COUNTY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM NO. 14

CABINET 24 th JUNE 2005

PROPOSED VISITOR CENTRE

Purpose of Report

1. To inform the Cabinet of the planning application submitted to Salisbury District Council by English Heritage for a new Stonehenge Visitor Centre at Countess East, and to agree the County Council’s response.

Background

2. The County Council’s Performance and Improvement Plan includes as one of its priority goals “to support improvements to the Stonehenge World Heritage Site”. The improvements planned are the Highways Agency’s A303 Stonehenge Improvement, English Heritage’s New Visitor Centre and The National Trust’s Land Use Changes, known collectively as The Stonehenge Project.

3. The County Council also supports the aims of the Stonehenge World Heritage Site (WHS) Management Plan which includes as one of its objectives:-

“A new world class visitor centre should be secured to act as a gateway to Stonehenge, to improve the visitor experience and to encourage the dispersal of visitors around the whole WHS”.

4. The Public Inquiry into the A303 Stonehenge Improvement was held in the early part of 2004 and the Inspector’s report was submitted to the Secretary of State at the end of January 2005. A decision on the proposals is not expected until the Autumn. In the meantime, the Department for Transport has designated the improvement a regional scheme and the mechanism for prioritising and allocating regional funds has still to be agreed. Consequently some doubt would still remain about the future programme for the scheme should the Secretary of State confirm the Orders in the Autumn.

5. At the end of August 2004, English Heritage submitted a planning application to Salisbury District Council for a new Visitor Centre to be built on land to the north-east of Countess Roundabout on the A303 at Amesbury together with proposals for access from the proposed Visitor Centre to the WHS. The County Council along with several other bodies requested further information from English Heritage on a number of issues and that information has now been received. The County Council’s formal response to the planning application must now be agreed and submitted to the District Council.

CM07890/F 1 The Application

6. The application is for:-

§ A new Visitor Centre situated to the east of Countess Road north of Amesbury § The provision of a track to provide access by land trains from the Visitor Centre through an underpass beneath Countess Road to archaeological sites and monuments within the WHS § The removal of the existing visitor facilities and car park at Stonehenge and their replacement with an operations facility concealed underground and § The decommissioning of the A344 between its junction with the A360 at Airman’s Corner and the entrance to the existing Stonehenge car park including works to remodel the A344 road bed between Fargo Plantation and the existing car park (see plan at Appendix 1 ).

7. It is assumed in the application that the Countess Flyover will be constructed as part of the A303 Stonehenge Improvement and the Visitor Centre could not open until that part of the A303 improvement has been implemented and the A344 closed to vehicular traffic. English Heritage does not have a fall-back position.

Strategic Planning Considerations

8. It must be acknowledged that any development will bring a level of intrusion into the landscape which will have an impact on the setting of the ancient monument. This is currently the case with some 763,450 visitors annually which is anticipated to increase to around 810,000 visitors under these proposals.

9. As a result of these proposals, existing visitor facilities, car park and local roads will be cleared away, removing intrusion and enhancing the setting of the Stone Circle, to be replaced with a remote visitor centre and connecting track (with land train) which will introduce a new intrusion and consequent impact upon the setting of the Cursus in particular.

10. The planning issue therefore is one of balance and it is considered that the planning application for the Visitor Centre at Amesbury, and the associated proposals at Stonehenge itself, do not give rise to any strategic planning objections. The adopted Wiltshire Structure Plan 2011 sets out policies for the protection of the WHS site itself (HE1) and for the development of new or improved tourist attractions, based on the historic heritage (RLT8), which will give effect to the enhancement of the WHS (and other historic monuments and sites) as sought in HE5.

11. Consequently these proposals can be supported in principle both in terms of the substantive improvements that they will together bring to the management of the WHS and its enhancement as an archaeological resource, in association with the provision of improved visitor facilities, providing significantly better educational and interpretative facilities, which has the potential to bring additional economic benefits to Amesbury and the wider area. However, the phasing of the developments must be linked to the A303(T) improvements.

Tourism and Economic Benefits

12. Stonehenge is the largest individual attraction in terms of visitor numbers in the County. Visitor numbers to Stonehenge under the current access arrangements were 763,450 in 2003-4. 65% of visitors are from overseas and coach parties make up 32% of visitors. Typically visitors stay for just over an hour at Stonehenge.

CM07890/F 2

13. The new Visitor Centre and access arrangements will relocate the visitor infrastructure to the Countess East Site. Visitor numbers will increase but will be constrained on conservation and site capacity grounds to 810,000 per year. While the new arrangements will provide a much better visitor experience and understanding of Stonehenge, the associated increase in time spent to just under 3.5 hours will discourage some of the coach-borne visitors with full day itineraries.

14. Commercial accommodation has a capacity of around 4,100 bedspaces in Salisbury District, just under a quarter of the total available in Wiltshire. Occupancy levels in serviced accommodation in the District are high, indicating that there is little spare capacity during the Summer months to take any growth in activity. New hotel development in the area around Stonehenge includes proposals for a 120 bed hotel at the Solstice Park development at Amesbury which will look to attract a business market as well as leisure visitors to Stonehenge.

15. The proposed dual branding of Wiltshire under South West Tourism’s ‘Towards 2015’ Strategy shows ‘Salisbury and Stonehenge’ as one of the brands. It is anticipated, however, that the opening of the new Stonehenge Visitor Centre will provide a gateway for tourists to Kennet and the rest of the County with the heritage linkages to Avebury, West Kennett Long Barrow and Silbury Hill, particularly, providing a natural link with Wiltshire’s historic past. Potentially, this gateway could increase visitor numbers to other heritage locations quite dramatically, increasing the economic impact that tourism has within the County.

Archaeology

16. In developing plans for a Visitor Centre on the Countess East Site, the applicant has adopted the process set out in PPG16 for undertaking archaeological evaluation of a proposal site prior to the determination of a planning application.

17. This work has been conducted over a period of almost ten years, and has involved consultations with the County Archaeologist at every stage. It is unlikely that anything of outstanding archaeological value with be affected by the proposed Visitor Facility east of Countess Road.

18. In physical terms, the Access Scheme has been designed to be minimally intrusive on the archaeology of the World Heritage Site, and this will be achieved largely by using an engineering technique for the land train tracks which has no ground impact.

Traffic Impact

19. The opening of the new Visitor Centre is dependent on improvements to Countess Roundabout as part of the A303 Stonehenge Improvement to create a grade-separated junction with a flyover carrying A303 through traffic. Completion of this work has been made a condition of a substantial Heritage Lottery Fund contribution to the cost of the Visitor Centre.

20. Vehicular access to the new Visitor Centre would be via an extension to the existing Countess Services slip road from the eastbound lane of the A303. The proposed egress from the site is via an exit-only give way junction onto the A345 Countess Road providing access back onto the A303 via slip roads from Countess Roundabout. The flyover for the A303, constructed as part of the Highways Agency’s Stonehenge Improvement, would create satisfactory capacity to accommodate traffic from the Visitor Centre.

CM07890/F 3 21. A surfaced area of 17,655 square metres would provide parking for 538 cars, 36 motorcycles and 30 coaches. This level of provision would cater for the anticipated maximum number of visitors. In addition, 9,075 square metres of overflow parking would be provided adjacent to the main car parking area to accommodate unexpected increases in visitor numbers and ensure that there would be no parking on the surrounding roads.

22. The possibility of fly-parking in areas around the WHS such as Old Stonehenge Road has been considered and, if necessary, English Heritage would work with the County Council and Salisbury District Council to identify suitable measures such as Traffic Regulation Orders to discourage parking around the WHS and encourage vehicles to park within the Visitor Centre site.

23. The application includes a Travel Plan which seeks to minimise the number of visitors arriving by car. Public transport will be promoted for both staff and visitors. A proposed National Cycle Network route will run along Countess Road and provide a direct link to the Visitor Centre for cyclists. Pedestrian links from bus stops on Countess Road will also be provided together with a toucan crossing facility.

Airman’s Corner and the A344

24. The Highways Agency published draft orders for the A303 Stonehenge Improvement in June 2003. The implications were considered in a report to Regulatory Committee in July 2003 and it was resolved, inter alia:-

To advertise Traffic Regulation Orders under the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 prohibiting motorised vehicles from using the A344 between Airman’s Corner and Byway Amesbury 12 and Byways within the World Heritage Site subject to confirmation of the A303 Stonehenge Improvement Scheme Orders.

25. The planning application includes proposals for the partial restoration of the A344 carriageway between Fargo Plantation and the entrance to the existing car park near Stonehenge. The surface will be broken up and the carriageway remodelled to provide a new track 3.5metres wide to allow access to the operations facility at Stonehenge, agricultural access and access for pedestrians, cyclists, horses and horse-drawn vehicles. The rest of the A344 from Fargo Plantation to Airman’s Corner will remain as it is.

26. It will be necessary to provide suitable arrangements close to the junction of the A344 with the A360 at Airman’s Corner to prevent unauthorised access. A drawing showing the proposed position of a barrier has been provided as part of the supplementary information but no further details are shown.

New Access Arrangements and Rights of Way

27. From the new Visitor Centre at Countess East a land train would provide access to two main drop-off points at King Barrow Ridge and at Durrington Farm. From King Barrow Ridge there would be access to Stonehenge on foot across managed grassland. From Durrington Farm access would be along Byway 12 where motorised vehicular traffic would be prohibited by a Traffic Regulation Order (TRO). It is proposed to surface a 2.5 metre width for electric wheelchairs which would be available to transport less able visitors along the byway.

CM07890/F 4 28. The Environmental Statement accompanying the planning application anticipates that “the Highway Authority (ie Wiltshire County Council) would undertake minimal repairs to upgrade the surface of existing bridleways as required to accommodate cycle use…” In discussions with English Heritage it has been made clear that the County Council’s rights of way maintenance budget is not able to absorb these costs or the cost of maintaining rights of way within the WHS to a higher standard than has previously been the case.

29. The application includes the diversion of bridleway Amesbury 39 away from its current route where it crosses the Cursus Longbarrow, which is a scheduled Ancient Monument, to relocate the bridleway outside the scheduled monument boundary. English Heritage believes it is appropriate for the diversion to be put into effect as part of the planning permission under the provisions of Section 247 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. For the power to be exercisable, the authority (Salisbury District Council) must be satisfied that it is necessary to divert the bridleway in order to enable the development to take place.

Main Considerations for the Council

Archaeology

30. In relation to the route in the area of the Cursus, there will clearly be a visual impact. The proposed track runs roughly parallel to the Cursus for a distance of 1,000 metres and carries with it the prospect of a land train carrying up to 150 passengers passing any one point about every five minutes at peak times.

31. To mitigate this impact the applicant proposes to introduce four areas of new plantation to partially screen the transit route from the monument, and also to rely on the extensive plantation flanking the northern edge of the Cursus at its eastern end. The impact of modern development on the visual setting of the Cursus has already been substantial - the sewage works south of Camp, Durrington Down Farm and the adjacent plantation, the houses in Fargo Road and the plantation flanking the northern edge of the monument.

32. It is claimed (Design Statement, p1) that the Scheme ‘meets the requirements of a number of planning and environmental policies from the international to local level.’ Section 3 of the Design Statement ‘Design Principles’ quotes from Historic Environment Policy HE1 of the Structure Plan which states ‘no development should take place which by reason of its scale, siting and design would prejudice the World Heritage Site and its setting in the landscape’ . The Salisbury District Local Plan is quoted - ‘development which would adversely affect the archaeological landscape of Stonehenge World Heritage Site or the fabric or the setting of its monuments will not be permitted’ . Objective 9 of the World Heritage Site Management Plan is also quoted - ‘the appropriate landscape setting for the Stonehenge monument and the immediately related ceremonial sites in the core should be restored’.

33. Aspects of the proposal are therefore in conflict with principles set out in a wide range of management and planning policies designed to protect the archaeology of the WHS:

(i) The presence of the transport system will be a major intrusion in the landscape and a distraction to visitors attempting to understand a prehistoric ceremonial landscape.

(ii) The new plantations designed to mask the land train route will add to existing intrusions.

CM07890/F 5

(iii) The project makes no attempt to enhance the setting of the Cursus by removing the existing plantation and masking other modern features. The new plantations are designed solely to mask the proposed transit route.

Traffic

34. Traffic generated by Stonehenge already impacts on the local road network. Generally, the peak periods for visitors do not coincide with commuter and school-run peaks. The construction of a flyover for the A303 at Countess Roundabout will greatly increase the capacity of the junction and provide satisfactory access to the new visitor centre.

35. Neither the original application nor the supplementary information gives details of the proposed arrangements at Airman’s Corner either for the A360/B3086 traffic or the access details for classes of traffic exempt from the proposed TRO on the A344.

36. The existing junction at Airman’s Corner has a poor accident record and interactive warning signs have been installed in an attempt to reduce approach speeds on the A344. It could be argued that the County Council will derive safety benefits from the new arrangements and should therefore contribute to the cost of remodelling the junction layout. However, Members may consider that, as the need for changes arises from the application, English Heritage should include the necessary alterations as part of their work.

37. A gap for pedestrians and horses would have to be provided alongside the proposed barrier across the A344 together with suitable access for horse-drawn vehicles such as a “Kent Carriage Gap” which allows the passage of vehicles with high, narrow track axles but not road-going motorised vehicles.

38. The Highways Agency is concerned that informal parking along Old Stonehenge Road could create access difficulties to the proposed tunnel in an emergency and considers that parking restrictions should be imposed. At its junction with the A303, Old Stonehenge Road currently becomes a slip road onto the trunk road and the Highways Agency has jurisdiction over that part of the road within the trunk road boundary. Away from the A303, Old Stonehenge Road is a County Road.

39. The process for making TROs involves consultation and the outcome cannot be pre-judged. However, should parking restrictions be required on the section of Old Stonehenge Road away from the trunk road, the County Council would expect the applicant to bear the costs of the necessary order.

40. A signage strategy has been developed as part of the A303 Stonehenge Improvement which incorporates signs for the Visitor Centre but this will not cover approaches to the Visitor Centre from the County Road network. The opportunity should also be taken to improve direction signs for visitors arriving via Amesbury bus station. A review of local road signs should be carried out and a new signing scheme agreed and implemented by the applicant.

Coach Parking

CM07890/F 6 41. The overarching aim of the Visitor Centre Travel Plan (TP) is to ensure that as many trips to/from and around the Visitor Centre and World Heritage Site as possible are undertaken using sustainable modes. The TP reports that the visitor profile ‘clearly provides the opportunity for travel patterns to be influenced such that trips are made sustainably (e.g. by coach)’.

42. However, in terms of sustainable access to the Visitor Centre, the County Council is concerned that English Heritage is predicting the same number of visitors but a reduction in the numbers arriving by coach. This means that a higher proportion of visitors will arrive by car. This change in arrival pattern is undesirable in sustainability terms since it takes around 10 car trips to replace a single coach trip. (This is based on the Transport Assessment (TA) figures that coaches have an average occupancy of 32, while cars have average occupancy of 2.91).

43. The TA shows that the proposed number of coach parking spaces is insufficient at peak periods for the predicted number of coach arrivals. English Heritage proposes to manage arrival by coaches on a pre booking system. A risk of this approach could clearly be that coaches (a transport mode to be encouraged and with scope to be encouraged) are denied access whilst cars (a less sustainable mode) are not and in fact are provided with overflow car parking areas. This is an undesirable situation.

44. The provision of 30 coach parking spaces therefore does not support the TP’s aim ‘to ensure that the existing level of coach use is maintained and if possible improved upon’. To maintain the existing level and to encourage more coach access, the County Council considers it imperative that an increase in coach parking capacity is necessary to at least 40 coach parking spaces in the coach parking area. This level of provision is more likely to enable the aims of the TP achieved.

Rights of Way

45. While there is no objection in principle to the proposal by English Heritage to divert Bridleway Amesbury 39, it is not considered to be an appropriate application of the Town and Country Planning Act’s provisions in this case and a precedent should not be established without challenge. The County Council considers that the correct legal mechanism would be for English Heritage to apply to the County Council for an order to be made under Section 119 of the Highways Act 1980.

46. Any work on the highway, including rights of way, requires the permission of the Highway Authority. Discussions on the work to be carried out to upgrade and maintain Byway 12 to make it suitable for electric wheelchairs are still in progress. It is considered agreement of an acceptable Management and Maintenance Plan should be one of the conditions attached to planning permission.

Environmental Impact of the Proposal

47. The planning application is accompanied by a comprehensive Environmental Statement which details the environmental impacts and proposed mitigation measures where appropriate. The removal of the existing visitor facilities and car park will make a substantial contribution to the aim of restoring the setting of Stonehenge.

Risk Assessment

CM07890/F 7 48. The major identifiable risks relating to the proposals will be borne by English Heritage.

Financial Implications

49. The County Council has no financial commitment to the proposal. If the application is called in by the Secretary of State and a Public Inquiry is held, there could be legal costs involved if there are outstanding issues requiring representation at the Inquiry.

Reasons for Proposal

50. Although English Heritage acknowledges that the new Visitor Centre cannot go ahead in the absence of the Countess Flyover and the closure of the A344, a planning condition to this effect should be imposed for the avoidance of doubt.

51. The planning application contains no details of the necessary changes to the junction layout at Airman’s Corner or any commitment to carrying out the work. It is important that these details are agreed and the necessary changes made before the new Visitor Centre opens.

52. An increase in the number of coach parking spaces from 30 to 40 is considered essential to encourage more travel by coach and enable the aims of the TP to be achieved. A revision of the coach parking arrangements to provide this increase in capacity should be sought from the applicant.

53. Direction signs on local roads will require modification to reflect the new location of the Visitor Centre. The County Council would expect a signing scheme to be submitted for approval in advance of construction, the cost of the changes being borne by the applicant.

54. Should the need arise for the County Council to impose parking restrictions on County Roads in the vicinity as a result of the new WHS access arrangements, the cost of the necessary orders should be met by the applicant.

55. Discussions have been held with English Heritage about upgrading rights of way within the WHS to cater for cyclists and electric wheelchairs and the increase in the subsequent maintenance liability. It is important that these issues are resolved as part of the overall package of conditions upon which planning permission depends.

Conclusion

56. In response to this planning application Members will need to balance the competing objectives of development and conservation. The principal conservation objectives relate to the impact of the land train on the setting of the Cursus. Do Members consider that this warrants an objection to this element of the proposals or whether, in the light of the reversibility of the works and the mitigation proposed, the overall benefits of the proposals outweigh the disbenefits?

Proposal

CM07890/F 8 57. That the County Council either:-

(a) Objects to the application for the following reasons:-

(i) The presence of the transport system will be a major intrusion in the landscape and a distraction to visitors attempting to understand a prehistoric ceremonial landscape.

(ii) The new plantations designed to mask the land train route will add to existing intrusions.

(iii) The project makes no attempt to enhance the setting of the Cursus by removing the existing plantation and masking other modern features. The new plantations are designed solely to mask the proposed transit route.

or

(b) Confirms its support for the proposals in principle subject to the following conditions:-

(i) No occupation of the Visitor Centre until the A303 Stonehenge Improvement is completed.

(ii) No occupation of the Visitor Centre until the revised layout and access arrangements at Airman’s Corner are agreed with the Director of Environmental Services, including agreement of costs.

(iii) No occupation of the Visitor Centre until a revised coach parking layout for 40 coaches has been agreed.

(iv) No occupation of the Visitor Centre until a traffic sign scheme has been agreed with the Director of Environmental Services, including agreement of costs.

(v) No occupation of the Visitor Centre until a Maintenance Management Plan for rights of way within the World Heritage Site has been agreed with the Director of Environmental Services, including agreement of costs.

KEITH ROBINSON Chief Executive

Report Authors GEORGE BATTEN PAULINE PALMER Director of Environmental Services Assistant Director (Libraries and Heritage) Corporate and Library Services

The following unpublished documents have been relied on in the preparation of this Report :

Letter to Salisbury District Council from County Archaeologist (25 th October 2004)

CM07890/F 9