Representation by Cityvoice.co (Cityvoice.co )
- Date submitted
- 11 December 2018
- Submitted by
- Members of the public/businesses
(1) This is a site of world concern. My role (founding an internet project (City-Voice.org, @CityVoicEd) supporting ‘democracy’ in town and country planning) is to observe/record – and publish widely – a wide range of reactions to planning proposals. Why? Because of a strong perception of shortfalls in the ‘democratic’ standards and accountability of planning processes – the danger seeming greater the higher the authority; and balance requires a counterweight. Among authorities, HighwaysEngland appears especially at risk of making strongly-protested decisions – not clear why: I can only fear bureaucracy-born misdirection (or unseen undue influence?). Thus while aware that this may not be ‘a planning matter’ I initially impugn the competence of the applicant (who happens also to be our nation, thus a party in which I have an interest). I do this mainly to rhetorically underscore allegation of the low quality of the proposal.
(2) Quality of the proposals:
(i) CONTEXT
(i.i) National duty: a Planning Matter (a) Our country owns a unique site of world importance; (b) even our country has destroyed assets (e.g. C17 builders wrecked Avebury); (c) in C20 and C21 we have done better; (d) we have a 'duty to the world' to continue improving. (e) ‘National Duty to Protect a World Asset’ should be considered a ‘Planning Matter’. If it is argued that it is not, I propose your decision must submit that it is, and if necessary appeal this concept to the Supreme Court (or a public plaintiff may) for a ruling in law: “Duty to the World’s Heritage Assets is a Planning Consideration”.
(i.ii) PARAMETERS (a) As with Avebury, progress has been made at Stonehenge, in C20 and C21, at low lasting cost: land has been bought, boundaries expanded. (b) Even so, A303 continues to barrel through the site. (c) If change to this invasion is sought, let’s do it well and to completion, not by half-measures (especially if at high expense). Let us treat the >whole of the site< as the single preservable entity. If, as I understand, ancient structures and artefacts surround the current visible Stonehenge within a wide area - ‘the Wider Archaeological Area’ (‘WAA’), where discoveries/excavations could happen in the future, then:
(ii) Main SUBMISSION: any new roadbuilding should go >around< the WAA, never through it.
I say this on the basis of this being the only logical conclusion.
Archaeologists will define the WAA.
This would continue the practice of using change as a chance to improve, not stand still – in line with the gradual improvement at Avebury and Stonehenge over the last 150 years.
– In the prior situation, a highway cuts the WAA site; – how then can a new highway also cutting the WAA site be an improvement? All that is needed would be to define the WAA, and build any roads only >around< it.
– I also repeat (as did MPs in Parliament) that any proposal that will prejudice the Blick Mead deposits must obviously be abandoned. As I understand it this rules out a proposed overpass.