DOCSLIB.ORG

Stonehenge A303 Improvement: Outline Assessment of the Impacts

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Stonehenge A303 Improvement: Outline Assessment of the Impacts Stonehenge A303 improvement: outline assessment of the impacts on the Outstanding Universal Value of the World Heritage property of potential route options presented by Highways England for January 2017 Nicola Snashall BA MA PhD MCIfA National Trust Christopher Young BA MA DPhil FSA Christopher Young Heritage Consultancy January 2017 ©Historic England and the National Trust Stonehenge A303 improvements: outline assessment of the impacts on the Outstanding Universal Value of the World Heritage property of potential route options presented by Highways England for January 2017 Executive Summary Introduction In 2014, English Heritage (now Historic England) and the National Trust commissioned an assessment (Snashall, Young 2014) on the potential impact of new road options, including a tunnel, for the A303 within the Stonehenge component of the Stonehenge, Avebury and Associated Sites World Heritage property. Since at that time, there were no detailed proposals, that report considered four possible alternatives and concluded that, of these, an off-line route with a tunnel of 2.9kms length would be the most deliverable solution. The government remains committed to improving the A303 and to funding sufficient for a tunnel of at least 2.9kms length within the World Heritage property. Highways England are consulting in early 2017 on route options developed since 2014 for this road scheme through the World Heritage property and bypassing Winterbourne Stoke village to the west. This report is an outline assessment of these initial options on the Outstanding Universal Value (OUV) of the World Heritage property. It has been commissioned to assess the impact of the latest road options in the light of updated archaeological information. Major changes in archaeological knowledge since 2014 relating to attributes of OUV of the World Heritage property are summarised in Chapter 2, together with any other relevant changes in the context of the current proposals. Chapter 3 describes the methodology used. Chapter 4 briefly describes the latest road options as far as they are developed and sets out the approach we have adopted. This is followed by the actual assessment of the non-physical impacts of the road options. Chapter 5 assesses the physical impact and a final chapter draws overall conclusions on the likely impact of the options presented and discusses possible mitigation measures. This assessment is still outline and provisional since detailed design of the scheme has not yet been developed at this stage of the Highways England process. It is part of an iterative process design and assessment, and its purpose is to inform Historic England and the National Trust in their consideration of current proposals and their discussions with Highways England. Based on a number of assumptions, Highways England has proposed a route which would cross the A345 by flyover with grade separated junction at Countess Roundabout. It would enter a tunnel east of the line of the Avenue. The western portal of the tunnel would be south of Normanton Gorse and closer to the Normanton Down Barrow Group than the offline route evaluated in 2014. From the western portal, Highways England is considering two alignments. Both would run through the Diamond copse. D061 would run on a more northerly alignment, crossing the A360 some 700m south of Long Barrow Crossroads. D062 would have a more southerly alignment crossing the A360 at a lower point at the Park. For both routes, the surface sections would be constructed at grade. The A360 would be crossed by a flyover for either the A303 or the A360. This would be 8m high. There would also be a grade separated junction, location to be determined. Changes in context since 2014 This report reviews changes in the wider context since our last preliminary assessment in 2014 (Chapter 2). It notes that the ICOMOS/ UNESCO Advisory Mission in October 2015 considered that the scheme could have beneficial impacts on the OUV of the World Heritage property, but also noted that the siting and design of the tunnel portals, approach cuttings, embankments, entry/ exit ramps, mitigation measures and the temporary construction works have the potential to adversely impact OUV (ICOMOS/ UNESCO 2016, 24). i Stonehenge A303 improvements: outline assessment of the impacts on the Outstanding Universal Value of the World Heritage property of potential route options presented by Highways England for January 2017 Since 2014, further archaeological work has been carried out by Historic England as part of their investigation of the southern part of the World Heritage property. Wessex Archaeology have also undertaken assessment and evaluation for Highways England. The most significant results relevant to the OUV of the World Heritage property and that could be impacted by the scheme have been the discovery/ confirmation of the existence of two long barrows and a hengiform monument in the area around the Diamond copse. This has led us to recognise a new key attribute group for this assessment, the Diamond group, located north and west of the Diamond. We have also recognised that the boundaries of the Normanton Down Barrow Group were drawn too tightly for our 2014 assessment. We have extended its boundaries to include Normanton Gorse itself, the Sun Barrow north of that wood, and the unnamed barrow group divided by the current A303 (see Fig. 2 for all key attribute groups). Methodology For comparative purposes, potential impacts have been assessed using the same methodology as last time, based on the 2011 ICOMOS Guidance on Heritage Impact Assessment (ICOMOS 2011) (Chapter 3). Separate assessments were carried out for visual and other impacts, looking in detail at the impact of the road proposals on the relationships between key attribute groups (Chapter 4) and for direct physical impacts on physical attributes (Chapter 5). We have also assessed the impact of the proposals on each of the seven principal attributes of OUV (see list on p.7) and on integrity and authenticity of the World Heritage property. Evidence for these evaluations is set out in a series of tables and overall conclusions are discussed in Chapter 6. This study builds on the work carried out in 2014 by the same authors (Snashall, Young 2014) in assessing options for a bored tunnel solution in the World Heritage property. As far as possible information from that report has not been duplicated here, and this new assessment should be read in conjunction with the earlier report. The earlier report contains additional information on the World Heritage property and fully considers the broader policy context and guidance affecting World Heritage properties. It also contains the initial assessment of the benchmark 4.5kms tunnel and the four options evaluated at the time. These are not repeated in this report. Conclusions The starting point for any assessment is the impact of the current A303 and new proposals need to be evaluated against this baseline. The 2014 report established that the current A303 has a severe adverse impact on the OUV of the World Heritage property. Both the options presented by Highways England (D061 (1) and D062 (1)) would have a less adverse impact than the current situation. On the basis of present knowledge, there would be no direct physical impacts from either option, though further archaeological work would be required to confirm this. The flyover and grade-separated junction with the A345 would have adverse local impacts but not on key attribute groups. At the east end, moving the tunnel portal east of the Avenue is highly beneficial and the impact of the road east of King Barrow Ridge and Coneybury Hill would be greatly reduced. In the central part of the World Heritage property the adverse impacts of the current A303 would be removed entirely except possibly for some distant views from King Barrow Ridge and Coneybury Hill of the surface stretches of road beyond Normanton Gorse. However, there are issues around the location of the western portal and the surface stretches of road from there to the western boundary of the World Heritage property as currently presented. ii Stonehenge A303 improvements: outline assessment of the impacts on the Outstanding Universal Value of the World Heritage property of potential route options presented by Highways England for January 2017 Physically D061 (all variants) splits the Diamond key attributes group. The western portal is very close to the Normanton Down Barrow Group while both surface routes have adverse visual and aural impacts on the surrounding Winterbourne Stoke, Normanton Down , Lake and Diamond Groups (nearly a quarter of the identified key attribute groups). Crossing of the A360 is achieved by a bridge 8m high, either of the A303 over the A360 or vice versa, with a grade separated junction. Both alignments (D061 (1) and D062 (1)) are unacceptable in this form. The 2015 ICOMOS/ UNESCO mission, quoted earlier in this summary, specifically drew attention to the potential for the surface parts of any scheme to have an adverse impact on OUV. Mitigation west of Normanton Down Barrow Group is essential and we have therefore considered five further options for each route (D061 (2-6) and D062 (2-6)) in addition to the Highways England options, considered as D061 (1) and D062 (1). Both the D061 (1) and D062 (1) routes could be mitigated, and impact on the four western barrow groups reduced by greater concealment of the road by placing it in cutting, crossing the A360 by means of an underpass and by placing any junction with the A360 to the west of the existing line of the A360 (D061 (2) and D062 (2)). Further mitigation would be achieved by moving the apparent western exit from the tunnel by construction of a landbridge/ canopy which reflects the existing landform (D061 (3) – (6) D062 (3) – (6)). This would have the effects of moving the apparent exit away from the Normanton Down Barrow Group, and also of shortening the amount of road visible in the western part of the World Heritage property.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • A303 Stonehenge E
    1 A303 Stonehenge e m Amesbury to Berwick Down u l o V Report on Public Consultation September 2017 A303 Stonehenge, Amesbury to Berwick Down | HE551506 Table of contents Chapter Pages Executive summary 2 Background context 2 Scheme proposals presented for consultation 2 Consultation arrangements 3 Consultation response 3 Key considerations 5 Effectiveness and benefits of consultation 6 1 Introduction 7 2 A303 Stonehenge: Amesbury to Berwick Down Scheme proposals 9 2.1 Scheme proposals 9 3 How we undertook consultation 11 3.1 When we consulted 11 3.2 Who we consulted 11 3.3 How consultation was carried out 15 4 Overview of consultation feedback 20 4.1 General 20 4.2 Breakdown of total responses 20 4.3 Questionnaire responses: Questions 1-4 21 4.4 Themes arising from comments made against Questions 1-7 23 4.5 Feedback data from Questions 8-10 24 5 Matters raised and Highways England response 27 5.1 General 27 5.2 Matters raised by the public with Highways England’s response 27 5.3 Responses by statutory bodies 107 5.4 Responses by non-statutory organisations and other groups 115 5.5 Matters raised by statutory bodies and non-statutory organisations and groups with Highways England’s response 153 5.6 Matters raised by landholders with Highways England’s response 170 6 Summary of Feedback and Key Considerations 190 6.1 Summary of consultation feedback 190 6.2 Key considerations 197 7 Conclusions 199 7.1 Purpose of the consultation 199 7.2 Summary of what was done 199 7.3 Did the consultation achieve its purpose? 201 Abbreviations List 203 Glossary 204 Appendices 207 Page 1 of 207 A303 Stonehenge, Amesbury to Berwick Down | HE551506 Executive summary Background context The A303 Stonehenge scheme is part of a programme of improvements along the A303 route aimed at improving connectivity between London and the South East and the South West.
    [Show full text]
  • Concrete Prehistories: the Making of Megalithic Modernism 1901-1939
    Concrete Prehistories: The Making of Megalithic Modernism Abstract After water, concrete is the most consumed substance on earth. Every year enough cement is produced to manufacture around six billion cubic metres of concrete1. This paper investigates how concrete has been built into the construction of modern prehistories. We present an archaeology of concrete in the prehistoric landscapes of Stonehenge and Avebury, where concrete is a major component of megalithic sites restored between 1901 and 1964. We explore how concreting changed between 1901 and the Second World War, and the implications of this for constructions of prehistory. We discuss the role of concrete in debates surrounding restoration, analyze the semiotics of concrete equivalents for the megaliths, and investigate the significance of concreting to interpretations of prehistoric building. A technology that mixes ancient and modern, concrete helped build the modern archaeological imagination. Concrete is the substance of the modern –”Talking about concrete means talking about modernity” (Forty 2012:14). It is the material most closely associated with the origins and development of modern architecture, but in the modern era, concrete has also been widely deployed in the preservation and display of heritage. In fact its ubiquity means that concrete can justifiably claim to be the single most dominant substance of heritage conservation practice between 1900 and 1945. This paper investigates how concrete has been built into the construction of modern pasts, and in particular, modern prehistories. As the pre-eminent marker of modernity, concrete was used to separate ancient from modern, but efforts to preserve and display prehistoric megaliths saw concrete and megaliths become entangled.
    [Show full text]
  • Stonehenge Bibliography
    Bibliography Abbot, M. and Anderson-Whymark, H., 2012. Anon., 2011a, Discoveries provide evidence of Stonehenge Laser Scan: archaeological celestial procession at Stonehenge. On-line analysis report. English Heritage project source available at: 6457. English Heritage Research Report http://www.birmingham.ac.uk/news/latest/ Series no. 32-2012, available at: 2011/11/25Nov-Discoveries-provide- http://services.english- evidence-of-a-celestial-procession-at- herita ge.org.uk/Resea rch Repo rtsPdf s/032_ Stonehenge.aspx (accessed 2 April 2012). 2012WEB.pdf Anon., 2011b, Stonehenge’s sister? Current Alexander, C., 2009, If the stones could speak: Archaeology, 260, 6–7. Searching for the meaning of Stonehenge. Anon., 2011c, Home is where the heath is. National Geographic, 213.6 (June 2008), Late Neolithic house, Durrington Walls. 34–59. Current Archaeology, 256, 42–3. Allen, S., 2008, The quest for the earliest Anon., 2011d, Stonehenge rocks. Current published image of Stonehinge (sic). Archaeology, 254, 6–7. Wiltshire Archaeological and Natural Anon., 2012a, Origin of some of the Bluestone History Magazine, 101, 257–9. debris at Stonehenge. British Archaeology, Anon., 2006, Excavation and Fieldwork in 123, 9. Wiltshire 2004. Wiltshire Archaeological Anon., 2012b, Stonehenge: sourcing the and Natural History Magazine, 99, 264–70. Bluestones. Current Archaeology, 263, 6– Anon., 2007a, Excavation and Fieldwork in 7. Wiltshire 2005. Wiltshire Archaeological Aronson, M., 2010, If stones could speak. and Natural History Magazine, 100, 232– Unlocking the secrets of Stonehenge. 39. Washington DC: National Geographic. Anon., 2007b, Before Stonehenge: village of Avebury Archaeological and Historical wild parties. Current Archaeology, 208, Research Group (AAHRG) 2001 17–21.
    [Show full text]
  • A303 PI Inspector's Report
    Report to the First Secretary of The Planning State and the Secretary of State for Inspectorate 4/09 Kite Wing Transport Temple Quay House 2 The Square Temple Quay By Michael Ellison MA (Oxon) Bristol BS1 6PN 0117 372 6372 An Inspector appointed by the First Secretary Date: 31 January of State and the Secretary of State for 2005 Transport Assisted by Clive Cochrane Dip Arch, Reg Arch, MSc, MRTPI HIGHWAYS ACT 1980 ACQUISITION OF LAND ACT 1981 ROAD TRAFFIC REGULATION ACT 1984 THE A303 TRUNK ROAD (STONEHENGE IMPROVEMENT) ORDER 200 THE A303 TRUNK ROAD (STONEHENGE IMPROVEMENT) SLIP ROADS ORDER 200 THE A303 TRUNK ROAD (STONEHENGE IMPROVEMENT) (DETRUNKING) ORDER 200 THE A303 TRUNK ROAD (STONEHENGE IMPROVEMENT) SIDE ROADS ORDER 200 THE A303 TRUNK ROAD (STONEHENGE IMPROVEMENT) COMPULSORY PURCHASE ORDER (NO. ) 200 THE A303 TRUNK ROAD STONEHENGE IMPROVEMENT (COUNTESS ROUNDABOUT TO LONGBARROW CROSSROADS) (PROHIBITION OF CERTAIN CLASSES OF TRAFFIC AND PEDESTRIANS) ORDER 200 AND THE A303 TRUNK ROAD STONEHENGE IMPROVEMENT (STONEHENGE BYWAY) (PROHIBITION OF MOTOR VEHICLES) ORDER 200 Dates of Inquiry: 17 February 2004 to 11 May 2004 Ref: HA61/4/3 REPORT TO THE FIRST SECRETARY OF STATE AND THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR TRANSPORT FILE REF: HA61/4/3 CONTENTS Section Subject Page Number Case Details 1 1 Introduction 3 2 Description of the site and its surroundings 7 3 Procedural Submission 12 4 The case of the Highways Agency 14 Background and history of the scheme 14 The need for the scheme 17 Traffic forecasts 20 The scheme proposals 21 Design standards 26
    [Show full text]
  • Stonehenge OCR Spec B: History Around Us
    OCR HISTORY AROUND US Site Proposal Form Example from English Heritage The Criteria The study of the selected site must focus on the relationship between the site, other historical sources and the aspects listed in a) to n) below. It is therefore essential that centres choose a site that allows learners to use its physical features, together with other historical sources as appropriate, to understand all of the following: a) The reasons for the location of the site within its surroundings b) When and why people first created the site c) The ways in which the site has changed over time d) How the site has been used throughout its history e) The diversity of activities and people associated with the site f) The reasons for changes to the site and to the way it was used g) Significant times in the site’s past: peak activity, major developments, turning points h) The significance of specific features in the physical remains at the site i) The importance of the whole site either locally or nationally, as appropriate j) The typicality of the site based on a comparison with other similar sites k) What the site reveals about everyday life, attitudes and values in particular periods of history l) How the physical remains may prompt questions about the past and how historians frame these as valid historical enquiries m) How the physical remains can inform artistic reconstructions and other interpretations of the site n) The challenges and benefits of studying the historic environment 1 Copyright © OCR 2018 Site name: STONEHENGE Created by: ENGLISH HERITAGE LEARNING TEAM Please provide an explanation of how your site meets each of the following points and include the most appropriate visual images of your site.
    [Show full text]
  • Researching Stonehenge: Theories Past and Present
    Parker Pearson, M 2013 Researching Stonehenge: Theories Past and Present. Archaeology International, No. 16 (2012-2013): 72-83, DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5334/ai.1601 ARTICLE Researching Stonehenge: Theories Past and Present Mike Parker Pearson* Over the years archaeologists connected with the Institute of Archaeology and UCL have made substantial contributions to the study of Stonehenge, the most enigmatic of all the prehistoric stone circles in Britain. Two of the early researchers were Petrie and Childe. More recently, colleagues in UCL’s Anthropology department – Barbara Bender and Chris Tilley – have also studied and written about the monument in its landscape. Mike Parker Pearson, who joined the Institute in 2012, has been leading a 10-year-long research programme on Stonehenge and, in this paper, he outlines the history and cur- rent state of research. Petrie and Childe on Stonehenge William Flinders Petrie (Fig. 1) worked on Stonehenge between 1874 and 1880, publishing the first accurate plan of the famous stones as a young man yet to start his career in Egypt. His numbering system of the monument’s many sarsens and blue- stones is still used to this day, and his slim book, Stonehenge: Plans, Descriptions, and Theories, sets out theories and observations that were innovative and insightful. Denied the opportunity of excavating Stonehenge, Petrie had relatively little to go on in terms of excavated evidence – the previous dig- gings had yielded few prehistoric finds other than antler picks – but he suggested that four theories could be considered indi- vidually or in combination for explaining Stonehenge’s purpose: sepulchral, religious, astronomical and monumental.
    [Show full text]
  • Salisbury Plain SAC Conservation Objectives Supplementary Advice
    European Site Conservation Objectives: Supplementary Advice on Conserving and Restoring Site Features Salisbury Plain Special Area of Conservation (SAC) Site code: UK0012683 Date of Publication: 20 February 2017 Page 1 of 30 About this document This document provides Natural England’s supplementary advice about the European Site Conservation Objectives relating to Salisbury Plain SAC. This advice should therefore be read together with the SAC Conservation Objectives which are available here. You should use the Conservation Objectives, this Supplementary Advice and any case-specific advice given by Natural England, when developing, proposing or assessing an activity, plan or project that may affect this site. This Supplementary Advice to the Conservation Objectives presents attributes which are ecological characteristics of the designated species and habitats within a site. The listed attributes are considered to be those that best describe the site’s ecological integrity and which, if safeguarded, will enable achievement of the Conservation Objectives. Each attribute has a target which is either quantified or qualitative depending on the available evidence. The target identifies as far as possible the desired state to be achieved for the attribute. The tables provided below bring together the findings of the best available scientific evidence relating to the site’s qualifying features, which may be updated or supplemented in further publications from Natural England and other sources. The local evidence used in preparing this supplementary advice has been cited. The references to the national evidence used are available on request. Where evidence and references have not been indicated, Natural England has applied ecological knowledge and expert judgement.
    [Show full text]
  • Preliminary Outline Assessment of the Impact of A303 Improvements On
    Preliminary Outline Assessment of the impact of A303 improvements on the Outstanding Universal Value of the Stonehenge Avebury and Associated Sites World Heritage property Nicola Snashall BA MA PhD MIfA National Trust Christopher Young BA MA DPhil FSA Christopher Young Heritage Consultancy August 2014 ©English Heritage and The National Trust Preliminary Outline Impact Assessment of A303 improvements on the Outstanding Universal Value of the Stonehenge and Avebury World Heritage property August 2014 Executive Summary The Government have asked the Highways Agency to prepare feasibility studies for the improvement of six strategic highways in the UK. One of these is the A303 including the single carriageway passing Stonehenge. This study has been commissioned by English Heritage and the National Trust to make an outline preliminary assessment of the potential impact of such road improvements on the Outstanding Universal Value of the World Heritage property. A full impact assessment, compliant with the ICOMOS guidance and with EU and UK regulations for Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) would be a much larger task than this preliminary assessment. It would be prepared by the promoter of a road scheme and would require more supporting material and more detailed analysis of impacts. The present study is an outline preliminary assessment intended to inform the advice provided by the National Trust and English Heritage to the Highways Agency and the Department for Transport. It deals only with impact on Outstanding Universal Value and does not examine impacts on nationally or locally significant heritage. The objectives of the study can be summarised as: 1. Review changes in international and national policy and in our understanding of the Outstanding Universal Value of the World Heritage property to set the context for the assessment of impact of potential options for improvement of the A303; 2.
    [Show full text]
  • Report on the Joint World Heritage Centre / ICOMOS Advisory Mission to Stonehenge, Avebury and Associated Sites
    World Heritage 41 COM Patrimoine mondial Paris, 27 June / 27 juin 2017 Original: English UNITED NATIONS EDUCATIONAL, SCIENTIFIC AND CULTURAL ORGANIZATION ORGANISATION DES NATIONS UNIES POUR L'EDUCATION, LA SCIENCE ET LA CULTURE CONVENTION CONCERNING THE PROTECTION OF THE WORLD CULTURAL AND NATURAL HERITAGE CONVENTION CONCERNANT LA PROTECTION DU PATRIMOINE MONDIAL, CULTUREL ET NATUREL WORLD HERITAGE COMMITTEE / COMITE DU PATRIMOINE MONDIAL Forty-first session / Quarante-et-unième session Krakow, Poland / Cracovie, Pologne 2-12 July 2017 / 2-12 juillet 2017 Item 7 of the Provisional Agenda: State of conservation of properties inscribed on the World Heritage List and/or on the List of World Heritage in Danger Point 7 de l’Ordre du jour provisoire: Etat de conservation de biens inscrits sur la Liste du patrimoine mondial et/ou sur la Liste du patrimoine mondial en péril MISSION REPORT / RAPPORT DE MISSION Stonehenge, Avebury and Associated Sites (United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland) (373bis) Stonehenge, Avebury et sites associés (Royaume-Uni de Grande-Bretagne et d'Irlande du Nord) (373bis) 31 January – 3 February 2017 Report on the joint World Heritage Centre / ICOMOS Advisory Mission to Stonehenge, Avebury and Associated sites 31 January – 3 February 2017 Table of contents Executive Summary 1. Introductory Statements 1.1 Acknowledgments 1.2. Aims and mandate of the February 2017 Mission 2. Context and background 2.1 Statement of Outstanding Universal Value (OUV) 2.2 Summary 1st Mission recommendations (October 2015 – report April 2016). 2.3 Reactions by the civil society 2.4 Governance and consensus building among heritage bodies 3. Responses by the SP to the recommendations of the first Mission - April 2016 3.1 Willingness to respond 3.2 Issues of archaeological organisation and quality control 3.3 Issue of visitor numbers and behaviour 4.
    [Show full text]
  • A303 Amesbury to Berwick Down
    A303 Amesbury to Berwick Down TR010025 6.3 Environmental Statement Appendices Volume 1 6 Appendix 6.1 Annex 8 Influences of the monuments and landscape of the Stonehenge part of the World Heritage Site on literature and popular culture APFP Regulation 5(2)(a) Planning Act 2008 Infrastructure Planning (Applications: Prescribed Forms and Procedure) Regulations 2009 October 2018 HIA Annex 8 – Influences of the monuments and landscape of the Stonehenge part of the WHS on literature and popular culture Introduction Stonehenge, Avebury and Associated Sites was inscribed on the UNESCO World Heritage Site List in 1986, one of the original list of seven sites in the UK to be put forward for inscription. The Statement of Outstanding Universal Value (OUV) was adopted in 2013. The Statement of OUV notes that ‘the monuments and landscape have had an unwavering influence on architects, artists, historians and archaeologists’ (UNESCO 2013). The 2015 Management Plan (Simmonds & Thomas 2015) identifies seven Attributes of OUV for the entirety of the WHS, of which the seventh is: ‘The influence of the remains of the Neolithic and Bronze Age funerary and ceremonial monuments and their landscape setting on architects, artists, historians, archaeologists and others.’ The landscape around Stonehenge, comprising natural and cultural elements, is not just a physical environment, but an abstraction that is perceived by the human observer. Such observers have included literary writers, poets and travel writers, who have used their sense of the place as they experienced it to inspire their creative writing. The unique strength of Stonehenge is that the monument is an instantly recognisable structure which resembles no other and onto which a range of fantasies can be projected (Hutton 2009, 45).
    [Show full text]
  • Report on the Joint World Heritage Centre / Icomos Advisory Mission to Stonehenge, Avebury and Associated Sites 27-30 October 20
    REPORT ON THE JOINT WORLD HERITAGE CENTRE / ICOMOS ADVISORY MISSION TO STONEHENGE, AVEBURY AND ASSOCIATED SITES Stonehenge October 2015 copyright UNESCO 27-30 OCTOBER 2015 Chris Barker, Civil Engineer, ICOMOS Nathan Schlanger, Archaeologist, ICOMOS Marie-Noël Tournoux, Project Officer Europe and North America Unit, World Heritage Centre Stonehenge October 2015 copyright UNESCO 2 TABLE OF CONTENTS ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ……………………………………………………………….…… 4 1 INTRODUCTION ………………………………………………………………………..… 5 2 MISSION REPORT ……………………………………………………………………….. 7 3 MISSION CONCLUSIONS ………………………………………………………………. 24 4 MISSION RECOMMENDATIONS ………………………………………………...…...... 24 5 REFERENCES……………………………………………………………………………... 28 6 ANNEXES…………....……………………………………………………………………... 29 3 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The joint World Heritage Centre and ICOMOS mission thanks the State Party for the arrangements for the Advisory Mission and the preparation of all the necessary relevant materials, together with the good will in its advancement. Particular thanks are due to DCMS and Historic England and more specifically to Keith Nichol and Hannah Jones from DCMS and Henry Owen-John and Phil McMahon from Historic England, our main focal points. The mission would like to acknowledge and to commend the investment and professionalism of our hosts in addition to logistics and hospitality. The assistance gladly provided by Historic England, English Heritage Trust, the National Trust, and their representatives, be it at organizational level or on the ground, including notably Chris Smith, Historic England, and Heather Sebire, Properties Curator West English Heritage Trust, Kate Davies, Stonehenge General Manager, English Heritage Trust, Beth Thomas & Sarah Simmonds, World Heritage site Coordinator, Nicola Snashall, National Trust WHS archaeologist for Stonehenge & Avebury, Cassandra Genn, Senior project and Stakeholder Manager, Ian Wilson, Assistant Director of Operations, Ingrid Samuel, Historic Environment Director, Janet Tomlin, National Trust, as well as the Wiltshire Council.
    [Show full text]
  • Project Name Construction Start Actual Construction End
    Construction Construction Construction Project Name Start Actual End Planned End Actual M5 J11a-12 MP 86/9 Geotech 10/01/2013 19/04/2013 21/03/2013 M5 J20-21 VRS MP 155/5 - 159/0 10/01/2013 17/01/2014 17/01/2014 M5 J31 Exminster Drainage 02/09/2011 30/10/2011 30/10/2011 A38 Lee Mill to Voss Farm FS C 01/10/2009 01/04/2011 01/04/2011 A30 SCORRIER-AVERS W/B & E/B C 02/02/2012 01/07/2012 01/03/2012 A30 PLUSHA KENNARDS HSE E/B C 18/09/2012 24/09/2012 25/09/2012 A38 WHISTLEY HILL DRAINAGE C 07/11/2011 24/12/2011 23/12/2011 A47 Guyhirn Bank C NP 19/09/2012 28/09/2012 29/09/2012 A120 Coggeshall Bypass East C 13/11/2012 16/11/2012 16/11/2012 A14 Orwell to Levington C 04/11/2013 11/11/2013 11/11/2013 A14SpittalsI/CResurfacingC NP 02/07/2012 07/08/2013 26/07/2012 A38 Clinnick R/W & White C 11/03/2012 06/07/2012 06/07/2012 A30 Whiddon Down to Woodleigh 01/12/2011 14/02/2012 14/02/2012 A49 KIMBOLTON RETAINING-CapRd 11/02/2013 10/04/2013 30/04/2013 NO3:A404 A308toA4130 SB Appl C 16/07/2012 18/07/2012 21/07/2012 NO3 M4 J6-7 EB Cippenham C 24/09/2012 11/08/2012 16/11/2012 A36 Southington Farm Geotech C 05/09/2011 24/06/2011 21/10/2011 A303 BOSCOMBE DOWN RS C 01/01/2011 30/06/2011 30/06/2011 M5 J18 Avonmouth slip lighti C 01/02/2012 31/03/2012 31/03/2012 A303 South Pethrton St Light C 01/05/2011 30/09/2011 30/09/2011 A303Cartgate RAB St Lighting C 01/01/2012 29/02/2012 29/02/2012 A4 Portway Signals C 01/02/2011 30/09/2011 30/09/2011 M4/M5 Alm.
    [Show full text]