roundabout would affect the projected line of a possible later Bronze Age land division (1499), which is visible on aerial photographs. Archaeological evaluation has not been possible within the highway boundary for road safety reasons and it is not known whether archaeological remains survive here. However, the results of the archaeological evaluation of the adjacent New Visitor Facilities site indicate a low potential for important archaeological remains to be encountered. The archaeological mitigation strategy includes proposals to ensure that any as yet unknown remains are recorded appropriately. There would be a permanent Minor Adverse impact due to the loss of any remains of the extensive Low Value boundary feature that may survive, this would be a Neutral effect.
5.5.47 The Grade II Listed Airman’s Cross memorial (2093) would be relocated from its existing location within the junction to a new position within the New Visitor Centre site; there would be a Negligible Beneficial permanent impact on the setting of the Medium Value feature, a Neutral effect. An unlisted milestone (2183) on the A360 would also be relocated to an appropriate position adjacent to the new junction; it is unclear whether the milestone is currently in its original position or whether it has been relocated previously: there would be No change to the setting of the Medium Value milestone, a Neutral effect overall.
5.5.48 Construction of the new Airman’s Corner junction would have a Negligible Adverse permanent impact on the setting of 2 scheduled barrows of Very High Value north of the Winterbourne Stoke group (1589, 1533), a Slight Adverse effect taking into account the existing junction of the A344/A360/B3086. Construction activities and related construction traffic movements would have a temporary Minor Adverse impact on the settings of the monuments, a Moderate Adverse effect. There would be No Change to the setting of a High Value scheduled barrow (1620) north-west of Airman’s Corner, and a Neutral effect.
Stonehenge Environmental September 2009 156 Improvements Project Environmental Statement 11110202R ES Chapter 5 0_Archaeology_WA_Final_30-09-09 Wessex Archaeology
5.6 Operational Effects
Introduction
5.6.1 This section reviews and evaluates the likely impacts on the archaeological and historic environment resource associated with the operation of the proposed Scheme. The operation phase is taken to include the effects of use of the Scheme, including traffic changes elsewhere, taking into account proposed mitigation.
5.6.2 The assessment of operational impacts is presented under the following headings:
• New Visitor Facilities, Car and Coach Parking at Airman’s Corner. • A344 works - closure to public traffic of the A344 between Airman’s Corner and Byway 12 and use for a Visitor Transit System to a Drop-off/Pick-up point at Byway 12, and closure and removal of the A344 between its junction with the A303(T) and Byway 12. • Decommissioning works to the Existing Visitor Facilities at the Stones • The A303(T) road corridor between Stonehenge Bottom and Winterbourne Stoke. • Junction improvements at Longbarrow Crossroads • The A360 road corridor between Longbarrow and Airman’s Corner • Junction improvements at Airman’s Corner.
5.6.3 This assessment takes account of the implementation of a Visitor Management Strategy to monitor and manage erosion arising from visitor movement and activity within the WHS.
General Effects
5.6.4 The principal operational impacts on the archaeological and historic environment resource comprise the effects of visual (including light) and noise intrusion on the settings of upstanding monuments arising from use of the New Visitor Facilities and associated movement of vehicles entering and leaving the New Visitor Centre and Car and Coach Parks; and the movement of the Visitor Transit System along the route of the A344. These impacts would be transient, as they would be confined to the operating hours of the New Visitor Facilities, and would also vary in magnitude seasonally according to visitor numbers; assessments here are based on a ‘worst case’ peak scenario. Other operational impacts include the effects of traffic, noise and light intrusion on the settings of monuments due to changes in traffic flow associated with use of the A360 to access the New Visitor Facilities, and changes to the Longbarrow Crossroads and Airman’s Corner junctions. The removal of motorised vehicles other than exempt vehicles from the A344 past Stonehenge would result in a permanent perceptible reduction in traffic noise levels.
Stonehenge Environmental September 2009 157 Improvements Project Environmental Statement 11110202R ES Chapter 5 0_Archaeology_WA_Final_30-09-09 Wessex Archaeology
Scheme Operation Effects (Figures 5.3-5.4)
New Visitor Facilities, Car and Coach Parking at Airman’s Corner
5.6.5 Operation of the New Visitor Facilities at Airman’s Corner would have permanent impacts due to the visual intrusion of traffic entering and leaving the site and circulating within it; the scale of these impacts would vary according to the nature of the different components of the site. These impacts would be permanent, but transient and confined to operating hours of the New Visitor Facilities. The impact of lighting within the site is considered to be Not Significant.
5.6.6 There would be comprehensive changes to the setting of the Low Value dew pond (2136) due to operation of the proposed access road, a Major Adverse permanent transient impact and a Slight Adverse effect.
5.6.7 The Cursus (1044) and a scheduled round barrow (1340) on the western end of the Cursus lie approximately 1km away and would be affected by operation of the following Scheme proposals:
• Operation of the access road into the site and to the New Car Park would have a Minor adverse permanent transient impact on the settings of the monuments, taking into account the proximity of the existing A360. • Operation of the New Car Park would have a Moderate adverse permanent transient impact on the settings of the monuments, taking into account the nature of the intrusion. • Operation of the New Visitor Centre building would have a Minor adverse permanent transient impact on the settings of the monuments. • The proposed New Coach Park and Ancillary Building would be visible in glimpsed views through the existing trees along the northern side of the present A344 in Year 1, but would not be visible in Year 15 once the proposed screen planting reaches maturity. Operation of these Scheme elements would have a Minor adverse transient impact on the settings of the monuments in Year 1, reducing to Negligible adverse in Year 15.
5.6.8 Taking account of the location of the New Visitor Centre building in views west from the Cursus and the nature of the intrusion due to operation of the proposed New Car Park (see photomontage from viewpoint 9, item 6.7 in Volume 3, Figure 10), there would be a Moderate Adverse permanent transient impact overall on the settings of the Very High Value scheduled monuments, resulting in a Large Adverse effect.
5.6.9 A group of scheduled round barrows north of the Winterbourne Stoke group (1533, 1562 and 1589) would be affected by operation of the following Scheme elements:
• Operation of the access road into the site and to the car park would have a Minor adverse permanent transient impact on the settings of the monuments, taking into account the proximity of the existing A360. • Operation of the car park would have a Moderate adverse permanent transient impact on the settings of the monuments, taking into account the scale and nature of the intrusion.
Stonehenge Environmental September 2009 158 Improvements Project Environmental Statement 11110202R ES Chapter 5 0_Archaeology_WA_Final_30-09-09 Wessex Archaeology
• Operation of the New Visitor Centre building would have a Minor adverse permanent transient impact on the settings of the monuments. • The proposed New Coach Park and Ancillary Building would be visible only in glimpsed views through the existing trees along the northern side of the present A344; operation of these Scheme elements would have a Negligible adverse permanent transient impact on the settings of the monuments.
5.6.10 Taking account of the scale and nature of the visual intrusion generated by operation of the access roads, New Car and Coach Parks, and the Visitor Centre building itself (see photomontage from viewpoint 12, item 6.7 in Volume 3, Figure 15), there would be a long- term Moderate Adverse permanent transient impact overall on the settings of the Very High Value scheduled monuments, a Large Adverse effect.
5.6.11 A scheduled round barrow west of the A360 (1609) and an unscheduled mound (1601), possibly the remains of round barrow, would be affected by operation of the following Scheme elements:
• Operation of the access road into the site and to the New Car Park would have a Minor adverse permanent transient impact on the settings of the monuments, taking into account the proximity of the existing A360. • Operation of the New Car Park would have a Moderate adverse permanent transient impact on the settings of the monuments, taking into account the scale and nature of the intrusion. • Operation of the New Visitor Centre building would have a Minor adverse permanent transient impact on the settings of the monuments. • The proposed New Coach Park and Ancillary Building would be visible in glimpsed views through the existing trees along the northern side of the present A344; operation of these Scheme elements would have a Negligible adverse permanent transient impact on the settings of the monuments.
5.6.12 Taking account of the scale and nature of the visual intrusion generated by operation of the access roads, New Car and Coach Parks, and the Visitor Centre building itself, and the proximity of the A360, there would be a Moderate Adverse permanent transient impact overall on the settings of the High Value scheduled barrow and the Medium Value unscheduled mound, resulting in a Moderate Adverse effect.
5.6.13 A scheduled long barrow west of the WHS (1664), a scheduled barrow (1683) and a scheduled Romano-British settlement (1703) on Winterbourne Stoke Down lie between 0.75km and 1km from the site. The long barrow has line of sight across the Airman’s Corner site to the Cursus 2.3km away. The monuments would be affected by operation of the following Scheme elements:
• Operation of the access road into the site and to the New Car Park would have a Negligible adverse permanent transient impact on the setting of the monument, taking into account the proximity of the existing A360. • Operation of the New Car Park would have a Minor adverse permanent transient impact on the setting of the monument, taking into account the scale and nature of the intrusion and the proximity of the A360.
Stonehenge Environmental September 2009 159 Improvements Project Environmental Statement 11110202R ES Chapter 5 0_Archaeology_WA_Final_30-09-09 Wessex Archaeology
• Operation of the New Visitor Centre building would have a Minor adverse permanent transient impact on the setting of the monument. • The proposed New Coach Park and Ancillary Building would be visible in glimpsed views through the existing trees along the northern side of the present A344 in Year 1, but would not be visible in Year 15 once the proposed screen planting reaches maturity. Operation of these Scheme elements would have a permanent transient Minor adverse impact on the setting of the long barrow in Year 1, reducing to Negligible in Year 15.
5.6.14 Taking account of the location of the New Visitor Centre building in views between the long barrow and the Cursus, there would be a Minor Adverse permanent transient impact overall on the setting of the Very High Value scheduled long barrow, resulting in a Moderate Adverse effect. There would be a Negligible Adverse permanent transient impact on the setting of the High Value scheduled barrow (1683) and scheduled Romano-British settlement (1703) on Winterbourne Stoke Down, a Slight Adverse effect.
5.6.15 Barrows associated with the Lesser Cursus (1495, 1513, 1523, 1534, 1583) would be affected by the following Scheme proposals:
• Taking into account the proximity of the existing A360 and the screening effects of existing and proposed trees on the A344, there would be No change to the settings of the monuments due to operation of the access road into the site and to the New Car Park. • Operation of the New Car Park would have a Minor adverse permanent transient impact on the settings of the monuments, taking into account the distance of the Car Park from the monuments and the nature of the intrusion. • Operation of the New Visitor Centre building would have a Minor adverse permanent transient impact on the settings of the monuments, taking into account the distance from the monuments and the nature of the intrusion. • The proposed New Coach Park and Ancillary Building would be highly visible in Year 1, but views would be screened once the proposed tree planting reaches maturity in Year 15. Operation of these Scheme elements would have a Minor adverse permanent transient impact on the settings of the monuments in Year 1, reducing to Negligible in Year 15.
5.6.16 Taking account of the distance from the monuments and the nature of the intrusions (see photomontage from viewpoint 10, item 6.7 in Volume 3, Figure 12), operation of the New Visitor Facilities would have a Minor Adverse permanent transient impact overall on the setting of the Very High Value scheduled Lesser Cursus and barrows, resulting in a Moderate Adverse effect.
5.6.17 Taking into account the scale of the intrusion, the proximity to the existing A360 and the distance of the monuments from the development site, operation of the proposed New Visitor Facilities at Airman’s Corner would have a Negligible Adverse permanent transient impact overall on the setting of the Very High Value scheduled long barrow (1575) and round barrows amongst the Winterbourne Stoke group (1490, 1497, 1508, 1512, 1514, 1519, 1522, 1524-6, 1540, 1545, 1551, 1554, 1556, 1559, 1578-9, 1581, 1585-8, 1592, 1594, 1597, 1600), resulting in a Slight Adverse effect overall.
Stonehenge Environmental September 2009 160 Improvements Project Environmental Statement 11110202R ES Chapter 5 0_Archaeology_WA_Final_30-09-09 Wessex Archaeology
5.6.18 A scheduled barrow north-west of Airman’s Corner (1620) would be affected by the following Scheme proposals:
• Operation of the access road into the site, the New Car Park and New Visitor Centre building would be visible only in glimpsed views through the existing trees on the south side of the A344, resulting in a Negligible adverse permanent transient impact on the setting of the monument. • Operation of the proposed coach access, New Coach Park and Ancillary Building would be highly visible in Year 1, a Major adverse transient impact, but views would be screened once the proposed tree planting reaches maturity in Year 15, resulting in a Negligible adverse permanent transient impact by Year 15.
5.6.19 Taking account of the visibility of the New Visitor Centre building, there would be a permanent transient Negligible Adverse impact overall on the setting of the High Value scheduled barrow, resulting in a Slight Adverse effect.
5.6.20 Ploughed barrows amongst the Rollestone Field Group (1637, 1638, 1640, 1644, 1647, 1653, 1662, 1671, 1796) lie over 1250m away and any effects due to operation of the Scheme elements are considered to be Not Significant. There would be No Change to the settings of the High Value scheduled monuments, a Neutral effect.
5.6.21 A group of scheduled barrows amongst the Winterbourne West group (1800, 1802-5, 1807, 1809, 1812-16, 1818) and a scheduled trackway (1798) lie over 2km from the site. Any effects due to operation of the Scheme elements are considered to be Not Significant; there would be No Change to the settings of the High Value scheduled monuments, and a Neutral effect.
5.6.22 Although operation of the New Visitor Facilities will introduce new noise sources at Airman's Corner, an upper limit for noise from all items of fixed plant will be specified in order to maintain a peaceful environment and No Significant Impact is anticipated.
A344 Works
5.6.23 The removal of traffic from the A344 would have a Major Beneficial permanent impact on the setting of the Very High Value Stonehenge and the Heel Stone (1075) and the Avenue (909). The closing of the road past Stonehenge will reduce noise levels at the monument by about 10 dBA and this would result in a perceptible reduction in traffic noise levels, a Major Beneficial permanent impact, improving the peace and tranquillity of Stonehenge, the Heel Stone and the Avenue, and a Very Large Beneficial effect. There would be No Impact on the Stonehenge monument group due to operation of the Visitor Transit System between Airman’s Corner and Byway 12.
Stonehenge Environmental September 2009 161 Improvements Project Environmental Statement 11110202R ES Chapter 5 0_Archaeology_WA_Final_30-09-09 Wessex Archaeology
5.6.24 Four scheduled barrows in the southern part of Fargo Plantation (1314, 1327, 1333, 1345) and 2 scheduled barrows west of the Cursus (1340, 1463) lie within 100m of the A344:
• Removal of the traffic from the A344 would have a Major beneficial permanent impact on the settings of the monuments. • Operation of the Visitor Transit System would have a Minor adverse transient impact on the settings of the monuments.
5.6.25 Taking into account the scale and transient nature of the intrusion due to operation of the Visitor Transit System and the frequency of the vehicle movements, there would be a permanent Moderate Beneficial impact on the settings of the 4 High Value barrows, resulting in a Large Beneficial effect overall.
5.6.26 The Cursus (1044) and 2 barrows at the western end of the Cursus (1350, 1340) lie within 200m of the A344:
• Removal of the traffic from the A344 would have a Moderate beneficial permanent impact on the settings of the monuments. • Operation of the Visitor Transit System would have a Minor adverse transient impact on the settings of the monuments.
5.6.27 Taking into account the scale and transient nature of the intrusion due to operation of the Visitor Transit System and the frequency of the vehicle movements, there would be a Moderate Beneficial permanent impact on the settings of the Very High Value monuments, resulting in a Large Beneficial effect overall.
5.6.28 Three barrows between the A344 and Fargo Plantation (1272, 1281, 1305) and a barrow within Fargo Plantation (1320) lie over 100m from the road:
• Removal of the traffic from the A344 would have a Moderate beneficial permanent impact on the settings of the monuments. • Operation of the Visitor Transit System would have a Negligible adverse transient impact on the settings of the monuments.
5.6.29 Taking into account the scale and transient nature of the intrusion due to operation of the Visitor Transit System and the frequency of the vehicle movements, there would be a Moderate Beneficial permanent impact on the settings of the 3 High Value barrows, resulting in a Moderate Beneficial effect overall.
5.6.30 The Cursus Barrows (1260, 1139, 1159, 1179, 1207, 1219, 1231, 1272, 1281, 1298, 1305) lie between 200m and 400m from the A344;
• Removal of the traffic from the A344 would have a Minor beneficial permanent impact on the settings of the monuments.
Stonehenge Environmental September 2009 162 Improvements Project Environmental Statement 11110202R ES Chapter 5 0_Archaeology_WA_Final_30-09-09 Wessex Archaeology
• There would be No change to the settings of the monuments due to operation of the Visitor Transit System.
5.6.31 Taking into account the scale and transient nature of the intrusion due to operation of the Visitor Transit System and the frequency of the vehicle movements, there would be a Minor Beneficial permanent impact on the settings of the Very High Value barrows, resulting in a Moderate Beneficial effect overall.
5.6.32 Eight scheduled round barrows in the Stonehenge Triangle (1038, 1130, 1134, 1142, 1144, 1147, 1158) are of Very High Value and lie between 200m and 300m from the A344. Removal of the traffic from the A344 would have a Minor Beneficial permanent impact on the setting of the monuments, a Moderate Beneficial effect. There would be No Impact due to operation of the Visitor Transit System between Airman’s Corner and Byway 12.
5.6.33 A scheduled barrow south of the Cursus (1260) lies c. 250m north of the A344; there would be a Minor beneficial permanent impact on the setting of the High Value monument, and a Slight Beneficial effect overall. There would be No Impact due to operation of the Visitor Transit System between Airman’s Corner and Byway 12.
5.6.34 Three barrows north of the Winterbourne Stoke Group (1533, 1562, 1589) lie within 500m of the A344:
• Removal of the traffic from the A344 would have a Negligible beneficial permanent impact on the settings of the monuments. • There would be No change to the settings of the monuments due to operation of the VISITOR TRANSIT SYSTEM.
5.6.35 Taking into account the distance of the monuments from the A344 and the scale and transient nature of the intrusion due to operation of the Visitor Transit System, there would be a Negligible Beneficial permanent impact on the setting of the Very High Value monuments due to removal of traffic on the A344, a Slight Beneficial effect overall.
5.6.36 Three barrows west of King Barrow Ridge (927, 976, 953); 4 barrows amongst the Old King Barrows (839, 844, 858, 839); and 7 barrows amongst the New King Barrows (891, 896-7, 900-3) all lie over 500m from the A344. There would be a Negligible Beneficial permanent impact on the settings of the Very High Value monuments due to removal of traffic on the A344, and a Slight Beneficial effect overall.
5.6.37 Removal of traffic from the A344 would have a Major Beneficial permanent impact on the setting of the Medium Value Grade II listed milestone (1057) opposite Stonehenge, and a
Stonehenge Environmental September 2009 163 Improvements Project Environmental Statement 11110202R ES Chapter 5 0_Archaeology_WA_Final_30-09-09 Wessex Archaeology
Moderate Beneficial effect. There would be No Impact on the setting of the milestone due to operation of the Visitor Transit System between Airman’s Corner and Byway 12.
5.6.38 Barrows associated with the Lesser Cursus (1495, 1513, 1523, 1534, 1583) lie c. 500m from the A344.
• Removal of the traffic from the A344 would have a Negligible beneficial permanent impact on the settings of the monuments. • There would be No change to the settings of the monuments due to operation of the Visitor Transit System.
5.6.39 Taking into account the distance of the monuments from the A344 and the scale and transient nature of the intrusion due to operation of the Visitor Transit System, there would be a Negligible Beneficial permanent impact on the setting of the Very High Value monuments due to removal of traffic on the A344, a Slight Beneficial effect overall.
5.6.40 The Hewetson memorial (1301) lies adjacent to the carriageway on the north side of the A344 at Fargo Plantation:
• Removal of the traffic from the A344 would have a Major beneficial permanent impact on the settings of the monuments. • There would be a Negligible adverse transient impact on the setting of the monument due to operation of the Visitor Transit System.
5.6.41 Taking into account the proximity of the existing A344 and the scale and transient nature of the intrusion due to operation of the Visitor Transit System and the frequency of the vehicle movements, there would be a Moderate Beneficial permanent impact on the setting of the Low Value monument due to removal of traffic on the A344 and operation of the Visitor Transit System, a Slight Beneficial effect overall.
5.6.42 An undated boundary earthwork north-west of Stonehenge (1026) is very poorly preserved and is not readily discernible. Removal of the traffic from the A344 would have a Negligible Beneficial permanent effect on the setting of the Medium Value feature, a Neutral effect overall. There would be No Impact due to operation of the Visitor Transit System between Airman’s Corner and Byway 12.
5.6.43 Although the A344 is visible from the Normanton Down barrow group, these monuments are situated over 1000m away and any effects due to removal of traffic from the A344 and/or operation of the Visitor Transit System between Airman’s Corner and Byway 12 are considered to be Not Significant.
Stonehenge Environmental September 2009 164 Improvements Project Environmental Statement 11110202R ES Chapter 5 0_Archaeology_WA_Final_30-09-09 Wessex Archaeology
Decommissioning Works to the Existing Facilities at the Stones
5.6.44 Operation of the new Hub facilities at the Stones would entail access for a single vehicle, and pedestrian access for Hub staff and visitors using the emergency toilet provision here. Any effects on the setting of any monument due to the operation of the new Hub facilities at the Stones would be Not Significant.
Byway 12
5.6.45 The restriction of non-exempt motorised traffic on Byway 12 would eliminate flyparking and enhance the setting of Stonehenge and the character of this part of the WHS. The proposals would have a permanent Minor beneficial impact, resulting in a Moderate beneficial effect on the following upstanding scheduled monuments of Very High value:
• Stonehenge, the Heel Stone, the Avenue, the North Barrow and the South Barrow, and the Station Stones (1073-5, 909, 1080, 1066, 1084); and • Eight round barrows in the Stonehenge Triangle (1038, 1130, 1134, 1142, 1144, 1147, 1158).
5.6.46 Although Byway 12 is visible from other monuments, including some of the Cursus Barrows and the New King Barrows, these lie between 500m and 1500m away and any effects are considered to be Not Significant.
The A303(T) Road Corridor between Stonehenge Bottom and Longbarrow Crossroads
5.6.47 Taking into account the existing traffic movements and frequent congestion on the A303(T), together with the amelioration of queuing at Stonehenge Bottom, it is considered that any effects on the settings of monuments within 500m of the A303(T) due to increased traffic movements following closure of the A344 would be Not Significant. There would be No Change to the settings of the Medium Value Grade II listed turnpike milestones (1999, 2156), a Neutral effect.
Junction Improvements at Longbarrow Crossroads
5.6.48 Operation of the new, reconfigured roundabout would have the following impact on the Scheduled Long Barrow (1575) and barrows amongst the Winterbourne Stoke Group (1490, 1497, 1508, 1512, 1514, 1519, 1522, 1524-6, 1540, 1545, 1551, 1554, 1556, 1559):
• Increased traffic movements with additional approach lanes on the A360 southbound and the A303(T) westbound would have a Negligible adverse permanent impact on the setting of the monuments. • The lighting scheme for the reconfigured junction will seek to minimise light intrusion from the existing baseline conditions, a permanent Negligible beneficial impact on the setting of the monument.
Stonehenge Environmental September 2009 165 Improvements Project Environmental Statement 11110202R ES Chapter 5 0_Archaeology_WA_Final_30-09-09 Wessex Archaeology
5.6.49 Increased traffic movements would have a permanent adverse impact on the settings of the monuments. Although the lighting scheme for the reconfigured junction would illuminate a similar area, the use of cut-off lamps and dimmable technology would deliver a reduced lighting impact, subject to detailed design. Taking into account the proximity of the existing junction, there would be No Change overall to the setting of the Very High value long barrow and barrow cemeteries, a Neutral effect.
5.6.50 Taking into account the distance from the junction, it is considered that overall there would be No Change to the settings of the Very High Value scheduled long barrow (1472), the High Value bowl barrow (1454) and linear earthwork (1459) on Wilsford Down, and the Medium Value Grade II listed milestone (2174) on the A360 due to the proposed junction improvements, and a Neutral effect. There would be No Change to the setting of a High Value scheduled, round barrow south-west of Longbarrow crossroads (1604), a Neutral effect.
The A360 Road Corridor between Longbarrow and Airman’s Corner
5.6.51 Barrows amongst the Winterbourne Stoke Group (1578-9, 1581, 1585-8, 1592, 1594, 1597), north of Longbarrow Crossroads, and a scheduled round barrow north of the Winterbourne Stoke group (1589) lie within 100m of the road. There would be a Major Adverse permanent impact on the Very High Value monuments due to increased traffic movements along the A360 following closure of the A344, a Very Large Adverse effect.
5.6.52 Two scheduled round barrows west of the A360 (1600, 1609) lie within 100m of the road. There would be a Major Adverse permanent impact on the High Value monument due to increased traffic movements along the A360 following closure of the A344, a Large Adverse effect.
5.6.53 A scheduled round barrow north of the Winterbourne Stoke group (1562) lies within 200m of the road. There would be a Moderate Adverse permanent impact on the Very High Value monument due to increased traffic movements along the A360 following closure of the A344, a Large Adverse effect.
5.6.54 A scheduled round barrow north of the Winterbourne Stoke group (1533) lies within 500m of the road. There would be a Minor adverse permanent impact on the Very High Value monument due to increased traffic movements along the A360 following closure of the A344, a Moderate Adverse effect.
Stonehenge Environmental September 2009 166 Improvements Project Environmental Statement 11110202R ES Chapter 5 0_Archaeology_WA_Final_30-09-09 Wessex Archaeology
Junction Improvements at Airman’s Corner
5.6.55 Operation of the new roundabout junction at Airman’s Corner would have the following impact on the scheduled Cursus (1044), the Monarch of the Plain (1333), and 2 scheduled barrows north of the Winterbourne Stoke group (1589, 1533):
• Increased traffic movements would have a Negligible adverse permanent impact on the setting of the monuments. • Lighting intrusion from the reconfigured junction would have a permanent Minor adverse impact on the setting of the monuments.
5.6.56 Increased traffic movements would have a permanent adverse impact on the settings of the monuments. Although cut-off lamps and dimmable technology would be used to mitigate new light intrusion from the junction, a significantly larger area would be illuminated over the existing conditions. There would be a Minor Adverse permanent impact on the setting of the Very High Value due to increased traffic movements, a Moderate Adverse effect.
5.6.57 Taking into account the screening effects of the existing trees along the A344, it is considered that overall there would be No Change to the setting of the High Value round barrow (1620) due to operation of the proposed junction improvements, and a Neutral effect.
5.6.58 There would be a Negligible Beneficial permanent impact on the setting of the Medium Value Grade II Listed Airman’s Cross memorial (2093) due to operation of the Scheme, a Neutral effect, following relocation of the memorial from its location within the existing junction to a new position within the New Visitor Centre site where it will be more readily and safely accessible to visitors.
5.6.59 An unlisted milestone (2183) on the A360 would be relocated to an appropriate position adjacent to the new junction; there would be No Change to the setting of the Medium Value feature due to operation of the Scheme, a Neutral effect overall.
5.7 Effects on the Outstanding Universal Value of the WHS
Introduction
5.7.1 This section assesses the effects of the proposed Scheme on the OUV of the WHS. The attributes which together express the OUV of the WHS as set out in the Management Plan are discussed in section 5.3 above and summarised below:
Stonehenge Environmental September 2009 167 Improvements Project Environmental Statement 11110202R ES Chapter 5 0_Archaeology_WA_Final_30-09-09 Wessex Archaeology
1. Stonehenge itself as a globally famous and iconic monument. 2. The physical remains of the Neolithic and Bronze Age funerary and ceremonial monuments and associated sites. 3. The siting of Neolithic and Bronze Age funerary and ceremonial sites and monuments in relation to the landscape. 4. The design of Neolithic and Bronze Age funerary and ceremonial sites and monuments in relation to the skies and astronomy. 5. The siting of Neolithic and Bronze Age funerary and ceremonial sites and monuments in relation to each other. 6. The disposition, physical remains and settings of the key Neolithic and Bronze Age funerary, ceremonial and other monuments and sites of the period, which together form a landscape without parallel. 7. The influence of the remains of Neolithic and Bronze Age funerary and ceremonial monuments and their landscape settings on architects, artists, historians, archaeologists and others.
5.7.2 The following key monument groups within the Study Area (Volume 3, Figure 5.2) that could be affected by 1 or more of the proposed Scheme elements have been identified with regard to the above attributes as carrying the OUV of the WHS (see 5.3.60 above); other key monument groups that express attributes of OUV have no intervisibility with the Scheme and/or are located at distance and would not, therefore, be affected by the Scheme:
• Stonehenge and the Stonehenge Avenue. • The Stonehenge barrow group. • The Cursus. • Normanton Down barrow group. • The Cursus barrows. • The King Barrows. • Coneybury henge. • The Durrington Down barrow groups. • The Lesser Cursus and associated barrows. • The Winterbourne Stoke barrow group. • Barrows to the north of the Winterbourne Stoke group.
5.7.3 Assessment of the construction and operational effects of the proposed Scheme (sections 5.5 and 5.6 above) has identified a series of potential impacts, both adverse and beneficial, on these key monument groups; these are discussed below.
Stonehenge and the Stonehenge Avenue
5.7.4 Stonehenge and the Avenue would be affected by the following Scheme elements:
• Closure and removal of the A344 between Stonehenge Bottom and Byway 12, and closure of the A344 to public traffic between Byway 12 and Airman’s Corner. • Removal of the Existing Visitor Facilities and Car Park at the Stones and construction of new Hub facilities. • Changes in traffic flows on the A303(T).
5.7.5 The proposed Scheme would bring Very Large Beneficial effects to the settings of Stonehenge and the Stonehenge Avenue due to closure and removal of the A344; removal of traffic from
Stonehenge Environmental September 2009 168 Improvements Project Environmental Statement 11110202R ES Chapter 5 0_Archaeology_WA_Final_30-09-09 Wessex Archaeology
the A344; and closure and removal of the Existing Visitor Facilities and Car Park. There would be an improved visitor experience at Stonehenge due to removal of the sight and sound of traffic on the A344; the removal of the A344 to allow reuniting of Stonehenge with its Avenue; and improvements to the setting of the Heel Stone with the removal of the existing security fence. The removal of the Existing Visitor Car Park would bring significant improvements to the setting of Stonehenge when viewed from other monument groups that express attributes of the OUV of the WHS, including the Cursus, the King Barrows, and Coneybury Henge. There would be no significant effects due to construction or operation of the new Hub facilities. Any effects on the setting of Stonehenge and the Avenue due to changes in traffic flows on the A303(T) following closure of the A344 are considered to be insignificant and would be greatly outweighed by the benefits of closure of the A344 and removal of the Existing Car Park.
The Stonehenge Barrow Group
5.7.6 The Stonehenge barrow group would be affected by the following Scheme elements:
• Closure and removal of the A344 between Stonehenge Bottom and Byway 12, and closure of the A344 to motorised vehicles other than exempt vehicles between Byway 12 and Airman’s Corner. • Removal of the Existing Visitor Facilities and Car Park at the Stones and construction of new Hub facilities. • Changes in traffic flows on the A303(T).
5.7.7 There would be Large Beneficial effects to the settings of barrows within the Stonehenge Triangle due to construction and operation of the proposed Scheme, with the removal of the sight and sound of traffic on the A344 and the removal of the Existing Visitor Car Park. Again, any effects on the setting of the barrow group due to changes in traffic flows on the A303(T) following closure of the A344 are considered to be insignificant and would be greatly outweighed by the benefits of closure of the A344 and removal of the Existing Car Park.
The Cursus
5.7.8 The Cursus would be affected by the following Scheme elements:
• Removal of the Existing Visitor Facilities and Car Park at the Stones and construction of new Hub facilities. • Closure and removal of the A344 between Stonehenge Bottom and Byway 12, and closure of the A344 to public traffic between Byway 12 and Airman’s Corner. • Operation of the Visitor Transit System along the A344 between Airman’s Corner and Byway 12. • Construction of the New Visitor Centre building. • Construction and operation of the access roads into the Airman’s Corner site and to the New Car Park • Construction and operation of the New Car Park. • Construction and operation of the coach access road, New Coach Park, Coach Drop- off/Pick-up point and Ancillary Building.
Stonehenge Environmental September 2009 169 Improvements Project Environmental Statement 11110202R ES Chapter 5 0_Archaeology_WA_Final_30-09-09 Wessex Archaeology
• Junction improvements at Airman’s Corner.
5.7.9 The New Visitor Centre building would be prominent in long distance views between a small part of the very extensive Cursus and a long barrow on Winterbourne Stoke Down. During operation, the New Visitor Car Park would present a highly visible intrusive element due to vehicle movements and reflection of light from vehicle glazing; when not in operation, the New Car Park has been designed to be minimally intrusive in its form, siting and profile, and to benefit from grass landscaping measures. Proposed tree planting would comprehensively screen the New Coach Park and Drop-off/Pick-up point and the Ancillary Building by Year 15 of operation. Adverse effects due to operation of the Visitor Transit System along the A344 between Airman’s Corner and Byway 12 would not outweigh the benefits of removal of the sight and sound of traffic on the A344 to the setting of the Cursus.
5.7.10 Overall, the proposed Scheme would have a Large adverse effect on the setting of a small part of the extensive Cursus monument. However, there would be no adverse effects on the majority of the Cursus, including the area visible from Stonehenge; and significant improvements in views between the Cursus and Stonehenge due to removal of the Existing Visitor Car Park and closure of the A344. Overall, there would be a Large Beneficial effect on the setting of the monument due to removal of the A344 and the Existing Visitor Car Park.
Normanton Down Barrow Group
5.7.11 The Normanton Down barrow group would be affected by the following Scheme elements:
• Closure and removal of the A344 between Stonehenge Bottom and Byway 12, and closure of the A344 to public traffic between Byway 12 and Airman’s Corner. • Removal of the Existing Visitor Facilities and Car Park at the Stones and construction of new Hub facilities. • Changes in traffic flows on the A303(T).
5.7.12 Although the A344 and the Existing Visitor Car Park are visible from the Normanton Down barrow group, these are situated over 1000m away and any effects on these monuments due to removal of traffic from the A344 and/or removal of the Existing Visitor Facilities and Car Park are considered to be Not Significant. There would be no significant effect on the setting of the barrow group due to changes in traffic flows on the A303(T) following closure of the A344. There would be no adverse effects on views from the Normanton Down group towards other key monument groups that express attributes of OUV.
The Cursus Barrows
5.7.13 The Cursus barrows would be affected by the following Scheme elements:
Stonehenge Environmental September 2009 170 Improvements Project Environmental Statement 11110202R ES Chapter 5 0_Archaeology_WA_Final_30-09-09 Wessex Archaeology
• Removal of the Existing Visitor Facilities and Car Park at the Stones and construction of new Hub facilities. • Closure of the A344 to public traffic between Byway 12 and Airman’s Corner. • Operation of the Visitor Transit System along the A344 between Airman’s Corner and Byway 12.
5.7.14 Removal of the Existing Visitor Car Park and removal of traffic from the A344 would have a Very Large Beneficial effect on the settings of the Cursus Barrows, in particular in views towards Stonehenge; this would outweigh any adverse effects due to operation of the Visitor Transit System between Airman’s Corner and Byway 12.
The King Barrows
5.7.15 The King Barrows would be affected by the following Scheme elements:
• Closure and removal of the A344 between Stonehenge Bottom and Byway 12, and closure of the A344 to public traffic between Byway 12 and Airman’s Corner. • Removal of the Existing Visitor Facilities and Car Park at the Stones and construction of new Hub facilities.
5.7.16 Removal of the Existing visitor Car Park and removal of traffic from the A344 would have a Very Large Beneficial effect on the settings of the King Barrows and in views from these towards Stonehenge.
Coneybury Henge
5.7.17 The Coneybury henge would be affected by the following Scheme elements:
• Closure and removal of the A344 between Stonehenge Bottom and Byway 12. • Removal of the Existing Visitor Facilities and Car Park at the Stones and construction of new Hub facilities.
5.7.18 Although these Scheme elements are visible from Coneybury Hill, these are situated over 1000m away and any effects on these monuments due to removal of traffic from the A344 and/or removal of the Existing Visitor Facilities and Car Park are considered to be Not Significant. Any effects due to changes in traffic flows on the A303(T) following closure of the A344 are also considered to be insignificant. There would be no adverse effects on views towards other key monument groups that express attributes of OUV.
The Durrington Down Barrow Groups
5.7.19 The Durrington Down barrow groups would be affected by the following Scheme elements:
• Removal of the Existing Visitor Facilities and Car Park at the Stones and construction of new Hub facilities.
Stonehenge Environmental September 2009 171 Improvements Project Environmental Statement 11110202R ES Chapter 5 0_Archaeology_WA_Final_30-09-09 Wessex Archaeology
• Closure and removal of the A344 between Stonehenge Bottom and Byway 12, and closure of the A344 to public traffic between Byway 12 and Airman’s Corner.
5.7.20 Although there is some intervisibility between these Scheme elements and parts of the Durrington Down barrow groups, these are situated over 1000m away and any effects on these monuments due to removal of the Existing Visitor Facilities and Car Park and/or removal of traffic from the A344 are considered to be Not Significant.
The Lesser Cursus and Associated Barrows
5.7.21 The Lesser Cursus and associated barrows lie within 1000m of the Airman’s Corner site and would be affected by the following Scheme elements:
• Closure of the A344 to public traffic between Byway 12 and Airman’s Corner. • Operation of the Visitor Transit System along the A344 between Airman’s Corner and Byway 12. • Construction of the New Visitor Centre building. • Construction and operation of the access roads into the Airman’s Corner site and to the New Car Park • Construction and operation of the New Car Park. • Construction and operation of the coach access road, New Coach Park, Coach Drop- off/Pick-up point and Ancillary Building.
5.7.22 Although closure of the A344 to public traffic would bring some benefits to the settings of the Lesser Cursus and associated barrows, these would be outweighed by the adverse effects of construction and operation of the New Visitor Facilities and Car Park. Overall, taking into account the distance of the monuments from the New Visitor Facilities site, the proposed Scheme would have a Moderate Adverse effect on the settings of the Lesser Cursus and associated barrows and on distant views towards the Winterbourne Stoke barrow group.
The Winterbourne Stoke Barrow Group
5.7.23 The Winterbourne Stoke barrow group lies between 700m and 1500m from the Airman’s Corner site and would be affected by the following Scheme elements:
• Closure of the A344 to public traffic between Byway 12 and Airman’s Corner. • Operation of the Visitor Transit System along the A344 between Airman’s Corner and Byway 12. • Construction of the New Visitor Centre building. • Construction and operation of the access roads into the Airman’s Corner site and to the New Car Park. • Construction and operation of the New Car Park. • Construction and operation of the coach access road, New Coach Park, Coach Drop- off/Pick-up point and Ancillary Building. • Junction improvements at Longbarrow Crossroads. • The A360 road corridor between Longbarrow and Airman’s Corner. • Junction improvements at Airman’s Corner.
Stonehenge Environmental September 2009 172 Improvements Project Environmental Statement 11110202R ES Chapter 5 0_Archaeology_WA_Final_30-09-09 Wessex Archaeology
5.7.24 It is considered that closure of the A344 to public traffic and operation of the Visitor Transit System would have no significant effect on the settings of the scheduled long barrow and round barrow cemeteries amongst the Winterbourne Stoke Group. There would be adverse effects due to construction and operation of the New Visitor Facilities and Car Park. Junction improvements would bring benefits to the setting of the long barrow through relocation of the roundabout, but disbenefits due to the increased traffic movements and approach lanes required; there would be adverse effects due to increased traffic movements and queuing, including increased coach traffic on the A360 following closure of the A344. Overall, taking into account the distance of the monuments from the New Visitor Facilities site, the benefits accruing from relocation of the roundabout, and the effects of increased traffic on the A360, the proposed Scheme would have a Slight Adverse effect on the settings of the long barrow and barrow cemeteries.
Barrows north of the Winterbourne Stoke Barrow Group
5.7.25 A small group of barrows north of the Winterbourne Stoke barrow group and east of the A360 lies approximately 300m south of the proposed New Car Park and 500m from the proposed New Visitor Centre building at Airman’s Corner, and between 100m and 300m from the A360. The group expresses attributes of OUV and would be affected by the following Scheme elements:
• Closure of the A344 to public traffic between Byway 12 and Airman’s Corner. • Operation of the Visitor Transit System along the A344 between Airman’s Corner and Byway 12. • Construction of the New Visitor Centre building. • Construction and operation of the access roads into the Airman’s Corner site and to the New Car Park. • Construction and operation of the New Car Park. • Construction and operation of the coach access road, New Coach Park, Coach Drop- off/Pick-up point and Ancillary Building. • The A360 road corridor between Longbarrow and Airman’s Corner. • Junction improvements at Airman’s Corner.
5.7.26 It is considered that closure of the A344 to public traffic and operation of the Visitor Transit System would have no significant effect on the settings of the barrow group. There would be adverse effects due to construction and operation of the New Visitor Facilities and Car Park. There would be adverse effects due to increased traffic movements, including increased coach traffic on the A360 following closure of the A344. Overall, taking into account the proximity of the monuments to the New Visitor Facilities Car Park and the effects of increased traffic on the A360, the proposed Scheme would have a Large Adverse effect on the settings of the barrow group.
Stonehenge Environmental September 2009 173 Improvements Project Environmental Statement 11110202R ES Chapter 5 0_Archaeology_WA_Final_30-09-09 Wessex Archaeology
Summary
5.7.27 The proposed Scheme would have adverse effects on the OUV of the WHS due to impacts on the settings of a small part of the Stonehenge Cursus; the Lesser Cursus and associated Bronze Age barrows; the Winterbourne Stoke barrow group; and barrows to the north of the Winterbourne Stoke group; and on the visual inter-relationships between these key monument groups, as a result of construction and operation of the proposed New Visitor Facilities and related traffic increases on the A360. The setting of 1 long barrow outside the WHS boundary would also be adversely affected.
5.7.28 While significant, these adverse effects would be substantially outweighed by the permanent benefits to the WHS arising from the removal of the Existing Visitor Car Park and Facilities and the closure and removal of the A344. There would be significant improvements to the settings of key monument groups that are intervisible with each other and with Stonehenge itself – the Stonehenge barrows; the greater part of the Stonehenge Cursus; the Cursus Barrows; and the King Barrows. Effects on the settings of the Normanton Down and Durrington Down barrow groups and Coneybury henge, while not considered significant due to the distance of these monuments from the Scheme elements, would also be beneficial. The Scheme would have no adverse effects on other key monument groups that express attributes of OUV, including the Lake barrows; the Wilsford barrows; the Lake Down barrows; the Vespasian’s Camp barrows; Durrington Walls; Woodhenge; and Robin Hood’s Ball. There would be no direct impact on any scheduled monument or loss of significant archaeological remains due to construction or operation of the proposed Scheme, and the adverse impacts on the OUV of the WHS arising from the development at Airman’s Corner would be reversible. Effects on the setting of the WHS have been considered through assessment of impacts (see 5.5 and 5.6 above) both within the WHS and outside the WHS, including effects on long-distance views into the WHS from the western parts of the Study Area. Although the Scheme would have significant impacts on the immediate setting of the WHS at Airman’s Corner and Longbarrow Crossroads, these would be localised and the visibility analysis (Volume 2, Appendix A5.5) and the photomontages (item 6.7 in Volume 3) demonstrate that adverse effects on the wider setting of the WHS would be negligible.
5.7.29 Stonehenge itself is the only monument in the WHS that expresses all 7 attributes of the OUV of the WHS. The proximity of the Existing Visitor Car Park and the A344, and their impact on the setting of Stonehenge and on views from other key monument groups, represents an adverse impact on the integrity of the OUV of the WHS. The removal of these existing intrusive elements would therefore represent a substantial beneficial effect on the integrity of the iconic Stonehenge monument, and on the integrity of the WHS as a whole.
Stonehenge Environmental September 2009 174 Improvements Project Environmental Statement 11110202R ES Chapter 5 0_Archaeology_WA_Final_30-09-09 Wessex Archaeology
5.7.30 Overall, implementation of the proposed Scheme would have a Large Beneficial effect on the OUV of the WHS.
5.8 Summary and Conclusions
5.8.1 The Management Plan sets out a Vision for the Stonehenge WHS and a series of priorities to move towards this, including:
• Removal or screening of inappropriate structures or roads, in particular the A344; • Enhancement of the visitor experience by 2012 by providing improved interim facilities; and • Improved interpretation of the WHS and increased access to selected monuments.
5.8.2 This section reviews the effects of the Scheme in relation to these priorities and relevant Management Plan policies (see Volume 2, Appendix A4.1).
Proposed New Visitor Facilities at Airman’s Corner
5.8.3 The provision of improved visitor facilities at Airman’s Corner would deliver Policy 4j of the Management Planxxvi. The Airman’s Corner site was selected as the preferred site for the New Visitor Facilities following public consultation (see Chapter 3, Alternatives) as it would, inter alia with regard to archaeology and the historic environment:
• Minimise as far as practicable adverse impact on the WHS, its setting and the attributes of its Outstanding Universal Value; • Minimise as far as practicable adverse impacts on the character of the landscape; • Avoid constraining opportunities for improvements to the setting of Stonehenge and other monuments and sites in the WHS landscape as far as practicable; • Make use of land which has been previously disturbed by development – the section of the B3086 to be removed; • Make use of existing infrastructure so enabling new infrastructure (including access roads and transit routes) within the WHS to be kept to a practical minimum.
5.8.4 The Airman’s Corner site is visually contained between the Lesser Cursus ridge to the north, Fargo Plantation to the east, and the Winterbourne Stoke Ridge to the south; although the proposed development would be visible from key monument groups that express attributes of OUV at these locations, in most cases this would be over distances at, or in excess of 1km. Within the site, the proposed development has been designed to minimise visual intrusion and enhance visitor experience through the spatial separation of built elements to provide a grassland setting for the new visitor centre building; the location of linear transport elements adjacent to existing highways; and the use of minimal new tree planting and grassland landscaping to integrate the new development with its surroundings. Although the visitors’ car park would present a highly visible intrusive element due to vehicle movements and reflection of light from vehicle glazing during operation, when not in operation the car park has been
Stonehenge Environmental September 2009 175 Improvements Project Environmental Statement 11110202R ES Chapter 5 0_Archaeology_WA_Final_30-09-09 Wessex Archaeology
designed to be minimally intrusive in its form, siting and profile. Proposed tree planting would comprehensively screen the coach park and drop off and the ancillary building by Year 15 of operation of the Scheme.
5.8.5 A programme of archaeological field surveys has sought to identify any buried remains within the site, and the method of construction has been developed in consultation with the Archaeological Working Group to ensure the preservation in situ of any such remains. The results of the surveys indicate that there are no significant remains within the site. The archaeological mitigation strategy includes provision for archaeological monitoring in order to ensure that any as yet unknown remains are recorded appropriately.
A344 Works
5.8.6 The proposed closure to motorised traffic of the A344 between Airman’s Corner and Byway 12 and the closure and removal of the A344 between its junction with the A303 and Byway 12 would deliver Policy 5b of the Management Plan, a key objective requested by the UNESCO World Heritage Committee at the time of inscription of the WHS in 1986xxvii; and contribute to implementation of Policy 5a to reduce the impacts of roads and traffic on the WHS and improve road safetyxxviii. The restoration of the A344 between Byway 12 and the A303 would contribute to the delivery of Policy 3i of the Management Planxxix and the 2009-2015 priorities for achievement of the Vision for the removal or screening of all inappropriate structures or roads to enhance the visual character of the WHS landscape. Provision for visitor access in accordance with Policy 4dxxx would be achieved through a combination of access on foot via existing rights of way, and managed visitor access via the Visitor Transit System.
5.8.7 The closure and removal of the A344 between Stonehenge Bottom and Byway 12 would bring significant benefits for the character of the setting of Stonehenge and immediately related monuments through the restoration of the physical link between Stonehenge and the Avenue and improvements to the setting of Stonehenge and the Heelstone. Works to restore the line of the A344 here to grass have been designed to avoid any impact on known archaeological remains; works in this area would be monitored as part of the archaeological mitigation strategy in order to ensure that any as yet unknown remains are recorded appropriately. The proposed closure to public traffic of the A344 from Airman’s Corner to Byway 12 would retain the current road surface in situ for re-use as the VTS and pedestrian approach route to the Stones; there would be no adverse effects on any remains due to re-use of the existing road. Traffic on the A344 presents an incongruous, highly visible – and audible – modern intrusion, removal of which would be highly beneficial to the setting of Stonehenge and to the safeguarding of the OUV of the WHS. It is not considered that there would be any adverse
Stonehenge Environmental September 2009 176 Improvements Project Environmental Statement 11110202R ES Chapter 5 0_Archaeology_WA_Final_30-09-09 Wessex Archaeology
effect on the setting of any monument due to the movement of visitors approaching the Stones via the drop-offs at Byway 12 or Fargo Plantation.
Decommissioning works to the existing facilities at the Stones
5.8.8 The decommissioning of the existing visitor facilities at Stonehenge would contribute to the delivery of Policy 3ixxxi of the Management Plan and the 2009-2015 priorities for achievement of the Vision for the removal or screening of all inappropriate structures or roads to enhance the visual character of the WHS landscape.
5.8.9 The existing visitor facilities are incongruous and intrusive as they are highly visible in views towards Stonehenge from key monument groups of OUV, including the Cursus, the Cursus Barrows, and the King Barrows. Decommissioning works would be confined to the footprint of the existing facilities and would not affect any known remains; the archaeological mitigation strategy includes provision to ensure that any as yet unknown remains are recorded appropriately. Removal of the existing visitor facilities would be highly beneficial to the setting of Stonehenge and to the safeguarding of the OUV of the WHS.
Junction improvements at Longbarrow Crossroads and Airman’s Corner
5.8.10 The provision of junction improvements at Longbarrow Crossroads and Airman’s Corner would improve road safety in accordance with Policy 5a of the Management Planxxxii. Construction of a new roundabout at Longbarrow Crossroads allows the setting of the long barrow to be improved, although there would also be adverse effects due to increased traffic movements following the closure of the A344. Lighting design for the improved junctions would take account of the need to reduce light intrusion, in accordance with the principle of Policy 3l of the Management Planxxxiii.
Overall impact of the Scheme
5.8.11 The Stonehenge WHS Management Plan is the framework for delivery of UK responsibilities under Article 4 of the World Heritage Conventionxxxiv. The primary purpose of the Management Plan is to sustain the Outstanding Universal Value (OUV) of the Stonehenge WHS to ensure the effective protection, conservation, presentation and transmission of the WHS to present and future generationsxxxv. The proposed Scheme would provide substantial permanent benefits for the archaeology and the historic environment of the Stonehenge WHS, and would help sustain its OUV. The Scheme would also be a major contribution to achieving the Management Plan’s Vision for the WHS, delivering a number of specific priorities identified in the Plan.
Stonehenge Environmental September 2009 177 Improvements Project Environmental Statement 11110202R ES Chapter 5 0_Archaeology_WA_Final_30-09-09 Wessex Archaeology
5.8.12 Section 5 of the ES assesses the impacts of the Scheme on individual monuments, archaeological sites and other historic environment resources, including the few historic buildings and historic aspects of the landscape. The following provides a summary of those impacts in relation to the attributes of Outstanding Universal Value of the WHS. Although the Scheme would have some adverse effects on some monuments expressing attributes of Outstanding Universal Value, notably on three barrows north of the Winterbourne Stoke group, many of these impacts would be reversible. In summary, the Scheme would have the following effects on the Outstanding Universal Value of the Stonehenge WHS as expressed in the Management Plan:
1. Stonehenge itself as a globally famous and iconic monument: • the proposed Scheme would have substantial beneficial effects on the setting and interpretation of Stonehenge and associated monuments • removal of existing impacts on the integrity of Stonehenge and the WHS as a whole due to the removal of the A344 and significant downsizing of the existing visitors’ car park and facilities
2. The physical remains of the Neolithic and Bronze Age funerary and ceremonial monuments and associated sites: • there would be no loss of known physical remains relating to Neolithic and Bronze Age funerary and ceremonial monuments and associated sites
3. The siting of Neolithic and Bronze Age funerary and ceremonial sites and monuments in relation to the landscape: • there would be substantial beneficial effects on the settings of some key monument groups in their landscape setting, in particular through removal of the A344 and the existing visitor facilities • any adverse effects due to construction or operation of the Scheme would be reversible and in the large part temporary
4. The design of Neolithic and Bronze Age funerary and ceremonial monuments in relation to the skies and astronomy: • there would be substantial beneficial effects on the setting and interpretation of Stonehenge and associated monuments due to removal of the A344 and the existing visitors’ car park • the proposed new development would have no impact on the solsticial alignments of Stonehenge, and the Scheme would improve views to and from the Stones along solsticial alignments such as when looking towards Stonehenge from the north-east • changes to the existing lighting provision at Longbarrow Crossroads and Airman’s Corner would be designed to have no adverse effect on this attribute
5. The siting of Neolithic and Bronze Age funerary and ceremonial monuments in relation to each other: • there would be substantial beneficial effects on the settings of key monument groups that are intervisible with each other and with Stonehenge, in particular through removal of the A344 • the effects of new development under the Scheme proposals would be reversible and constructed with a low impact (‘light touch’)
6. The disposition, physical remains and settings of the key Neolithic and Bronze Age funerary, ceremonial and other monuments and sites of the period, which together form a landscape without parallel:
Stonehenge Environmental September 2009 178 Improvements Project Environmental Statement 11110202R ES Chapter 5 0_Archaeology_WA_Final_30-09-09 Wessex Archaeology
• there would be substantial beneficial effects on the settings of key monument groups intervisible with Stonehenge • the effects of new development under the Scheme proposals would be reversible
7. The influence of the remains of Neolithic and Bronze age funerary and ceremonial monuments and their landscape settings on architects, artists, historians, archaeologists and others: • there would be substantial beneficial effects on the settings of Stonehenge and key monument groups that are intervisible with each other and with Stonehenge • the Scheme would have no adverse effects on this attribute.
5.8.13 On balance, taking into account the benefits of the proposed development in sustaining the Outstanding Universal Value of the Stonehenge WHS, the overall cumulative effect of the Scheme would have a Large Beneficial impact.
Glossary
• Academic Report – a report containing all the evidence, analysis and synthesis necessary to fulfil an archaeological recording programme. See also the Popular Report. • Archaeological Recording – work commissioned for the purpose of investigating, analysing, interpreting and publishing important archaeological remains, which may be damaged or destroyed by the Scheme. • Assessment Report – the product of a process of review of material, which results from a programme of Archaeological Recording, before decisions regarding the appropriate level of post excavation analysis and publication are taken. • Asset – the overall cultural heritage resource comprises individual assets, which may be archaeological remains, historic buildings or historic landscape character units. • Context - knowledge or beliefs which supply the framework for appreciating historical assets and values, where tangible or visible evidence is lacking at the site. • Desk-Based Assessment – a data collection and analysis exercise utilising existing sources of cultural heritage data (such as Sites and MONUMENTS RECORDS, Listed Building data, historic maps etc.). The purpose is to identify relevant known cultural heritage resources. • DMRB – Design Manual for Roads and Bridges. • Evaluation – the process of identifying cultural heritage resources, including the initial studies and fieldwork carried out to assess the cultural heritage potential and the effect of the SCHEME. Evaluation may form part of the assessment process. • Excavation – form of archaeological fieldwork generally employed as MITIGATION. Usually involves topsoil stripping followed by detailed investigation, recording, analysis interpretation and publication of archaeological features or deposits. • Field Survey – fieldwork intended to provide additional information about known or potential cultural heritage resources, as part of the EVALUATION (assessment) process. It can include GEOPHYSICAL SURVEY, TEST PITTING and TRIAL TRENCHING. Field survey is distinct from MITIGATION. • Geophysical Survey – a non-intrusive EVALUATION method employing remote sensing techniques, which measure particular properties of the ground. These include resistivity (electrical conduction), magnetometry (magnetic properties) ground- penetrating radar, metal detecting and others. • Institute for Archaeologists (IfA) – the IfA represents professional archaeologists and promotes good practice amongst archaeological contractors. IfA registered organisations are required to adhere to certain minimum standards of practice. • Listed Building – a statutory designation assigned to a built structure (not limited solely to buildings) of special architectural or historic interest. • Mitigation – archaeological work intended to reduce the impact of a scheme, agreed following the EVALUATION phase. Mitigation may involve, amongst others, avoiding or screening important cultural heritage features, or burying or excavating and recording archaeological material (see ARCHAEOLOGICAL RECORDING PROGRAMME). • Popular Report – a publication or presentation designed to present the results of a cultural heritage investigation simply for a lay audience in an attractive format. • Research Framework or Agenda – in England these are developed nationally by English Heritage, and regionally by various consortia, as a means of prioritising cultural heritage research. The intention is to focus work on periods or processes, which are of particular national or regional interest. These may be used to inform scheme-specific scheme designs and research objectives. • Scheduled Monument – the designation by the respective Secretaries of State and Ministers advised by the Department of Culture, Media and Sport and English Heritage of a site or area as worthy of protection under the terms of the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Areas Act 1979. Scheduled Monuments are of national importance. • Setting – the surroundings of an asset relevant to its value, understanding or appreciation. • Strip, Map and Sample (SMS) – SMS is a mitigation technique intended for use in areas where evaluation fieldwork is deemed unnecessary because archaeological remains are already known or are highly likely to occur. • Test pitting – intrusive FIELD SURVEY technique intended to test for the presence or absence, character, survival, date and extent of potential archaeological resources through examination of the artefact content of topsoil.
Stonehenge Environmental September 2009 179 Improvements Project Environmental Statement 11110202R ES Chapter 5 0_Archaeology_WA_Final_30-09-09 Wessex Archaeology
• Time Depth – the extent to which evidence of the processes of change over time survive and can be used to construct a coherent understanding of past landscapes. • Trial Trenching – intrusive FIELD SURVEY technique intended to test for the presence or absence, character, survival, date and extent of potential buried archaeological resources. • Watching Brief – the monitoring of the construction by an archaeologist to identify and record unexpected finds. • World Heritage Site – area of cultural or natural interest inscribed onto the UNESCO World Heritage List as of outstanding universal value according to one or more criteria.
References i Young, Chadburn and Bedu 2009, Stonehenge World Heritage Site Management Plan 2009, 56 (7.3.10) ii Wessex Archaeology 2003 Condition Survey & Management Recommendations for Archaeological Sites within the Stonehenge WHS iii Young, Chadburn and Bedu 2009, Stonehenge World Heritage Site Management Plan 2009, 25 iv Darvill, T. 2005 Stonehenge World Heritage Site: an archaeological research framework v Darvill, T. 2006 Stonehenge: the Biography of a Landscape, 62-4 vi Cleal, R.M.J., Walker, K.E. and Montague, R. 1995: Stonehenge in its Landscape: Twentieth Century Excavations, 43 vii Young, Chadburn and Bedu 2009, Stonehenge World Heritage Site Management Plan 2009, 155; Cleal et al 1995, 43 viii Young, Chadburn and Bedu 2009, Stonehenge World Heritage Site Management Plan 2009, 155 ix Parker-Pearson, M. et al 2007 ‘The Age of Stonehenge’, Antiquity 81, 14 x Richards, J. 2005, Stonehenge xi Young, Chadburn and Bedu 2009, Stonehenge World Heritage Site Management Plan 2009, 155 xii Young, Chadburn and Bedu 2009, Stonehenge World Heritage Site Management Plan 2009, 155 xiii Young, Chadburn and Bedu 2009, Stonehenge World Heritage Site Management Plan 2009, 155 xiv Parker-Pearson et al 2007, 7 xv Young, Chadburn and Bedu 2009, Stonehenge World Heritage Site Management Plan 2009, 155 xvi Young, Chadburn and Bedu 2009, Stonehenge World Heritage Site Management Plan 2009, 156 xvii Cleal et al 1995, 159-60 xviii Parker-Pearson et al 2007, 13 xix Young, Chadburn and Bedu 2009, Stonehenge World Heritage Site Management Plan 2009, 156 xx Richards, J. 2005, 40 xxi Young, Chadburn and Bedu 2009, Stonehenge World Heritage Site Management Plan 2009, 156 xxii Mott MacDonald 2002 Historic Landscape Survey, in Balfour Beatty-Costain/Halcrow-Gifford 2003 A303 Stonehenge Improvement Environmental Statement xxiii Young, Chadburn and Bedu 2009, Stonehenge World Heritage Site Management Plan 2009, 156 xxiv Leivers and Moore 2008 xxv Wessex Archaeology 2003 Condition Survey & Management Recommendations for Archaeological Sites within the Stonehenge WHS xxvi Young, Chadburn and Bedu 2009, Stonehenge World Heritage Site Management Plan 2009, 107; Aim 4 xxvii Young, Chadburn and Bedu 2009, Stonehenge World Heritage Site Management Plan 2009, 112; 14.6.3 xxviii Young, Chadburn and Bedu 2009, Stonehenge World Heritage Site Management Plan 2009, 111; Aim 5 xxix Young, Chadburn and Bedu 2009, Stonehenge World Heritage Site Management Plan 2009, 102; Aim 3 xxx Young, Chadburn and Bedu 2009, Stonehenge World Heritage Site Management Plan 2009, 107; Aim 4 xxxi Young, Chadburn and Bedu 2009, Stonehenge World Heritage Site Management Plan 2009, 102; Aim 3 xxxii Young, Chadburn and Bedu 2009, Stonehenge World Heritage Site Management Plan 2009, 111; Aim 5 xxxiii Young, Chadburn and Bedu 2009, Stonehenge World Heritage Site Management Plan 2009, 102; Aim 3 xxxiv Young, Chadburn and Bedu 2009, Stonehenge World Heritage Site Management Plan 2009, 53; 7.1.7 xxxv Young, Chadburn and Bedu 2009, Stonehenge World Heritage Site Management Plan 2009, 12; 1.3.1
Stonehenge Environmental September 2009 180 Improvements Project Environmental Statement 11110202R ES Chapter 5 0_Archaeology_WA_Final_30-09-09 Wessex Archaeology
APPENDIX 4 Gazetteer of Sites and Monuments within the Assessment Area
Gazetteer of Sites and Monuments within Assessment Area
ID Name Monument Type Importance Condition Designation Period Easting Northing Summary West of Old & New King CIRCULAR No surface A)Ring ditch seen on aerial photographs. 842 Barrows ENCLOSURE expression None Bronze Age 413690 143010 B)Chalk mound and ditch. Among Old ROUND A bowl barrow with a water tank built into the 844 King Barrows BARROW High Moderate SM10445 Bronze Age 413650 142860 top. A)Bowl barrow seen on APs. B)Can not be Among Old ROUND No surface identified on the ground. C)Ring ditch and chalk 852 King Barrows BARROW Very High expression SM10445 Bronze Age 413600 142820 outer ring. Among Old ROUND 858 King Barrows BARROW Very High Moderate SM10445 Bronze Age 413580 142800 Bowl barrow. A)A soilmark about 40m long visible on aerial photographs. It is orientated N-S. B)The soil West of Old mark represents a shallow depression, possibly 873 King Barrow Unclassified Site ploughed None Modern 413530 142900 a marl or silage pit. Not an antiquity. Among the Old ROUND 889 King Barrows BARROW High Moderate SM10444 Bronze Age 413490 142730 Bowl barrow. West of Old CIRCULAR No surface Mound plotted by RCHM which may be the site 890 King Barrows ENCLOSURE expression None Bronze Age 413490 142800 of a round barrow. West of New No surface 905 Kings Barrows FINDSPOT expression None Neolithic 413420 142380 A Neolithic flint fabricator. West of Old & New King CIRCULAR No surface A levelled barrow visible as soilmark on aerial 908 Barrows ENCLOSURE expression None Bronze Age 413400 142200 photographs. The RCHM NGR is accepted. Originally consisted of twin parallel banks with external ditches. Only the third nearest to Stonehenge remains. The section from Stone- henge to SU12704258 is thought to be an initial LINEAR phase(C14 1770bc) with the remainder added 909 The Avenue FEATURE High Good SM10390 Bronze Age 413390 142500 later (C14 800bc, 1070bc West of Old & A)Described by the RCHM as a levelled barrow. New King ROUND No surface B)This site could not be plotted from the 910 Barrows BARROW expression None Bronze Age 413380 142540 primary aerial photographic source. West of Old & Levelled barrow visible as soilmark on aerial New King CIRCULAR No surface photographs. The site could not be plotted from 911 Barrows ENCLOSURE expression None Bronze Age 413370 142080 primary source; the RCHM NGR is accepted. West of Old & Levelled barrow visible as a soilmark on an New King CIRCULAR No surface aerial photograph. The primary source not 912 Barrows ENCLOSURE expression None Bronze Age 413360 142150 consulted; the RCHM NGR is accepted. Near New King No surface A Neolithic axe, partly polished on the cutting 914 Barrows FINDSPOT expression None Neolithic 413350 142180 edge. ID Name Monument Type Importance Condition Designation Period Easting Northing Summary A levelled barrow visible as a soilmark on aerial West of Old & photographs. However these produced a New King CIRCULAR No surface CAD plot 10-20m N of the RCHM NGR; this 915 Barrows ENCLOSURE expression None Bronze Age 413350 142270 NGRhas been accepted. A)Small circular soilmark is visible on aerial photographs. B)There is no trace on the ground or on newer APs. C)Two contiguous levelled barrows. D)the primary APs were not consulted, West of Old ROUND No surface the RCHM NGR has been accepted. E)RCHM 916 King Barrows BARROW expression None Bronze Age 413350 142800 - not seen on quoted RAF AP. A)Circular soilmark visible on APs. B)No trace on ground or on newer APs. C)Two contiguous levelled barrows. D)Primary APs not consulted - West of Old CIRCULAR No surface RCHM grid ref. accepted. E)RCHME did not see 917 King Barrows ENCLOSURE expression None Bronze Age 413350 142810 this on quoted RAF AP. An irregularly-spaced linear group of Bronze Age round barrows located immediately north of the Stonehenge Cursus(SU 14 SW 42) and North East towards its eastern end. Some were investigated edge of The by Colt Hoare in the early 19th century. 924 Cursus BARROW High N/A WILTS 744 Bronze Age 413300 143200 Seeindividual records for details Bowl barrow opened by Hoare who found a possible primary inhumation of 2 adults and 2 North of ROUND children. There was a flat ornate bracelet on the 927 Avenue BARROW High Moderate SM10304 Bronze Age 413280 142640 arm of one adult. A)A circular white soilmark possibly with a ditch visible on aerial photographs. It is possibly a barrow. B)Visited by the OS 10 1969, no South of CIRCULAR No surface trace on the ground. C)Listed by the RCHM. 929 Cursus ENCLOSURE expression None Unknown 413260 143040 D)Not seen on the AP quoted. Small feature (perhaps a post-hole) was excavated in 1968 ahead of electricity cable trench. No section of the feature survives but a West of the plan shows it to have been 0.56 m diam x New King No surface 0.69m deep with vertical sides. Sherds of a 930 Barrows PIT expression None Neolithic 413250 142040 single vessel survive ?bowl/cup A small pit (interpreted as a post-hole in 1968) 1.07m wide x 0.81 max depth containing 3 sherds of Grooved Ware, possibly belonging to West of the a single vessel, potboilers, decayed wood, and New King No surface animal bone . Excavated in 1968 ahead of an 932 Barrows PIT expression None Neolithic 413220 142040 electricity pipeline ID Name Monument Type Importance Condition Designation Period Easting Northing Summary A)A site visible on aerial photographs as a faint North of CIRCULAR No surface ring ditch. B)Only D1342/34 was consulted - 933 Avenue ENCLOSURE High expression SM10436 Bronze Age 413220 142700 this AP was not suitable for a CAD plot. A)'Rough mound, possibly a barrow'. B)Roughly circular chalk spread.Presumably the barrow shown on Crawford's 6inch map but impossible North of CIRCULAR No surface to determine from ground inspection. C)RCHM - 937 Cursus ENCLOSURE High expression SM10244 Unknown 413190 143230 chalk smear only.. A)A levelled barrow revealed as a soilmark on aerial photographs. B)D1342/37 and 1242/76 West of Old & were consulted but were not suitable for a New King CIRCULAR No surface CAD plot. D1043/1/7-8 was not available; the 943 Barrows ENCLOSURE expression None Bronze Age 413160 142630 RCHM NGR is accepted. Within The CIRCULAR No surface A possible disc barrow partly overlain by the 975 Cursus ENCLOSURE expression None Bronze Age 413040 143100 Cursus has been plotted by the RCHM. A bowl barrow opened by Hoare who found a West of New ROUND primary skeleton, a "drinking cup" (beaker?) 976 King Barrows BARROW High Moderate SM10302 Bronze Age 413020 142380 and a bone pin. Surface collection of flint implements between 1926 and 1938 recovered numerous items scattered over a wide area inthe vicinity of the Old King Barrows (SU 14 SW 112) and the South of The Cursus (SU 14 SW 42), the most prolific area 980 Avenue PIT N/A None Neolithic 413000 142200 beingbetween and to the east of th A)Bowl barrow opened by Hoare who found 2 skeletons which had been previously disturbed. B)Not visible on the ground. C)Primary aerial photographic sources not consulted. West of New ROUND No surface D)Cropmark of a ring ditch appears on APs. 985 King Barrow BARROW High expression SM10435 Bronze Age 412950 142480 This NGR accepted. West of King No surface 991 Barrows FINDSPOT expression None Neolithic 412900 142500 A Late Neolithic discoidal knife. Between The Cursus and The CIRCULAR No surface 1003 Avenue ENCLOSURE expression None Bronze Age 412840 142760 Small ring ditch. An area of early twentieth century fieldworks, probably associated with military training at Larkhill, visible on aerialphotographs taken in North West of the early 1920s. The fieldworks appear to have Stonehenge been temporary structures, comprising 1014 Bottom FIELDWORK N/A None Modern 412700 142850 enclosuresdefined by sinuous ID Name Monument Type Importance Condition Designation Period Easting Northing Summary Boundary earthwork running NE-SW for 1.1km. Excavation at it's closest point to the Avenue showed it to be a small (0.5m deep) feature. Ditch terminal at SU12184230 indicates a To North West LINEAR deliberate break here. It isa V-profile stockade 1026 of Stonehenge FEATURE Poor None Unknown 412560 142510 trench. See also SU14SW558 A flat, oval grave found in 1939 containing a crouched skeleton with one plain and one decorated beaker, found at this NGR or at 1050 Larkhill BURIAL Good None Bronze Age 412330 142760 SU12334300. Exvavations in 1979 on the site of the public conveniences in the visitors car park at Stonehenge uncovered 38stakeholes. Flint North of debitage comprising a primary flake, 21 Stonehenge secondary flakes and other items, tentatively 1056 Triangle STAKE HOLE N/A None Iron Age 412300 142300 dated to theNeolithic, were also found. Milestone. Late C18. Limestone, relocated on north side of road. A rectangular shaft with worn top. Inscription reading: LXXX / Miles from Milestone / LONDON / II from / Amesbury. Earlier opposite Post inscription now upside-down on bottom of 1057 Stonehenge MILESTONE High Extant Grade II Medieval 412296 142263 front, reading AMESBURY. A large circular feature (probably 60/70m diam) is visible on an early aerial photograph. The site was visited by the OS 6 1969. No trace on North-east of CIRCULAR No surface the ground and they say that it may have been a 1058 Stonehenge ENCLOSURE expression None Unknown 412290 142300 fungus ring North and North-east of Post Earthworks of a road (apparently unfinished) 1059 Stonehenge TRACKWAY Moderate None Medieval 412290 142640 probably dating to the mid-late 18th century. A small complex of early twentieth century practice trenches, visible as earthworks and cropmarks on aerialphotographs. Photographs taken in 1921 show that, by that date, the South of The PRACTICE trenches were disused and had been used as a 1067 Cursus TRENCH N/A None Modern 412260 142900 landmine practice site. A crouched inhumation found during excavation of the Stonehenge underpass in 1968. Cut into SU14SW61K after the decay of its posts. Apparently sealed by the turf lines; North-west of No surface finds suggest LBA and RB dates.The inhumation 1098 Stonehenge BURIAL expression None Bronze Age 412170 142300 is therefore possibly MBA. ID Name Monument Type Importance Condition Designation Period Easting Northing Summary A pit of Mesolithic date encountered during excvations in the car park at Stonehenge in 1988-9. The feature appears tohave been dug North of initially as a post pit, similar to features Stonehenge excavated further to the west in the 1960s (SU 1099 Triangle PIT N/A None Mesolithic 412170 142360 14 SW 156). Thefill and profil Sherds of "LBA type" found during excavation of the underpass in 1968. They were in the North-west of No surface lower of three turf layers sealing the ditch of the 1107 Stonehenge FINDSPOT expression None Bronze Age 412160 142300 boundary earthwork SU14SW61K. Sherds of Romano-British pottery found in uppermost of three turf layers in the ditch of boundary earthwork (SU14SW61K) during North-west of No surface Romano- excavations in 1968 for the Stonehenge 1108 Stonehenge FINDSPOT expression None British 412160 142300 underpass. Three large postholes (approx 2m diam x 1.5m deep) found during the extension of the carpark at Stonehenge. Clear post pipes were visible. North-west of No surface C14 7180bc+/-180 and 6140bc+/-140 suggests 1131 Stonehenge Unclassified Site expression None Mesolithic 412070 142370 a Mesolithic date. Excavation by DOE Central Unit (1979) Public revealed 38 stakeholes, also flint debitage Convenience No surface consisting of 1 primary flake, 21 secondary 1138 Site In Car Park Unclassified Site expression None Neolithic 412040 142390 flakes and others. ?Neolithic. Among The ROUND A bell barrow opened by Lord Pembroke in 1139 Cursus Group BARROW High Good SM10452 Bronze Age 412030 142770 1722. No record. A twin bell barrow opened by Stukeley and by Cunnington. West mound contained a skeleton (1722/3) and a cremation in a cist (1803). The East mound (1722/3) contained a cremation in Among The ROUND an urn, bronze knife & an awl, amber and shale 1159 Cursus Group BARROW High Good SM10452 Bronze Age 411970 142780 beads, amber disc. A bell barrow opened by Hoare who found a Among The ROUND primary cremation close to a pit full of ashes 1179 Cursus Group BARROW High Good SM10342 Bronze Age 411860 142780 and a few bits burnt bone. An early twentieth century pistol range, associated with military training at Larkhill, was constructed between a groupof round barrows and the southern bank of the Stonehenge South of The cursus. The site comprises short linear banks 1180 Cursus FIRING RANGE N/A None Modern 411860 142860 and two smallstructures, and is ID Name Monument Type Importance Condition Designation Period Easting Northing Summary A semi-circular feature visible on an aerial South of No surface photograph. Primary source not consulted. 1206 Cursus Unclassified Site expression None Unknown 411800 142660 Existing NGR has been provisionally accepted. A bell barrow opened by Hoare who found a Among The ROUND primary cremation and a two-riveted knife- 1207 Cursus Group BARROW High Good SM10342 Bronze Age 411800 142780 dagger. The barrow has a sloping berm. A bell barrow with a raised berm. Opened by Hoare who found a primary cremation. A Among The ROUND sherd of a collared urn ?from here, found in 1219 Cursus Group BARROW High Good SM10342 Bronze Age 411770 142780 1957 by BG Hopkins. A)Probable barrow with slight indications of a ditch at SU11764254. B)Not plotted from primary source, RCHM NGR accepted. C)Ring South of CIRCULAR No surface ditch seen as cropmark on RAF aerial 1226 Cursus Group ENCLOSURE expression None Bronze Age 411740 142540 photographs. A bowl(?) barrow with ditch and outer bank. The absence of any mound suggests that it may be a disc barrow. Opened by Hoare who found a primary cremation with amber, stone and Among The ROUND faience beads. Sherd of a collared urn from 1231 Cursus Group BARROW High Poor SM10342 Bronze Age 411700 142790 here(?), found 1957 by B Hopkins Possible bowl barrow found by RS Newell. Visited by the OS 1 1971, no remains visible. South of The ROUND No surface No aerial photographic source quated of VCH 1239 Cursus BARROW expression None Bronze Age 411660 142650 NGR accepted. A)A ring ditch visible as a soilmark at SU11534276. B)Primary aerialphotograph sources not consulted (9/02/91) RCHM NGR In the Cursus CIRCULAR No surface accepted. C)Very small ring ditch with a central 1259 Group ENCLOSURE High expression SM10341 Prehistoric 411540 142770 pit. A)A bowl barrow opened before Hoare. B)A South of The ROUND rough flint pick was found on the surface. C)A 1260 Cursus BARROW High Poor SM10341 Bronze Age 411520 142780 ring ditch around a surviving platform. A)A bowl barrow opened by Hoare "without result". B)This may be the barrow from which Cunnington Senior found a small plain food South of The ROUND vessel. C)A ring ditch around surviving inner 1272 Cursus BARROW High Moderate SM10340 Bronze Age 411470 142670 platform. ID Name Monument Type Importance Condition Designation Period Easting Northing Summary Barrow with a causewayed ditch opened by Cunnington in 1803/5. He found 3 burials, 2 with beakers, with one of these covered by a wooden mortuary house. Ashbee (1960) found South of The ROUND 2 other burials and suggests that Cunnington 1281 Cursus BARROW High Moderate SM10339 Bronze Age 411430 142730 mixed his beakers up. A Bronze Age round barrow cemetery located near the southern end of Fargo Plantation and south of the western endof the Cursus (SU 14 SW 42). The cemetery comprises five bowl Among The barrows, listed by Grinsell as Amesbury 49 to 1298 Cursus Barrows BARROW High N/A WILTS 065K Bronze Age 411350 142740 53, allof which were examined by South of The ROUND A bowl barrow opened by Hoare who found a 1305 Cursus BARROW High Moderate SM10338 Bronze Age 411300 142740 primary cremation. A bell barrow opened by Hoare who found Monarch of the ROUND charcoal but no interment. A sloping raised 1333 Plain BARROW Very High Good SM10336 Bronze Age 411080 142750 berm. A bowl barrow opened by Hoare who found a primary skeleton with a three riveted bronze dagger and a polished pebble. Also a secondary On West End ROUND skeleton of a child, and an adult with a 1340 of The Cursus BARROW Very High Moderate SM10324 Bronze Age 411050 142910 "drinking cup". Southern end Royal Naval Air Service Handley Page hangars of Fargo were built during World War I to house 1342 Plantation BUILDING Medium Destroyed None Modern 411040 142660 Handley Page bombers. A)A small circle shown on Crawford map, annotated No 41. A possible barrow. B)No trace on the ground or OS + RAF aerial photograph. C)Primary source not consulted, OS NGR South-west of CIRCULAR accepted. D)Not seen on the aerial 1345 Cursus ENCLOSURE Very poor None Unknown 411020 142740 photographs. A small hollow/pit cut by the ditch of barrow On West End No surface Later SU14SW738; it yielded pine charcoal, calcined 1349 of Cursus Unclassified Site Very High expression None Prehistoric 411010 142920 flints and flint debitage. A)A round barrow opened by Hoare who found a ?primary cremation. It was also excavated in 1959 by Christie who found a crouched On West end ROUND skeleton of a child in the primary silt of SW 1350 of The Cursus BARROW Very High Very poor SM10324 Bronze Age 411010 142920 sector of the ditch. See also SU14SW555. ID Name Monument Type Importance Condition Designation Period Easting Northing Summary Romano-British type pottery found during On West end No surface Romano- excavation of barrow and the cursus in 1959 by 1351 of Cursus FINDSPOT Low expression None British 411010 142920 PM Christie On West end No surface Iron Age pottery found during excavation of 1352 of Cursus FINDSPOT Low expression None Iron Age 411010 142920 barrow and cursus in 1959 by PM Christie. Fargo No surface 1353 Plantation FINDSPOT Low expression None Bronze Age 411000 143040 A rim sherd from a globular urn. Bowl barrow opened by Hoare who found a primary cremation and a handled awl in a primary series collared urn. A skull, urn sherds, South-west of ROUND and rock fragments found 1870 by H 1360 Cursus BARROW High Very poor SM10473 Bronze Age 410970 142710 Cunnington. The area is now a WCC dump. Remains of a military complex known as the Night Camp, an outpost of Stonehenge Aerodrome constructed at thesouthern end of Fargo Plantation to support the Handley-Page Among The hangars (SU 14 SW 646). Buildings and 1361 Cursus Barrows MILITARY CAMP Low N/A None Modern 410970 142810 roadsbelonging to the camp are visible on aeria The Stonehenge Airfield Night Camp stood at the western end of The Cursus and was built during World War I to provide a secluded area South-west of for off-duty air crews to sleep whilst training Fargo continued at the main Stonehenge Day camp 1362 Plantation BUILDING Low Destroyed None Modern 410970 142850 c1.2km to the south-east. They A)A ditch, course of. The OS say that because of its limited length it is of minor archaeological importance. Visited by the OS 6 1969, no trace Fargo LINEAR No surface on the ground or aerial photogrphs. B)Probably 1363 Plantation FEATURE expression None Unknown 410970 143150 part of field system SU14SW61V. A)Flattened enclosure which is defined on APs by a prominent bank and less well marked ditch. It overlies boundary ditch SU14SW61N. South-west of B)Supposedly visible on some APs; it is not Fargo No surface shown on 1901 edition OS 25". C)Overlies 1375 Plantation ENCLOSURE High expression None Bronze Age 410880 142540 fields on different alignment. D)The A)Bowl barrow opened by Hoare who found a ?primary cremation. B)There are no visible remains on the ground. C)A digital terrain South-west of model made by Wessex Archaeology in 1998 West End of ROUND No surface revealed the barrow as a low mound with some 1376 The Cursus BARROW Very High expression SM10468 Bronze Age 410880 142790 evidence for the remains of the encircl ID Name Monument Type Importance Condition Designation Period Easting Northing Summary A linear feature, possibly a ditch. Field investigation by the Ordnance Survey in 1969 recorded no trace either on theground or on West of Fargo LINEAR aerial photographs. It may be associated with 1377 Plantation FEATURE N/A None Unknown 410880 143110 field system SU 14 SW 492. Four sherds of Neolithic pottery in the Peterborough Ware tradition were recovered Fargo No surface from a Bronze Age settlement site, presumed to 1382 Plantation FINDSPOT expression None Neolithic 410870 143500 be re-deposited. A boundary earthwork running N-S. It appears South-west of to join enclosures SU14SW957 and Fargo LINEAR No surface Later SU14SW61H, and be intergrated into field 1387 Plantation FEATURE expression None Prehistoric 410850 142720 system SU14SW982. Post-holes, pits, gullies, ditches etc found within Area B of an evaluation in 1998 strongly suggests a Middle Bronze Age settlement site. South-west of Aerial photographic evidence supports this Fargo conclusion, with numerous records of an 1391 Plantation SETTLEMENT Medium Poor None Bronze Age 410840 142540 extensive system of fields, ly A proportion of the diagnostic flintwork from Area B of an evaluation in 1998 is considered to be Early and Late Neolithic in date. Although South-west of there was no ceramic evidence associated with Fargo No surface the earlier pieces of flintwork, it is possible that 1395 Plantation FINDSPOT Low expression None Neolithic 410830 142550 some of the fe The west side of an undated approximately south to north aligned ditch, at least 0.5m deep, South-west of was revealed in an evaluation trench in 1998. It Fargo LINEAR No surface Later had a convex profile, the side tending from 1396 Plantation FEATURE Low expression None Prehistoric 410830 142730 shallow to steep sloping towards the flat base. West of Fargo No surface 1397 Plantation FINDSPOT Low expression None Bronze Age 410830 142750 An unlooped palstave. A linear ditch forming part of a field system is East end of LINEAR No surface Later visible on aerial photographs and later 1411 Lesser Cursus FEATURE expression None Prehistoric 410780 143560 confirmed by geophysical survey. South & West of Fargo No surface Later Field system complex showing no single 1418 Plantation FIELD SYSTEM Low expression None Prehistoric 410750 142350 orientation. ID Name Monument Type Importance Condition Designation Period Easting Northing Summary A)Circular soilmark seen on aerial photographs. Possible barrow. B)Vague white spread visible on recent APs, but unlikely to be a barrow. C)Primary sources could not be consulted. The South-west of CIRCULAR No surface RCHM NGR provisionally accepted D)RCHM - 1421 Cursus ENCLOSURE Low expression None Unknown 410740 142610 not seen on RAF AP South-west A)A levelled barrow. B)Primary sources could Fargo ROUND No surface not be consulted, so the RCHM NGR is 1422 Plantation BARROW High expression None Bronze Age 410730 142690 accepted. Two Medieval sherds were identified during an evaluation in 1998, and both were glazed sandy West of The No surface Medieval wares, dateable respectively to the 13th/14th 1423 Cursus FINDSPOT Negligible expression None (C15th) 410720 142870 centuries. A small circular post-hole, measuring 0..11m in diameter, with a slightly tapering profile, was South-west of excavated to a depth of 0.16m below the Fargo No surface surface of the natural chalk, but not fully 1427 Plantation Unclassified Site Low expression None Unknown 410700 142730 excavated in 1998. A circular enclosure and possible pits located Within Lesser No surface within and to the south-west of the Lesser 1428 Cursus ENCLOSURE Low expression None Unknown 410680 143540 Cursus, identified by geophysical survey. Twelve sherds of Romano-British pottery were recorded in Areas A and B of an evaluation in 1998. They consist almost entirely of South-west of No surface Romano- undiagnostic sherds of coarse greywares which 1438 The Cursus FINDSPOT Negligible expression None British 410600 142790 cannot be more closely dated. A)Cursus with open eastern end and cross bank. B)Ploughed, but still discernible in 1912. C)Sample excavations by Wessex Archaeology in 1983 revealed a ditch with internal bank The Lesser No surface subsequently enlarged eastwards. C14 date 1442 Cursus CURSUS Very High expression SM10351 Neolithic 410550 143500 from antler ROUND A round barrow is visible as a white soilmark on 1463 West of Cursus BARROW High Very poor SM10467 Bronze Age 410440 142870 aerial photographs. If this barrow actually exists it would be one of the "2 or 3 very small mounds noted by Thurnam to the NE of the Winterborune Stoke Group. There are no AP references, and the Winterbourne ROUND No surface NGR is described by the RCHM as 1464 Stoke Group BARROW Very High expression SM10448 Bronze Age 410430 142030 approximate. See also SU14SW714,61B ID Name Monument Type Importance Condition Designation Period Easting Northing Summary A possible round barrow. The OS and Grinsell wrongly call this RCH 10. See SU14SW723. Winterbourne ROUND No surface There is no aerial photographic evidence for this 1465 Stoke Down BARROW Very High expression None Bronze Age 410430 142190 site. A Bowl barrow which may have been opened by Thurnam, who found a bucket urn and a Winterbourne cremation in one of 2 or 3 small barrows to the Crossroads ROUND No surface NE of the Winterbourne Stoke Group. See also 1468 Group BARROW Very High expression SM10448 Bronze Age 410410 142000 SU14SW61A, 61B Saucer barrow. A)Hoare found a primary cremation. B)Flattened by ploughing. C)This one (not SU14SW651) excavated by Vatcher in 1961, who found a cremation in an oval grave. South of Lesser ROUND No surface D)Destroyed. E)Ring ditch with outer chalk 1469 Cursus BARROW Very High expression SM10466 Bronze Age 410410 143090 spread & central pit seen on APs. 27 sherds of Romano-British pottery were found in the ploughsoil infilling of the ditch of barrow South of Lesser No surface Romano- SU14SW652 and in the overlying turf including 1475 Cursus FINDSPOT Low expression None British 410390 143110 a 1st century rimsherd. A levelled barrow opened by Hoare with "no result". It may have been opened later by Thurnam and would thus be one of the "2 or 3 Winterbourne ROUND No surface very small mounds from which he found a 1478 Stoke Group BARROW Very High expression None Bronze Age 410380 142000 bucket urn. A)Bowl barrow opened by Hoare. He found 2 inhumations, one in a chalk cut pit, the other in the mound. Also a cremation in an urn. B)The North-east of OS and Grinsell have wrongly positioned it at Winterbourne ROUND No surface SU10274237. C)A ring ditch and barrow 1479 Stoke Gp BARROW High expression SM10474 Bronze Age 410380 142380 platform. Bowl barrow. A)Hoare found ?primary cremation plus a rude urn. B)2ft high. C)In 1961 Vatcher's excavation found an urn in a pit with a stakehole each side. Under SE side another South of Lesser ROUND No surface urn in a pit, no holes. D)Completly destroyed. 1480 Cursus BARROW Very High expression SM10466 Bronze Age 410370 143110 E)Visible on aerial photos. Part of a light military railway constructed in the early twentieth century from the main Amesbury-Bulford Line atRatfyn Junction to LARKHILL Larkhill, with branch lines serving other military MILITARY facilities to the west and south of the main 1485 RAILWAY RAILWAY Low None Modern 410350 142280 base.The course of the ra ID Name Monument Type Importance Condition Designation Period Easting Northing Summary A)A bowl barrow opened by Hoare (No 10). He found a ?primary cremation and a Saxon bead (SU14SW400). B)The OS and Grinsell give the wrong NGR at SU10434219. C)A ring ditch South-west of CIRCULAR No surface and a barrow platform can be seen on aerial 1488 Cursus ENCLOSURE High expression SM10475 Prehistoric 410340 142240 photographs. North of A Saxon spiral pattern bead of glass or vitreous Winterbourne No surface paste intrusive in barrow SU14SW723. They 1489 Stoke Crossrds FINDSPOT Negligible expression None Saxon 410340 142240 probably post-date the burial. Ditched bowl barrow. Opened by Hoare who found two primary inhumations, a beaker, 6 Winterbourne secondary inhumations and a secondary Stoke cremation beneath an inverted urn in a ledge Crossroads ROUND cut into the barrow above the topmost 1490 Group BARROW Very High Good SM10306 Bronze Age 410330 141920 secondary skeleton. Bowl barrow. A)Hoare found ?primary cremation. B)1.5ft high. C)Incorrectly noted as excavated by Vatcher in 1961 - was in fact Winterbourne Stoke 33 - see Museum card. South of Lesser ROUND No surface D)Ditch visible. E)Ring ditch and chalk platform 1493 Cursus BARROW Very High expression SM10353 Bronze Age 410320 143140 visible on aerial photos. 3 confluent bowl barrows. A)Hoare says long barrow. B)Thurnam says 'oval barrow' found 1864. West-primary crouched burial,4 leaf shaped javelin heads. Central-small cup. West of Lesser ROUND Eastern-primary crouched burial & a beaker. 1495 Cursus BARROW Very High Poor SM10351 Neolithic 410310 143460 C)46 x 17 paces x 4ft high. Winterbourne Stoke The butt end of a dolerite axe found 1300ft NE 1496 Crossroads FINDSPOT None Neolithic 410300 141800 of Winterbourne Stoke Crossroads longbarrow. A)Bell barrow opened by Hoare who found a Winterbourne primary skeleton in a wood coffin. Also a Stoke necklace of shale and amber beads, a bronze Crossroads ROUND dagger and an awl plus a small vessel. B)It was 1497 Group BARROW Very High Good SM10306 Bronze Age 410300 141870 visited by the OS 1 1971. Part of a Neolithic stone axe, made of dolerite, found 1300 feet north or north east of the Among Winterbourne StokeCrossroads long barrow (SU Winterbourne 14 SW 92). The fragment is in Salisbury 1498 Stoke Group FINDSPOT Low N/A None Neolithic 410300 141900 Museum. ID Name Monument Type Importance Condition Designation Period Easting Northing Summary A) Linear feature visible as a soilmark. Aerial photographs suggest that it cuts SU14SW982. Relationship to SU14SW61N is uncertain. B) Further segmented lengths have been plotted by Stonehenge LINEAR No surface RCHM. C)An evaluation in 1998 showed the 1499 Racecourse FEATURE Low expression None Bronze Age 410300 142520 east-west aligned ditch is 3.4 During survey in advance of road widening for the A303, surface collection and geophysical survey showed aconcentration of Neolithic and 1500 North of A344 LITHIC SCATTER Medium N/A None Neolithic 410300 143500 Bronze Age flints at SU103435. A possible round barrow. The OS and Grinsell incorrectly say this is RCH 9 (see SU14SW725). No aerial photographic evidence has been found for its existance. It was not seen by the Winterbourne ROUND No surface RCHM on a 1992 aerial survey for the A303 1503 Stoke Down BARROW High expression None Bronze Age 410280 142370 road proposal. Winterbourne Ditched bowl barrow. A)90ft in diameter and 5ft Stoke high. Opened by Hoare uncovering 2 primary Crossroads ROUND skeletons, a beaker and other finds; and a 1508 Group BARROW Very High Good SM10306 Bronze Age 410260 141840 secondary cremation. Winterbourne Stoke A)Bowl barrow opened by Hoare who found it " Crossroads ROUND unproductive". B)It was visited by the OS 1 1512 Group BARROW Very High Poor SM10306 Bronze Age 410240 141830 1971. A)A bowl barrow. Hoare found a primary inhumation and an antler. B)25 paces diam x 5ft high. C)Visited by the OS in 10 1969 when it West of Lesser ROUND measured 27m diam x 1.6m high. D)Ring ditch 1513 Cursus BARROW Very High Moderate SM10350 Bronze Age 410240 143440 seen on aerial photographs. Winterbourne Stoke Bowl barrow opened by Hoare, who found it " Crossroads ROUND unproductive ". B)It was visited by the OS 1 1514 Group BARROW Very High Moderate SM10306 Bronze Age 410230 141790 1971. A)A pond barrow with an overall diam of 36m.The bank is ploughed out in places though North of visible as a soilmark, up to 0.3m high. B)The Winterbourne ROUND ring ditch and barrow platform are visible on 1515 Crossroads Gp BARROW Very High Poor SM10346 Bronze Age 410230 142150 aerial photographs. Winterbourne A)Ditched bowl barrow in which Hoare found a Stoke primary inhumation covered by a cairn of flints Crossroads ROUND on the floor (which was cleared of turf). The 1519 Group BARROW Very High Poor SM10306 Bronze Age 410210 141770 ditch was gone on the SE side. ID Name Monument Type Importance Condition Designation Period Easting Northing Summary Winterbourne A)Bowl barrow opened by Hoare who found it Stoke had been opened previously. There were pieces Crossroads ROUND of burnt bone in the soil (human? . B)Visited by 1522 Group BARROW Very High Poor SM10306 Bronze Age 410200 141800 the OS 1 1971. A)Bell barrow. Hoare found two primary skeletons of an adult and a child of c12 years. B)Mound 90ft diam x 6ft high, berm and ditch West of Lesser ROUND eradicated by ploughing. C)28m diam x 1.8m 1523 Cursus BARROW Very High Moderate SM10349 Bronze Age 410180 143460 high. D)Ring ditch seen on aerial photographs. Winterbourne Stoke Crossroads ROUND 1524 Group BARROW Very High Moderate SM10306 Bronze Age 410170 141810 Pond barrow visited by the OS 1 1971. King Barrow Bell barrow opened by Hoare who found a W'bourne primary burial in an elm trunk coffin with a 5 Stoke +roads ROUND handled red Breton jar (intrusive?), 2 daggers 1525 Gp BARROW Very High Good SM10306 Bronze Age 410160 141710 and a bronze awl with a bone handle. A)Ditched bowl barrow, opened by Hoare who found a primary skeleton, a secondary skeleton, Winterbourne a later secondary cremation under an inverted Stoke urn, and 2 more cremations. In the mound Crossroads ROUND material was a perforated cushion macehead of 1526 Group BARROW Very High Moderate SM10306 Bronze Age 410160 141770 decomposed greensand. A)Disc barrow. Hoare found primary cremation and an awl. B)The mound 25ft x 0.5ft, berm 44ft, ditch 18ft x 0.5ft, bank 18ft x 0.5ft. On AP 6-8 postholes have been seen on edge outer South-west of ROUND No surface ditch. C)Central mound ploughed away. 1527 Lesser Cursus BARROW Very High expression SM10352 Bronze Age 410160 143270 D)Chalk spread seen on aerial phot Drawn as a probable saucer barrow on Hoare's In plan of Winterbourne Stoke Down Group. It Winterbourne ROUND No surface was opened by Hoare who found it 1532 Stoke Clump BARROW High expression SM10306 Bronze Age 410150 141630 "unproductive" Bowl barrow opened by Hoare who found two ?primary cremations in an urn, plus a secondary cremation in a possible LBA globular North of urn. Excavations by the Army in 1916 Winterbourne ROUND produced a Deverel-Rimbury type urn over 1533 Crossroads Gp BARROW Very High Moderate SM10345 Bronze Age 410140 142380 cremated bones. ID Name Monument Type Importance Condition Designation Period Easting Northing Summary A predominantly Bronze Age barrow cemetery comprising seven barrows arranged in an irregular east-west line to thewest of the Lesser Cursus (SU 14 SW 41). One of the mounds North of the ROUND covered a Neolithic inhumation. All the mounds 1534 A344 BARROW Very High N/A SM10350 Neolithic 410140 143420 wereexamined by Colt Hoare in the Winterbourne Stoke Crossroads No surface Five or more, intrusive burials (possibly Saxon) 1539 Group BURIAL High expression SM10306 Saxon 410120 141670 found in barrow SU14SW820. A)Bell barrow opened by Hoare who found a primary cremation in a clay covered wooden Winterbourne box (probably with bronze fittings) with two Stoke daggers, bone pin and tweezers. Also 5 intrusive Crossroads ROUND skeletons, possiblySaxon, (see SU14SW556). It 1540 Group BARROW Very High Good SM10306 Bronze Age 410120 141680 is later than SU14SW819 A)A ring ditch is visible on aerial photographs. West of the CIRCULAR No surface B)The primary AP source could not be 1541 Cursus ENCLOSURE High expression None Prehistoric 410120 142920 consulted, so the RCHM NGR is used. A)Bowl barrow. Hoare found intense marks of fire. B)30 paces diam x 3ft high. C)Excavated by Vatcher in 1961 who found stakeholes in a rectangle around a pit containing an inurned West of Lesser ROUND cremation. D)Ring ditch visible on aerial 1542 Cursus BARROW Very High Very poor SM10348 Bronze Age 410120 143460 photographs. A)Disc barrow with 3 moundS (2 of them Winterbourne confluent) opened by Hoare who found a Stoke primary cremation in the central mound with a Crossroads ROUND cup and an amber bead. There were cremations 1545 Group BARROW Very High Good SM10306 Bronze Age 410110 141780 in the other mounds. A)A square enclosure, probably Medieval now North of only visible as a soilmark. Early aerial Longbarrow No surface photographs show an earthwork with a narrow 1546 Crossroads ENCLOSURE expression None Unknown 410110 142220 bank, external ditch with no apparent entrance. Winterbourne Stoke A)Pond barrow immediately to the SW of Crossroads ROUND SU14SW820. B)The OS say that the ditch of 1551 Group BARROW Very High Good SM10306 Bronze Age 410100 141650 SU14SW820 avoids it, and is therefore later. Winterbourne Stoke Crossroads ROUND A)Disc barrow opened by Hoare who found a 1554 Group BARROW Very High Good SM10306 Bronze Age 410090 141740 ?primary cremation. ID Name Monument Type Importance Condition Designation Period Easting Northing Summary Winterbourne A)Bowl barrow opened by Hoare who found a Stoke primary (?) cremation. B)Visited by the OS 1 Crossroads ROUND 1971, who describe it as truncated and very 1556 Group BARROW Very High Moderate SM10306 Bronze Age 410080 141620 badly mutilated. Winterbourne A flake with possible secondary working. A Stoke Barrow Neolithic date is ascribed in WAM, but no 1557 Group FINDSPOT Low None Neolithic 410080 141630 supporting evidence is given. A)A possible oval ditched mound visible on aerial photographs. B)No trace on the ground or South-west of No surface on modern APs. C)RCHM - presumed non- 1558 Cursus Unclassified Site Low expression None Unknown 410080 142680 archaeological. Winterbourne Stoke Crossroads ROUND A)Bowl barrow opened by Hoare who found it " 1559 Group BARROW Very High Moderate SM10306 Bronze Age 410070 141700 unproductive ". North of Bell barrow opened by Hoare who found part of Winterbourne ROUND a very large urn and burnt bones. He noted that 1562 Crossroads Gp BARROW High Moderate SM10344 Bronze Age 410050 142370 the barrow had been disturbed previously. North of A)Three circular features, probably ring ditches, Winterbourne CIRCULAR No surface visible on APs. B)Primary AP source could not 1563 Stoke Group ENCLOSURE Negligible expression None Prehistoric 410050 142780 be consulted so existing NGR is accepted. A probable cross base of Medieval type. O.8m square with a socket 0.4m x 0.5m x 0.3m deep. Shown on map of 1773 at this NGR, as 1564 Drinking Stone Cross Base extant None Medieval 410040 141500 long barrow cross. It was once scheduled. Bowl barrow opened by Hoare who found a Winterbourne ?primary cremation, an incense cup, and a Stoke ROUND No surface curved perforated bone pin. Visited by the OS 1566 Crossroads BARROW Very High expression SM10306 Bronze Age 410030 141700 1 1971, no surface indications. A)Bowl barrow. Hoare found ashes and a cist. B)30 paces diam x 5ft high. C)Excavated by Vatcher in 1961 who found four phases of act- ivity involving a mortuary house and a token West of Lesser ROUND No surface cremetion. D)Slightly oval ring ditch and 1567 Cursus BARROW Very High expression SM10347 Neolithic 410030 143410 central mound seen on APs. Near the Long 1574 Barrow FINDSPOT Low None Neolithic 410000 141500 A scraper. A)A long barrow oriented NE-SW. Opened by Winterbourne Thurnam in 1863 who found a primary male Stoke LONG inhumation and 6 secondary inhumations with 1575 Crossroads BARROW Very High Moderate SM10462 Neolithic 410000 141510 a food vessel. ID Name Monument Type Importance Condition Designation Period Easting Northing Summary North of the Two Neolithic flint scrapers and a core found at 1576 A344 FINDSPOT Low N/A None Neolithic 410000 143000 Fargo Plantation are now in Salisbury Museum. A bowl barrow opened by Hoare who found a primary adult skeleton with a " drinking" cup at Winterbourne ROUND the feet, a secondary skeleton of a child with a 1578 Stoke Group BARROW Very High Poor SM10483 Bronze Age 409990 141840 basin-like vessel 4ft above the barrow floor. Winterbourne ROUND A mutilated saucer barrow opened by Hoare 1579 Stoke Group BARROW Very High Moderate SM10483 Bronze Age 409990 141880 who found a primary cremation. N Edge of A ring ditch is visible on an aerial photograph, Winterbourne CIRCULAR No surface which could not be consulted, so the existing 1580 Stoke Group ENCLOSURE High expression None Prehistoric 409990 141950 NGR was accepted. Winterbourne ROUND A ditched bowl barrow opened by Hoare who 1581 Stoke Group BARROW Very High Moderate SM10464 Bronze Age 409980 141610 found a primary cremation with a small vessel. A low earthwork mound, 10 metres in diameter and 0.4 metres high, in among the Bronze Age barrow group recordedas SU 04 SE 36. West of Although it has the appearance of a bowl Winterbourne Post barrow, it was not noted by Colt Hoare, so it 1582 Stoke Group MOUND Low N/A None Medieval 409980 141870 may representspoil from his excavations A bell barrow opened by Hoare who found 2 cremations, one near the centre in a circular cist S of Greenland ROUND & the second in a deeper, oblong cist. The ditch 1583 Farm BARROW Very High Moderate SM10310 Bronze Age 409980 143370 is now ploughed out. N Edge of A ring ditch. The aerial photographic source Winterbourne CIRCULAR No surface could not be consulted so the existing NGR was 1584 Stoke Group ENCLOSURE High expression None Prehistoric 409970 142000 accepted. Winterbourne ROUND A bowl barrow with a hollow centre created by 1585 Stoke Group BARROW Very High damaged SM10463 Bronze Age 409960 141570 an unrecorded excavation. Winterbourne ROUND A bowl barrow opened by Hoare who found a 1586 Stoke Group BARROW Very High Moderate SM10483 Bronze Age 409960 141850 primary cremation. A saucer barrow opened by Hoare who found a Winterbourne ROUND primary cremation and a richly ornamented 1587 Stoke Group BARROW Very High Good SM10483 Bronze Age 409960 141880 drinking cup a foot away. A ditched bowl barrow opened by Hoare who Winterbourne ROUND found a primary cremation. The barrow has 1588 Stoke Group BARROW Very High Moderate SM10483 Bronze Age 409950 141830 been damaged by a track to the north. N of Winterbourne ROUND A ditched bowl barrow probably opened by 1589 Stoke Group BARROW Very High Good SM10308 Bronze Age 409950 142370 Hoare & Cunnington. ID Name Monument Type Importance Condition Designation Period Easting Northing Summary N of Winterbourne ROUND No surface A levelled bowl barrow. The OS could find no 1590 Stoke Group BARROW High expression None Bronze Age 409950 142390 surface traces and accepted Grinsell's NGR. Two ring ditches and an amorphous feature are visible on an aerial photograph. It was a poor Winterbourne No surface AP which did not allow a plot to be made. The 1591 Stoke Down RING DITCH Negligible expression None Prehistoric 409950 142600 previous NGR has been provisionally accepted. Winterbourne ROUND A bowl barrow opened by Hoare who found a 1592 Stoke Group BARROW Very High Poor SM10483 Bronze Age 409940 141850 primary? cremation. A) Later Bronze Age settlement discovered during road works in 1967. At least 3 hut structures, a N-S "stockade" trench (also an E-W trench), and several pits containing Deverel- Longbarrow No surface Rimbury sherds. The N-S stockade may be the 1593 Crossroads SETTLEMENT expression None Bronze Age 409930 141440 same as SU04SE725. B)A watching A bowl barrow opened by Hoare who found a secondary cremation in an urn with applied Winterbourne ROUND horseshoe ornanent on the rim. The barrow has 1594 Stoke Group BARROW Very High Poor SM10483 Bronze Age 409930 141860 been cut by a road. Bowl Barrow G2 1596 SU04SE668. FINDSPOT Low None Neolithic 409900 141600 A blade with a serrated edge. N of Winterbourne Stoke ROUND 1597 Roundabout BARROW Very High ploughed None Bronze Age 409880 141940 A levelled barrow, possibly with an outer bank. A bowl barrow; Hoare notes the finding of S of Greenland ROUND burnt bones before his time. It has been 1599 Farm BARROW High Very poor SM10460 Bronze Age 409860 143270 ploughed down. N of Winterbourne A levelled barrow. The aerial photographs could Stoke ROUND not be used for a CAD plot, so the RCHM(E) 1600 Roundabout BARROW High ploughed None Bronze Age 409820 141770 NGR is accepted. A mound, possibly a Bronze Age round barrow seen as earthwork and mapped from aerial photographs. This site wasmapped at 1:2500 scale for the English Heritage Stonehenge WHS 1601 South of A344 MOUND N/A None Bronze Age 409820 142760 Mapping Project. ID Name Monument Type Importance Condition Designation Period Easting Northing Summary N of Winterbourne A large incomplete enclosure. When plotted Stoke from SU1041/7 it appears to be associated with 1602 Roundabout ENCLOSURE Medium ploughed None Bronze Age 409810 141570 the stockaded ditch recorded as SU04SE152. A large pit plotted by the national Monument Winterbourne Record staff from aerial photographs during 1603 Stoke Down PIT Ploughed None Unknown 409810 142740 2001. A)A ring ditch. B)Probably a bowl barrow, with a segmented ditch. A geophysical survey is very clear and shows the existance of five or six ditch SW of segments. The internal area is about 20m in Longbarrow ROUND diameter. C)The Scheduling document 1604 Crossroads BARROW High ploughed SM10476 Bronze Age 409800 141180 SM10476 describes it as a bo A)Numerous weak anomalies were identified during a geophysical survey in 1999. They are likely to be of archaeological interest, although the weak nature of the responses means that Longbarrow No surface their interpretation is cautious. B)An aerial 1605 Crossroads Unclassified Site Medium expression None Unknown 409800 141590 photograph analysis during A)A small rounded enclosure is visible on aerial photographs. It is possibly part of settlement West of (SU04SE152). A substantial ditch, up to 2m Winterbourne part wide, was surveyed at SU0981641387. B)The Stoke ploughed,p western limit of this enclosure is possibly 1607 Crossroad ENCLOSURE High art buried SM10484/1- Bronze Age 409790 141390 defined by Feature 1 observed Bowl barrow opened by Hoare. A primary inhumation with a Beaker, two whetstones and a shale pulley ring. A skeleton of an infant was Winterbourne ROUND found in the same grave; also a secondary 1609 Stoke Down BARROW High extant SM10307 Bronze Age 409760 142440 cremation. Longbarrow ROUND An undated levelled bowl barrow found during 1613 Crossroads BARROW High Buried SM10484/1 Bronze Age 409730 141410 a geophysical survey c1994. A bowl barrow opened by Hoare who found an empty cist and an arrowhead. No evidence for NE of an adjacent mound described by Hoare as a Milestone 4 ROUND 'landmark'. The barrow mound is extant, but its 1620 Amesbury BARROW High damaged WI073A Bronze Age 409640 143090 ditch has been ploughed. ID Name Monument Type Importance Condition Designation Period Easting Northing Summary Boundary ditch only visible as a cropmark in SU04SE. Part of a complex that includes S of SU04SE727 and 691. RCHM suggest that at Winterbourne Long- Barrow Crossroads the earthwork crossed, Stoke LINEAR No surface Later and is probably later than stockade SU04SE152. 1623 Roundabout FEATURE expression None Prehistoric 409580 141550 Dating evidence is equivocal. An extensive field system set out perpendicular to linear SU04SE690 and therefore presumably contemporary with settlements SU04SE685 and Winterbourne Later SU04SE686. Additional elements plotted by 1626 Stoke Down FIELD SYSTEM High Very poor SM28943 Prehistoric 409500 142500 RCHME, 1995. CIRCULAR A ring ditch is revealed as a soil/crop mark on 1629 Oatlands Hill ENCLOSURE ploughed None Prehistoric 409430 140840 an aerial photograph North of CIRCULAR 1630 Oatlands Hill ENCLOSURE ploughed None Prehistoric 409430 140980 A ring ditch. North of CIRCULAR A ring ditch is visible as a cropmark on an aerial 1632 Oatlands Hill ENCLOSURE ploughed None Prehistoric 409420 140930 photograph. Part of an oval feature depicted as having interrupted ditches by the National Monuments Record staff from aerial photographs from aerial photographs from aerial photographs during 1633 Oatlands Hill Unclassified Site Ploughed None Unknown 409420 141190 2001. One of a complex of boundary ditches including SU04SE691,726. It joins SU04SE726 near The Diamond Plantation. In this area it overlies field system. RCHM suggest the NE of Oatlands LINEAR No surface Later boundary ditches were laid out in the BA - the 1634 Hill FEATURE expression None Prehistoric 409400 141120 evidence is equivocal. A sub circular enclosure an with outer bank Winterbourne according to the OS. The 2nd edition 25" OS 1636 Stoke Down ENCLOSURE ploughed None Bronze Age 409350 142150 map shows a ditch approximately 5m wide. A disc barrow which had been opened by Cunnington who found a primary? cremation Rollestone ROUND and fragments of a large urn. It has been 1637 Field Group BARROW High ploughed SM10396 Bronze Age 409320 144110 damaged by ploughing. This is Shrewton G26, a bell or bowl barrow possibly opened by Cunnington, It is unclear whether 626 or SU04SE627 contained major Rollestone ROUND finds. Grinsell suggests 627, but also see 1638 Field Group BARROW High ploughed SM10396 Bronze Age 409320 144180 SU04SE628. ID Name Monument Type Importance Condition Designation Period Easting Northing Summary Ploughed-out bowl barrow opened by a Winterbourne ROUND shepherd before Hoare's time. The result is 1640 Stoke Down BARROW High ploughed SM28927 Bronze Age 409310 142600 unknown. Two extant arms of a rectangular enclosure. The SW arm survives as a low bank 70m in length Winterbourne Later and 0.6m high. The NW arm is a scarp 0.4m 1641 Stoke Down ENCLOSURE damaged None Prehistoric 409300 142100 high. This is Shrewton G27. It was possibly opened by Cunnington who found a primary crouched inhumation with a black stone axe-hammer and Rollestone ROUND three other (probably secondary) inhumations. 1644 Field Group BARROW High ploughed SM10396 Bronze Age 409290 144140 But see also SU04SE628 and 626. A roughly circular enclosure, revealed as a CIRCULAR Later soilmark. The aerial photographs suggest that it 1645 Oatlands Hill ENCLOSURE ploughed None Prehistoric 409280 140640 is contemporary with SU04SE691, and 746. A bowl (bell?) barrow with a penannular ditch excavated by Green in 1958. The dimensions suggest to the excavator that this is the bell barrow refered to by Hoare in Rolston Field (the Rollestone ROUND evidence is equivocal). Grinsell says G27 was 1647 Field Group BARROW High ploughed SM10396 Bronze Age 409260 144120 the bell barrow. Flakes, blades, broken pieces, burnt flint, scrapers, miscellaneous debitage and other tools were found during systematic fieldwalking of Winterbourne the proposed A303 Brown Routes. The NGR is a 1649 Stoke Down FINDSPOT None Bronze Age 409250 142430 central one. Nine sherds of coarsewares, including greywares, oxidised sandy wares and one Winterborune Romano- possible sherd of Black Burnished Ware from 1650 Stoke Down FINDSPOT None British 409250 142430 Poole Harbour area. The NGR is a central one. A bowl barrow excavated by Green in 1958 Rollestone ROUND who found a primary cremation and a possibly 1653 Field Group BARROW High ploughed SM10396 Bronze Age 409240 144100 secondary cremation. The barrow had a ditch CIRCULAR 1654 Oatlands Hill ENCLOSURE ploughed None Prehistoric 409220 140640 A ring ditch. Part of a rectangular enclosure is visible on an aerial photograph. The source could not be consulted so the original interpretation and Later NGR is accepted. The site is possibly part of 1658 Oatlands Hill ENCLOSURE ploughed None Prehistoric 409200 140650 SU04SE780. ID Name Monument Type Importance Condition Designation Period Easting Northing Summary Winterbourne Medieval Part of a roughly-made jug dated to the 12th 1661 Stoke Down FINDSPOT None (C15th) 409180 142170 century. A bowl barrow now levelled by ploughing. An Rollestone ROUND aerial photograph reveals a ditch and chalk 1662 Field Group BARROW High ploughed SM10450 Bronze Age 409180 144040 envelope. A long barrow orientated East-West. Opened by Hoare and Cunnington. Side ditches vague and the mound badly damaged. A cremation Winterbourne LONG mixed with chalky marl covered with flints. 2 1664 Stoke Down BARROW Very High extant SM28926 Neolithic 409170 142790 cists and wood ashes. A muller of sandstone. SSE of Middle CIRCULAR 1668 Farm ENCLOSURE None Prehistoric 409140 144010 Part of a ring ditch identfied by RCHM. A bowl barrow levelled by ploughing. Aerial Rollestone ROUND photographs suggest an outer ditch 30m 1671 Field Group BARROW High ploughed SM10450 Bronze Age 409130 143980 diameter. A ring ditch is visible on aerial photographs. The promary sources could not be consulted so CIRCULAR the existing NGR is accepted. This record could 1676 Oatlands Hill ENCLOSURE ploughed None Prehistoric 409090 140580 be SU04SE781. CIRCULAR A ring ditch, possibly the same site as 1679 Oatlands Hill ENCLOSURE ploughed None Prehistoric 409070 140660 SU04SE737. Bowl barrow. Opened by Hoare who found it Winterbourne ROUND had been opened previously Burnt bones were 1683 Stoke Down BARROW High ploughed SM28930 Bronze Age 409050 142750 recovered. A circular bank probably representing the site of N of Grant's ROUND a ploughed round barrow has been plotted by 1684 Barn BARROW None Bronze Age 409030 141520 RCHM. An oviod enclosure (ring ditch?) adjacent to a linear feature, visible as a cropmark. It is possibly the same site as SU04SE719. The dimensions of the cropmark site is about 39m x 1696 Oatlands Hill ENCLOSURE ploughed None Prehistoric 408950 140670 21m, which is more that of a long barrow. Ridge and furrow fields plotted by the National Monuments Record staff from aerial Medieval photographs from aerial photographs during 1702 Oatlands Hill FIELD SYSTEM Ploughed None (C15th) 408920 140520 2001. A settlement with hut scoops/platforms cut by a field system. It is connected to settlement Winterbourne Romano- SU04SE685 to N by a ditch SU04SE690. The 1703 Stoke Down SETTLEMENT High extant SM28943 British 408920 142430 site is overlain by enclosure SU04SE699. ID Name Monument Type Importance Condition Designation Period Easting Northing Summary A ring ditch is visible on an aerial photograph. The primary aerial photograph source could not CIRCULAR bee consulted, so the existing NGR is 1705 Oatlands Hill ENCLOSURE ploughed None Prehistoric 408900 140620 provisionally accepted. Winterbourne Romano- 1706 Stoke Down FINDSPOT None British 408900 142400 Sherds from settlement SU04SE686. A possible Medieval penning overlying settlement features SU04SE686. The enclosure Winterbourne Later is approximately 108m square with a bank and 1707 Stoke Down ENCLOSURE High extant SM28943 Prehistoric 408900 142400 ditch c0.4m deep. N of Grant's LINEAR Later 1712 Barn FEATURE None Prehistoric 408880 141830 Linear ditch identified by RCHME. South of CIRCULAR 1721 Middle Farm ENCLOSURE None Prehistoric 408790 143780 Ring ditch identified by RCHM. South of CIRCULAR 1733 Middle Farm ENCLOSURE None Prehistoric 408710 143820 Ring ditch identified by RCHM. A sinuous linear ditch visible on APs. It post- dates the adjacent ring ditches. The RCHM(E) LINEAR No surface transcription and interpretation also is 1734 Oatlands Hill FEATURE expression None Prehistoric 408700 140700 available. A)Soil/cropmarks to the north of SU04SE685, part of which may represent an extension of SW of Middle linear ditch SU04SE690. B)Additional features 1763 Farm Unclassified Site ploughed None Unknown 408360 143720 have been plotted by RCHM. Winterbourne A)A probable field system is visible on an aerial Stoke photograph as linear features. B)Further Hill/Horse Later elements have been plotted by RCHM. C)More 1779 Down FIELD SYSTEM ploughed None Prehistoric 408180 141030 revealed during an geophysical survey in 1999. SW of Middle CIRCULAR 1786 Farm ENCLOSURE None Prehistoric 408080 143490 Ring ditch identified by RCHM. 1795 E of Rollestone ENCLOSURE None Unknown 407910 143120 Part of an enclosure identified by RCHME. NE of ROUND Mound which may be the site of a barrow 1796 Rollestone BARROW None Bronze Age 407910 143340 plotted by RCHM. A short length of ditch or holloway orientated Winterbourne east/west. It crosses the eastern half of a disc 1798 Stoke West TRACKWAY High SM28921 Unknown 407850 141910 barrow SU04SE653. Disc barrow opened by Hoare who found a Winterbourne primary cremation beneath an inverted urn, Stoke West ROUND incense cup, 2 shale rings, amber and faience 1800 Group BARROW High damaged SM28921 Bronze Age 407810 141920 beads. ID Name Monument Type Importance Condition Designation Period Easting Northing Summary Winterbourne Ditched bowl barrow with an outer bank Stoke West ROUND opened by Hoare who found a primary 1802 Group BARROW High extant SM28921 Bronze Age 407780 141950 cremation in an oblong cist. Disc barrow opened by Hoare who found a primary cremation in cloth fixed by a pin with Winterbourne a V-bored button, 5 shale rings, beads of amber, Stoke West ROUND shale and faience beneath an inverted urn. It 1803 Group BARROW High damaged SM28921 Bronze Age 407750 141970 has been cut by SU04SE698. Ditched bowl barrow opened by Hoare who found a primary cremation in a collared urn Winterbourne (food vessel?) with a small bronze knife dagger, Stoke Group ROUND a bone pommel and a few black beads which 1804 West BARROW High extant SM28921 Bronze Age 407720 141970 are now lost. Ditched bowl barrow opened by Hoare who Winterbourne found two primary cremations, one with an Stoke West ROUND incense cup. It has been damaged by later 1805 Group BARROW High damaged SM28921 Bronze Age 407720 142010 enclosure SU04SE698. A pond barrow was identified by Julian Richards Winterbourne ROUND during fieldwork for MPP in 1995. It is located 1807 Stoke West BARROW High SM28921 Bronze Age 407700 141960 within the Conigar earthwork. Winterbourne Saucer barrow excavated by Hoare who found " Stoke West ROUND no sepulchral remains "and felt it was probably 1809 Group BARROW High extant SM28921 Bronze Age 407680 141990 not a barrow. A ploygonal earthwork which partially encloses a barrow group. It cuts some of the group and The Coniger - therefore post dates them. Grinsell suggests that 1810 High Down ENCLOSURE High extant SM28921 Unknown 407680 142000 it is Medieval. Winterbourne Stoke West ROUND A pond barrow mentioned by RC Hoare but not 1812 Group BARROW High extant SM28921 Bronze Age 407670 141950 opened by him. Winterbourne Stoke West ROUND Ditched bowl barrow opened by Hoare who 1813 Group BARROW High extant SM28921 Bronze Age 407660 141970 found a primary cremation with a "rude cup". Two confluent bowl barrows opened by Hoare Winterbourne who found two cists. In one he found a small Stoke West ROUND dagger and 48 clay beads, 2 of encrinite. In the 1814 Group BARROW High extant SM28921 Bronze Age 407660 141980 other cist, he found the bones of a sheep. Winterbourne Stoke West ROUND A ditched bowl barrow opened by Hoare who 1815 Group BARROW High extant SM28921 Bronze Age 407660 142010 found a primary? cremation wrapped in cloth. ID Name Monument Type Importance Condition Designation Period Easting Northing Summary Winterbourne A ditched bowl barrow opened by Hoare who Stoke West ROUND found a primary cremation wrapped in cloth in 1816 Group BARROW High extant SM28921 Bronze Age 407660 142040 a very large urn. Winterbourne A probable Pagan Saxon intrusive inhumation Stoke West with an iron knife was dug-up by Hoare in the 1817 Group BURIAL None Saxon 407660 142080 central mound of disc barrow SU04SE651. Disc barrow opened by Hoare who found a Winterbourne primary cremation disturbed by an intrusive Stoke West ROUND skeleton with an iron knife (SU04SE401). Cut 1818 Group BARROW High damaged SM28921 Bronze Age 407660 142080 by enclosure SU04SE698. A probable large sub-circular enclosure is visible on an AP. Possible IA enclosure, as it is Later sited on a hilltop, but may represent settlement 1830 High Down ENCLOSURE ploughed None Prehistoric 407300 142300 SU04SE687. A)Hoare records a site to the NW of the Coniger producing RB pottery and coins. B)RCHM aerial Later photographic transcription suggests a settlement 1834 High Down SETTLEMENT ploughed None Prehistoric 407260 142310 at this NGR but see also SU04SE703. North of the A344, western FIELD No surface A 'T' shaped anomaly which possibly indicates 1949 end BOUNDARY Low expression None Unknown 409794 143049 the courses of former field divisions. South of Larkhill Sewage Works, LINEAR No surface Later A linear response may represent part of the 1956 north of Cursus FEATURE expression None Prehistoric 412986 143178 cursus or an earlier field boundary. South of the southern edge No surface A cluster of pit type responses which may 1961 of The Cursus PIT expression None Unknown 412265 142886 represent a cluster of pit features. East of Cursus Barrows, south No surface 1962 of The Cursus PIT expression None Unknown 412252 142718 Pit type anomalies clustering in two places. South of A short ditch possibly of archaeological Larkhill significance and related to a group of anomalies Sewage Works, No surface further east. Modern disturbance could account 1963 north of Cursus DITCH expression None Unknown 412892 143188 for this anomaly. A series of linears aligned northeast-southwest, South of northwest-southeast appear to form a series of Larkhill enclosures that could represent the remains of a Sewage Works, No surface Later Celtic field system. Pit type responses hint at 1964 north of Cursus ENCLOSURE expression None Prehistoric 412913 143183 settlement remains. ID Name Monument Type Importance Condition Designation Period Easting Northing Summary A linear response has been recorded running on an east-west alignment and may represent the North of the course of an earlier field division. To the north A344, western LINEAR No surface lies a group of pit type anomalies which are 1976 end FEATURE Low expression None Unknown 409867 143086 possibly associated with the linear. A group of anomalies appear to form the remains of a 25m diameter circular ring ditch. A pit anomaly recorded near the centre of the North of the Ring Ditch (3) could represent the remains of a A344, western No surface grave cut. 2009 geophysics indicates this may 1978 end PIT CIRCLE High expression None Prehistoric 409780 143126 be a pit circle not a ring South of the southern edge No surface Short ditch type anomalies, possibly the corner 1983 of The Cursus ENCLOSURE expression None Unknown 412282 142917 of an enclosure. North of the A344, western No surface 1988 end PIT Negligible expression None Unknown 409980 142919 A possible cluster of pit anomalies. COMMEMORAT Modern 2014 Crossroads IVE STONE High Extant None (C20th) 409820 142880 A pre First World War memorial stone. NE of Oatlands 2052 Hill FINDSPOT High Bronze Age 409310 141240 Two Intercutting Pits Probably Bronze Age NE of Oatlands LINEAR 2053 Hill FEATURE High Unknown 409300 141240 Undated Excavated Linear Feature NE of Oatlands Four excavated pits likely to be Iron Age of 2054 Farm PIT High Buried Iron Age 409320 141240 origin NE of Oatlands 2055 Farm FINDSPOT High None Bronze Age 409390 141270 Excavated Bronze Age pit NE of Oatlands 2056 Farm BURIAL High None Bronze Age 409390 141260 Undated Excavated Ditch Terminus NE of Oatlands 2057 Farm PIT High Buried None Bronze Age 409430 141260 Excavated Bronze Age Pit and Posthole NE of Oatlands LINEAR Romano- 2058 Farm FEATURE High Buried None British 409470 141250 Excavated Romano British Linear Feature NE of Oatlands 2059 Hill PIT High None Unknown 409430 141270 Excavated undated Pit NE of Oatlands 2060 Hill PIT High Buried None Iron Age 409710 141320 Three Excavated Iron Age Pits NE of Oatlands LINEAR 2068 Hill FEATURE High Unknown 409260 141280 SE aligned excavated ditch and finds ID Name Monument Type Importance Condition Designation Period Easting Northing Summary Winterbourne Stoke 2071 Crossroads FINDSPOT High Bronze Age 410090 141510 Bronze Age Excavated pit Near the INDUSTRIAL The remains of a burnt flint floor/scatter was 2078 Conigre SITE High Buried Prehistoric 407550 142200 found during 2003. A World War I balloon school established in 1916, when the Royal Flying Corps took over 150 acres of land. There were 155 Instructional Rollestone Staff, with students, averaging 25 officers and Landing MILITARY 120 men. The school came under the RAF on its 2082 Ground AIRFIELD SITE High Destroyed None Modern 408600 143900 formation on 01/04/1918. Trench situated on a south-facing slope above the Till valley, revealed a shallow pit. The pit was large (2m in length) but relatively shallow (0.35m). Finds of worked and burnt, unworked Longbarrow flint, animal bone and pottery of Iron Age date 2086 Crossroads PIT High None Iron Age 407600 141480 were recovered fr Memorial cross erected to commemorate the deaths of Captain Lorraine and Staff Sgt. Wilson 2093 Airman's Cross Memorial Stone High None Modern 409859 142854 in what is believed to be the fir Anti-tank 2100 cubes Anti Tank Block High No surfac Modern 411000 142697 Anti-tank Cubes built during WWII Oatlands Hill Airfield comprising technical buildings and 2123 Airfield AIRFIELD High Modern 409320 140622 accommodation built during WWII Rollestone 2125 Landing Groun AIRFIELD High None Modern 408565 143791 Airfield in use during WWII A square dew pond of the type cut by families Dew pond E of Post from Imber. Shown on OS 1st edition (c.1887), 2136 A360 DEWPOND Low Extant None Medieval 409870 142737 date unknown. 2147 MILESTONE MILESTONE Medium Grade II 409952 139634 DEVIZES ROAD AIRMEN'S CROSS AT JUNCTION OF A344 AND Post 2183 A360 MILESTONE Medium Grade II Medieval 409827 142880
APPENDIX 5 Proposed Scheme Drawings
226 msq GEA Proposed ancilliary coach visitor facilities building
3077 msq New permanant coach park paths - Specification 1 - 20mm bitumous bound aggregate
147 msq New concrete paved areas for VTS platform and CVF building entrances - Specification 2 - concrete pavers
819 msq New overflow coach park paths - Specification 3 - spray tar and chip
142 msq New stone paved areas for VTS platform at VC - Specification 4 - limestone pavers
492 msq Replacement of temporary path connecting VC to A344 - Specification 5 - 20mm bitumous bound aggregate Henge Green
5634 msq Proposed new coach park road surface (standard tarmac, partially over existing sub-base, existing perforated drainage partially reused and converted to conventional gullies)
28 no. Number tamac coach parking spaces
1499 msq Proposed motorhome parking areas (standard tarmac, 80% reuse of existing surface, existing gullies reused with drainage channels where possible)
26 no Number tarmac motorhome parking spaces
1625 msq Proposed porous drainage area for overflow coach spaces (reinforced gravel with tanking for drainage via petrol interceptor)
8 no. 25 no. Number overflow coach/motorhome spaces (reinforced gravel, included within above area for porous drainage)
4 no. 8 no. Number coach loading/waiting spaces
9 no. 675 msq Proposed new VTS loop road (standard tarmac)
VTS drop off / loading bay 11 no. 478 msq Proposed decommissioning of existing VTS platform and restoration to grassland
4 no.
8 no.
4 no.
17 no.
4 no.
5 no.
5 no.
DO NOT SCALE FROM THIS DRAWING. CHECK ALL DIMENSIONS ON SITE. NOTIFY ARCHITECT OF ALL DISCREPANCIES KEY: REV DATE NOTES DRAWN PROJECT STONEHENGE VISITOR TITLE PROPOSED COACH PARK LAYOUT P11 01.04.2016 Issued for client comment and sign off P12 04.04.2016 landscape proposals omited - refer to landscape architects drawings for information NC ENHANCEMENT PROJECT PLANNING APPLICATION BOUNDARY P13 13.04.2016 planning issue
N CHECKED SCALE 1:500 @ A1/ 1:1000 @ A3 DATE SEPTEMBER 2015 NO 1515 / 242 REV P13 NC 0m 25m 15 HIGH STREET, WHITTLESFORD, CAMBRIDGE, CB22 4LT c o w p e r g r i f f i t h Tel: 01223 835998 Fax: 01223 837327 A R C H I T E C T S L L P Email: [email protected] Key: Existing hardstanding to be removed & restored to grassland Proposed pedestrian routes for coach tour and motorhome visitors Proposed new pavements and pathways Proposed pedestrian routes for car Proposed new VTS roadway visitors
Proposed VTS drop-off / loading bay Proposed pedestrian route for visitors returning from the Stones
DO NOT SCALE FROM THIS DRAWING. CHECK ALL DIMENSIONS ON SITE. NOTIFY ARCHITECT OF ALL DISCREPANCIES REV DATE NOTES DRAWN PROJECT STONEHENGE VISITOR TITLE PROPOSED NEW VTS TURNAROUND P1 10.09.2015 Issued for Design Team Comment P2 28.09.2015 Issued for DTM comment NC ENHANCEMENT PROJECT AT VISITOR CENTRE END P3 05.11.2015 Issued for Project Board Approval LAYOUT P4 17.11.2015 updated in line with project board comments P5 18.11.2015 barrier notes added P6 27.11.2015 annotation updated CHECKED SCALE 1:250 @ A1/ 1:500 @ A3 DATE SEPTEMBER 2015 NO 1515 / 211 REV P8 P7 04.04.2016 annotation updated NC P8 13.04.2016 plan updated, planning issue 15 HIGH STREET, WHITTLESFORD, CAMBRIDGE, CB22 4LT 0m 25m N KEY: c o w p e r g r i f f i t h Tel: 01223 835998 Fax: 01223 837327 PLANNING APPLICATION BOUNDARY A R C H I T E C T S L L P Email: [email protected] South East Studio The Old Crown High Street Blackboys Uckfield East Sussex TN22 5JR T 01825 891071 F 01825 891075 E [email protected] W www.cbastudios.com London Studio Woolyard 52 Bermondsey Street London SE1 3UD T 020 7089 6480 Directors C J Blandford BA DipLD MLA FLI • M E Antonia BSc EnvSci RSA DipPA • D Watkins BSc MSc AMIEnvSci
Chris Blandford Associates is the trading name of Chris Blandford Associates Ltd Registered in England No 3741865. Registered Office: The Old Crown High Street Blackboys East Sussex TN22 5JR