Back to list A303 Stonehenge

Representation by Mark Bush

Date submitted
11 January 2019
Submitted by
Members of the public/businesses

Background:

  1. I am arranging legal representation in this examination on behalf of both myself and the Blick Mead archaeology team (led by Prof. David Jacques), and of a wider consortium of senior professional archaeologists and historians who have conducted major projects in the Stonehenge WHS over the last 30 years (led by Prof. Mike Parker-Pearson).

  2. Whilst individuals in the Blick Mead team and the consortium will be submitting their own individual relevant representations, this submission is intended to embrace the broader view of all the issues we propose to raise during the examination. The intention is that during the examination, the individuals from the above groups who have registered to be interested parties in their own right, will be collectively represented in the interests of the efficient management of the examination process, both at the Preliminary Meeting and at other Specific Issue meetings. Many of these individuals have relevant expertise on specific issues to be raised, and it will be proposed that they should be called to give evidence directly to the Examining Authority during the examination as and when appropriate.

Issues:

  1. Does the current scheme place the UK in breach of Articles 4, 5 and 6 of the World Heritage Convention 1972?

• Whilst the WHC does not have the force of law, it will be submitted that breach of same is a material consideration for the Examining Authority (EA); • Is it appropriate for such a decision to be made, on behalf of the UK, unless that decision has the full endorsement of the UK Government at the highest level? • Reference will be made to the expert views of both UNESCO and ICOMOS officials who have conducted advisory missions to the WHS, and of the Highways England (HE) response to that advice. • It will be proposed that expert evidence be provided to the EA by a representative from UNESCO and/or ICOMOS-UK

  1. Has HE given appropriate weight, in its conduct of the statutory consultation and in its decision as to the preferred route, to the unique heritage issues that arise in the Stonehenge and Avebury WHS?

• As above, obligations arising under Articles 4, 5 and 6 of the WHC 1972 are material considerations; • Reference will also be made to the National Policy Statement for National Networks, 2014, and in particular to paragraphs 5.126-5.133; • It will be submitted that the scheme unarguably will cause “substantial harm to or loss of designated assets of the highest significance”, and that such harm is lacking “clear and convincing justification”; this scheme does not come within the meaning of “wholly exceptional”. • Consideration should be given to the reasoning by which HE de-selected alternative routes outside of the WHS, whether that reasoning was sufficiently researched, and whether appropriate weight was attached to the significance of the heritage asset. • It will be proposed that evidence should be heard as to an alternative routing south of the WHS which was not investigated by HE, and that the EA should consider a site visit and tour of possible alternative routings.

  1. Historic England’s failure to object

• In view of the remit of this statutory governmental body, which is tasked with protecting the historical environment of England and advising central and local government, its supportive stance to the scheme (in the face of the unequivocal objections from UNESCO) is a matter which ought to be further examined; • Evidence will be given as to the circumstances in which historic England has arrived at its present position on the issue of this scheme; • It will be proposed that the EA ought to hear witness evidence as to this decision, and that it ought to permit the cross-examination of Historic England officials

  1. Environmental issues

• Having reviewed the application documents on line we are unable to find any appropriate assessment under the Habitats Directive. We note that appendix 8.25 to the ES is entitled ‘Habitats Regulations Assessment: Statement to Inform Appropriate Assessment’ and that it relies upon both mitigation and compensation in order to ensure that there is no adverse effect on the integrity of European Sites. In particular paragraph 9.1.1 of the conclusions states that there must be delivery of a replacement breeding plot for stone curlew at Parsonage Down and a new breeding plot at Winterbourne Down. These are compensatory measures.

• According to recent decisions of the European Court of Justice in People Over Wind (C-323/17) and Grace and Sweetman v An Bord Plenala (C-164/17) this scheme ought to: (a) be subject to an appropriate assessment and (b) be tested against article 6(4) of the Habitats Directive in that it must be shown that: (i) there is an absence of alternatives (ii) there are imperative reasons of overriding public interest and (iii) all compensatory measures have been taken. It is clear that these tests cannot be met in this case. In particular, there are alternatives which have not been properly explored/consulted upon by the applicant, there are no imperative reasons of overriding public interest and it is unclear whether all compensatory measures have been taken. These points will be developed further in written submissions.

• There is further concern as to the risk of radon gas contamination from the phosphatic chalk spoil that will be excavated from the proposed tunnel and portals, affecting the environment and bio-diversity of the WHS and potentially the River Avon.

• There is also concern that construction of the ramp/flyover next to the archaeological site of Blick Mead will impact upon the local water table (also affecting the River Avon), which would dry out the Mesolithic levels and destroy all organic remains which are critical to the evaluation of the site – see further comments below.

• It will be proposed that the EA will benefit from hearing evidence from a range of experts on the above issues.

  1. Damage to archaeological remains, both known and unknown

• Evidence will be presented as to the nature and significance of the archaeology in the WHS, from experts in relevant fields;

• In relation to Blick Mead and the specific concern about the impact on the water table, it is proposed evidence should be heard concerning the fate of the Mesolithic site of Starr Carr, following development of a nearby infrastructure project;

• Furthermore, consideration should be given whether it was appropriate to move forward with this application at all before completion of a full year of water-table monitoring at Blick Mead, as had been agreed by Historic England in April 2018, and where that monitoring did not commence until October 2018;

• Evidence will be given concerning the extent of damage to known and unknown archaeology elsewhere in the WHS, where land will be excavated for the Eastern and Western portals, and where the A303 approach to the western portal will be widened into a dual carriageway; in particular the impact on the setting of the densest group of Neolithic long-barrows in Britain must be considered given that one of the stated aims of the scheme is to “enhance the WHS”, re-uniting a landscape divided by the current A303, enabling a better appreciation of the connectivity between monuments in the WHS and enabling the public to explore this connected, wider historical landscape.

• It will be proposed that the EA should, in view of the iconic status of the site and the global interest in its conservation, hear expert evidence from a range of experts in the issues raised above. Whereas it is appreciated that the EA will usually not allow expert witnesses to be called during the examination process, it will be argued that this application raises exceptional issues of national and international importance, and that as such exceptional provisions ought to be made to ensure the EA is fully and comprehensively informed before it begins its consideration after the examination phase is completed.

Mark Bush (Blick Mead volunteer)