Proposals for a tunnel at Stonehenge: an
assessment of the alternatives
A report to the WAC Executive
Robert Layton and Julian Thomas
In January 1999 the plenary session of WAC 4 passed the
We the participants of WAC 4 welcome the concern demonstrated
by the UK Government to safeguard the future of [the] Stonehenge World
Heritage site but urge the UK Government to reconsider its decision to
insert a cut and cover tunnel across the World Heritage site. Particularly
we ask that the UK Government looks again at the costs of a bored tunnel
taking into account the full potential benefits, economic, social and
cultural, and finds funding to build it. This appeal is made in view of
the long campaign by English Heritage, the Government's advisors in archaeological
matters, in favour of a bored tunnel. WAC would wish to work with the
UK government to make the reassessment possible, and to help the UK government
in moving the project forward.
The Executive of WAC asked Julian Thomas and Robert Layton
to prepare a report which would enable WAC to determine what action it
should take in response to the motion.
The archaeology of the Stonehenge area
The landscape surrounding the prehistoric enclosure and stone circle at
Stonehenge in southern Wiltshire contains an unusually dense concentration
of archaeological evidence, and rightfully constitutes a World Heritage
Site. Any assessment of the likely impact of the construction of a road
tunnel, and of the benefits of the removal of surface roads from the vicinity
of the monument must be made in the context of an understanding of the
development of this unique landscape. For the purposes of this document,
we will outline the prehistoric remains of the Stonehenge area (Figure
For the most part, the evidence for Mesolithic occupation on central Salisbury
Plain is very limited, although a microlithic flint industry has been
recovered from beside the river Avon near Durrington Walls (Richards 1990,
263). More significant are a group of large post-holes excavated in the
Stonehenge car-park by the Vatchers, which appear to date to the eighth
millennium BC (Cleal, Walker and Montague 1995, 43). Three of the four
posts line up with a nearby tree-hole, and give the impression that some
form of very early (and unique) monumental structure may have existed
in the immediate vicinity of Stonehenge.
In the earlier part of the Neolithic (from 4000 BC onwards), the Stonehenge
area saw the emergence of one of the principal concentrations of ceremonial
monuments in southern England. These include the causewayed enclosure
at Robin Hood's Ball, and a group of earthen long barrows, which are especially
densely concentrated on Wilsford and Normanton Downs (Figure 1). These
long mounds contained a variety of mortuary deposits, including bodies
in various states of articulation and disaggregation. The location and
orientation of some of the long mounds suggests an close connection with
the two large linear enclosures of the Greater and Lesser Cursus, which
may consequentially be relatively early in date (the single radiocarbon
date from the Great Cursus suggests otherwise). The surface collection
work of the Stonehenge Environs Project was able to identify a number
of scatters of chipped stone tools and waste which complement the distribution
of these monuments, on the King Barrow Ridge and Coneybury Hill, near
Winterbourne Stoke Crossroads and the Diamond, north of the Cursus, and
perhaps also on Stonehenge Down (Richards 1990: 265-6). Furthermore, there
have been sporadic finds of Early Neolithic pottery, and a number of pits,
principally concentrated in a swathe of country on the west of the River
Avon, southward from the King Barrow Ridge. These include the spectacular
deposit at the Coneybury 'Anomaly', a large pit containing numerous animal
bones and pottery sherds, seemingly lining the pit interior (Richards
The earliest phase of activity at Stonehenge itself dates
to late in the Earlier Neolithic, at around 3000 BC, consisting of a circular
interupted ditch with internal bank, and a concentric circle of timber
uprights set in the Aubrey Holes (Cleal, Walker and Montague 1995: 64).
Artefactual associations included clusters of flint knapping debris, chalk
balls, and deliberately placed cattle skulls on the ditch bottom, which
may have been curated for a considerable while before deposition. Shortly
after these acts of deposition, the ditch began to be deliberately backfilled,
not as a single event but in a series of small-scale episodes.
The later part of the Neolithic saw the development of a new complex of
ceremonial monuments in the Stonehenge area. Stonehege itself was transformed
and reconfigured on a number of occasions. A complex series of timber
structures was constructed in the middle of the enclosure, and a great
number of cremated human bodies were buried in the ditch, bank, and the
Aubrey Holes, from which the timbers had now been removed. Finally, the
bluestones were set up in the Q and R holes, and by around 2500 BC the
sarsen circle and probably the sarsen trilithons had been constructed
(Cleal, Walker and Montague 1995: 206-7). In the surrounding landscape,
the two cursus monuments were deliberately destroyed, and a massive linear
palisade was constructed north of Stonehenge, blocking off the view toward
Robin Hood's Ball.
Later, the henge monuments of Coneybury, Durrington Walls
and Woodhenge were constructed: earthen ceremonial enclosures which contained
settings of timber uprights. Although Stonehenge is often classified with
these monuments, it was clearly used in an entirely different way. Stonehenge
has produced rather little material culture of later Neolithic date, in
contrast with the massive quantities of pottery and animal bones which
seem to document events of conspicuous consumption at Durrington Walls
(Wainwright and Longworth 1971).
By the later Neolithic, scatters of flint which may document
occupation patterns were a little denser in the Stonehenge region, and
there are indications that those concentrations to the west of the monument
contain a greater 'industrial' element (Richards 1990: 24). East of Stonehenge
Bottom, on the King Barrow Ridge and around Durrington Walls, numerous
pits containing later Neolithic pottery and other artefacts have been
recorded, and these may include formal deposits of symbolic importance.
Early Bronze Age
There is clearly some overlap between formally 'Neolithic' and 'Early
Bronze Age' assemblages in the Stonehenge area. Later Neolithic Grooved
Ware was still seemingly in use at some sites when burials with Beaker
pottery were being deposited, and the sparse material assemblage which
is associated with the early sarsen settings at Stonehenge is of Beaker
affinity. This implies a continuing pattern of spatial variability within
the region, with different artefacts being used in different practices
at different sites. In the period after 2500 BC, single grave burials
began to be deposited in round barrows which started to form a number
of clusters or cemteries, some of them aligned upon earlier monuments.
Over time, locations around the edges of the visual envelope of Stonehenge
itself came to be favoured (Woodward and Woodward 1996: 287), and there
is a suggestion that the land immediately surrounding the monument was
deliberately avoided (Parker Pearson and Ramilisonina 1998). Many of these
round barrow graves had very rich material associations, and they include
many of the Wessex series graves, as defined by Piggott (1938).
Middle and Late Bronze Age
The eclipse of the monumental landscapes of the Neolithic took the form
of a reorganisation of land into 'Celtic' field systems, settlement enclosures
and boundary earthworks. A number of these have been identified in the
western part of the Stonehenge area, surrounding the western end of the
Great Cursus, around Winterbourne Stoke Crossroads, and on Rox Hill (Richards
1990: 277). These are associated with Deverel-Rimbury and later ceramics,
and there are indications of small round barrows which form the funerary
element of this reconstructed landscape.
Although artefactual evidence of the occupation of the Stonehenge area
is scant, there are continued indications of settlement in the form of
the hillfort of Vespasian's Camp, to the east of Stonehenge, and a later
Iron Age enclosed settlement immediately north of Durrington Walls (Richards
The prehistoric occupation of the Stonehenge landscape has left a palimpsest
of material traces. Throughout most of this period the region was in some
senses 'special', characterised by forms of activity which were unusual,
or internally differentiated, or which made use of elaborate material
assemblages. For this reason, it is to be anticipated that the evidence
which will be located in any archaeological intervention anywhere in this
landscape will be of particular value, and its destruction should not
be contemplated without good reason.
A brief history of the ownership and management of Stonehenge
From at least 1562 onward, Stonehenge began to be visited by tourists,
and was mentioned more and more frequently in diaries, journals and travelogues.
The site was surveyed by Inigo Jones in 1655, William Stukeley in 1723,
John Wood in 1760 and Flinders Petrie in 1877 (Bender 1998: 110-12; Chippindale
1983). Increasingly, the site became an object of intellectual attention.
But alongside this, it remained a part of a living landscape. Up until
the 17th century stones occasionally went missing to help build bridges
or houses; also in the 17th century Stonehenge was the location of an
annual fair. Nonetheless, it was eventually the status of the site as
a curiosity which became of greater importance. In 1824 the Amesbury estate,
including Stonehenge, was bought by the Antrobus family, and at this time
the draw that it exercised on the public was recognised for the first
time by the appointment of the antiquary Henry Browne as guardian of the
site. This situation, of minimal supervision under the Antrobus family,
continued until 1901. In the 1890s Pitt Rivers, as inspector of Monuments
and under the 1882 Ancient Monuments Act made plans to reconstruct the
site and protect it by having a policeman constantly present. However,
the Antrobus family showed little enthusiasm for these proposals. One
of the sarsen stones had fallen in 1797, while another came down in 1900,
and it was this which finally caused the site to be enclosed (Chippindale
Throughout the Victorian period Stonehenge was a popular
location for picnics, and gatherings at public holidays. From the 1890s
onward, with the recognition of the astronomical significance of the site,
up to 3000 people would gather at midsummer morning each year to watch
the sun rise over the Heelstone. However, with the recognition that the
stones might be unstable Stonehenge was fenced, a policeman was installed,
and a 1 shilling entrance fee was charged. At this time a number of groups
opposed the enclosure, and one of them, interestingly enough, was the
National Trust. In the early 20th century, the Antrobus family attempted
to sell Stonehenge to the British government, under the threat that they
would sell it off to America. This met with no success. In 1915 the Antrobuses
finally sold the whole of the Amesbury estate to Cecil Chubb, who in 1918
gave Stonehenge to the nation (Chippindale 1983: 174). During the short
period that he owned the site, Chubb granted the Order of Druids the right
to hold ceremonies there at the solstice (Sebastian 1990). Given that
the site was still relatively unsafe, six of the stones were immediately
righted and concreted by the Office of Works, and the suggestion was made
that the Society of Antiquaries should undertake a proper archaeological
investigation. After the fall of the stone at the start of the century
William Gowland had undertaken a very small excavation, but the work done
by Colonel Hawley between 1919 and 1926 was far more extensive, resulting
in the stripping of half of the centre of the monument. Hawley worked
either with gangs of workmen, or sometimes on his own, over very long
seasons. He published a series of interim reports in the Antiquaries Journal
(Hawley 1926, etc.), but the definitive site report did not appear until
1995 (Cleal, Walker and Montague 1995).
The origins of the debate over road access to Stonehenge,
which this dicument addresses, can be found in the period immediately
after the First World War. During the War, much of the area immediately
surrounding Stonehenge had been used as an aerodrome. There were makeshift
buildings associated with this, a horse hospital, a pair of cottages,
a café and a series of advertising hoardings, and when some of
the land was given back to its owners by the War Office in 1927 they proceeded
set up a pig farm. The struggle to improve the immediate surroundings
of the site began in 1930, with a national subscription organised by Sir
Lionel Earle to buy 1500 acres of this land and turn it over to the National
Trust (Chippindale 1983: 174). This set up a situation in which the monument
was in the hands of the Office of Works, later the Department of the Environment,
and eventually English Heritage, but the surrounding land was owned by
the National Trust. The clutter on the land was torn down, and with the
increasing access to motor transport in the inter-war years visitors climbed
to 20,000 a year. In 1935 a patch of the National Trust land was leased
as a car park, to discourage people from parking around the monument itself.
It was this on-the-spot decision which effectively decided where the visitor
facilities which still exist today should be located. In the post-war
period this area was tarmaced, and an underground café, toilets,
bookshop and entrance tunnel under the road added. In 1933 the Office
of Works had recommended that this road, the A344 from Amesbury to Shrewton,
should be closed.
Between 1950 and 1964 another campaign of excavations was
undertaken, by Stuart Piggott, Richard Atkinson and J.F.S. Stone. Initially,
this digging was undertaken in order to facilitate the restoration and
concreting of certain stones, but gradually Atkinson began to dig more
and more in an attempt to make sense of Hawley's records (Cleal, Walker
and Montague 1995: 15-17). The ad-hoc way in which these excavations took
place meant that rather limited records were kept. In 1956 Atkinson published
his popular account of the site, which was subsequently revised several
times and reprinted by Penguin. Atkinson pulled together all of the stratigraphic
information and established a three-phase sequence for the site (Atkinson
1956). However, being a popular book, it contained rather little of the
primary evidence. In the early 1990s, Hawley's and Atkinson's records
were collected and worked through under the aegis of the Trust for Wessex
Archaeology, resulting in the definitive publication (Lawson 1992).
In the meanwhile, visitor numbers continued to soar, and
by 1962 the grass in the centre of the site had died off. Eventually,
the authorities replaced it with orange gravel. By the mid-1970s, over
600,000 people visited Stonehenge annually, climbing to 815,000 in 1977,
when the stones were finally closed off, and a green tarmac walkway across
the earthwork enclosure put in. From 1976 to 1979, a governmental Stonehenge
Working Party sat, and produced a series of recommendations, including
the closure of the A344 and the removal of the car park and visitor facilities
to Stonehenge Bottom. At around the same time, the Royal Commission on
Historical Monuments undertook (and published) an inventory of sites of
archaeological sites within the environs of Stonehenge (RCHME 1979). This
in turn was to lead in the early 1980s to the Trust for Wessex Archaeology's
Stonehenge Environs Project, directed by Julian Richards, and intended
to put the monuments in their context through fieldwalking and sample
excavation (Richards 1990). So the late 1970s saw a growing awareness
of the landscape context of Stonehenge, and a recognition that Stonehenge
should be presented to the public in this wider context. The Stonehenge
Working Party compiled its report in 1979, but this was never published,
as it coincided with the coming to power of a new Conservative government,
which intended radical changes in the management of the national heritage.
Under the authority of the new English Heritage organisation, a Stonehenge
Study Group sat, and produced a report which outlined possibilities for
the future management of the area (HBMCE 1984). These included recommendations
that the surrounding landscape be drawn into the presentation of Stonehenge,
and options for resolving the issues of road access and the location of
an interpretive centre.
It was also in the 1980s that the question of access to
Stonehenge became considerably more problematic. In 1974, a free festival
had been organised in a field immediately to the north-west of Stonehenge.
From 1975 onwards, the People's Free Festival at Stonehenge was one of
the largest alternative gatherings in Britain. While many of those present
simply came for a good time, there were others like Sid Rawle who held
that Stonehenge was a spiritual centre, central to a new way of life which
was then emerging (Rosenburger 1991). For several years the festival was
effectively permitted by the authorities. In June of each year, the National
Trust would erect barbed-wire entanglements to discourage access to any
but the festival field (Chippindale 1986). On the solstice morning, the
Druids would be allowed in to the circle, and on the afternoon people
from the festival could go in and perform rites, baptisms and marriages
of their own. As a nomadic way of life developed among the alternative
community, meeting each year at Stonehenge became a fixed point in a seasonal
cycle. With the economic recession and social security cuts of the early
1980s, many of these people gave up city life, and took to the roads.
The tents of the early Stonehenge festival were replaced by buses and
vans. Increasingly, people who were constantly on the road began to move
from one festival to another throughout the summer, and the idea of a
'hippie convoy' began to develop in the popular imagination and the tabloid
press. In 1982 it was first suggested that travellers should move on from
Stonehenge to the peace camp outside the cruise missile base at Greenham
Common, and the phrase 'Peace Convoy' began to be stencilled on some of
the vehicles. In reality there was no single entity called the peace convoy,
rather than a fluid pool of travellers constantly mingling and splitting
up - but to the government of the time they appeared to be 'an army of
medieval brigands' (Rosenburger 1991).
1984 was the last year that the Stonehenge free festival
would be tolerated. Some 30,000 people attended, and left the site in
something of a mess, although the cost of clearing up should not be overestimated.
The festival had been run by a committee, who, amongst other things, had
banned professional drug dealers from the site. However, some of the latrine
pits which were dug were close to the ploughed-out round barrows of the
Cursus Group, and may possibly have done some archaeological damage (Fowler
1990). In late 1984, the National Trust announced that no festival would
be allowed on its land the following year. This was followed in April
of 1985 by a joint announcement by the National Trust and English Heritage,
supported by Wiltshire County Council, that both the festival and the
Druids would be banned from Stonehenge itself. The monument would be totally
off limits to the public for the summer solstice. Injunctions were served
to ban particular individuals from entering the county of Wiltshire in
June. Negotiations were undertaken by Green CND to attempt to find an
alternative site for the festival, but the National Trust declined, arguing
that they should not be expected to finance any such event. In late May,
a convoy of vehicles gathered at Savernake, south of Avebury, with the
aim of moving on Stonehenge and securing the festival site. They set off
on the first of June, and were met at Cholderton by 1,000 police in riot
gear. The vehicles left the road and assembled in a field where, after
an uneasy truce, the police moved in and began to pull people from vans,
beat them up, wreck vehicles and destroy personal belongings. This was
the so-called 'Battle of the Beanfield', which resulted in one of the
longest ever civil actions against the police, ending in the award of
£23,000 in damages.
We have dwelt at some length on the recent events surrounding
the question of access to Stonehenge. The has principally been as a means
of demonstrating the way in which the monument and its landscape are implicated
in a series of conflicts of interest between contemporary groups: English
Heritage, the National Trust, the local Council, the Druids, the travellers,
the military, archaeologists, and so on (Bender and Edmonds 1992). In
part, this serves to explain the vexed character of the present debate.
Over the years, solutions to the problems of the proximity of roads to
the monument and of the siting of visitor facilities have repeatedly foundered
on differences between these various communities. For instance, in 1992-3
an architectural design by Edward Cullinan for a visitor centre screened
by trees at Larkhill was approved, but the plan was refused by Salisbury
District Council (Sudjic 1993).
The present plan for a tunnel
At present a two-lane road, the A344, passes within a few metres of the
northern boundary of the stone circle at Stonehenge. The A303, a major
but also two-lane road, comes within 200 metres of the opposite side of
the stone circle. The junction of the A344 and A303 lies 600 metres to
the east of the circle (see Figure 2). The stone circle stands at the
centre of a World Heritage site, in a depression known as the Stonehenge
Bowl. The A303 enters the World Heritage site from the east at Countess
Roundabout and from the west at Longbarrow cross-roads. Almost five and
a half kilometres of the A303 lie within the World Heritage site. An agreement
to close and turf over the first two kilometres of the A344 was reached
in the early 1990s, but no agreement on how to deal with the A303 was
achieved at that time.
In 1997 the Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology
published a report which set out a range of alternative improvements to
the A303 identified by a joint working party whose members were drawn
from the Highways Agency, English Heritage and the National Trust (Tunnel
Vision 1997). Several alternative tunnel routes were considered, including
a short or long tunnel on the present route of the A303, and long or short
tunnels taking the A303 further north (see Figure 2). Flexibility was,
and is, limited by the Highways Agency's practice of building short stretches
of dual carriageway on existing trunk roads resulting, in this case, in
a 'gun barrel' aimed along the route of the A303 at either side of the
World Heritage site (Brian Davidson, interview 15/3/99).
The Stonehenge Master Plan, published in September 1998,
sets out the current proposal by English Heritage and the Highways Agency
to build a 2 km. cut and cover tunnel following the existing route of
A303. The tunnel is intermediate in length compared to the short ('yellow')
and long ('EHNT4') cut and cover tunnels on this route envisaged in 1997.
The Master Plan claims that the cut and cover tunnel is 'the only scheme
deliverable'. The entire cost is available from government, making it
one of only two currently authorised trunk road improvements costing over
£100 million. The cost is said to be £125 million (Master
plan 1998: 3). Geoffrey Wainwright reports the Prime Minister has said
that the government cannot afford the £300 million required to construct
a deep bore tunnel. Wainwright considers the cut-and-cover tunnel will
achieve the principle objective of enabling visitors to roam across the
landscape around Stonehenge. Consultation with 40 organisations took place
in February 1999 through the medium of focus groups. The results of this
consultation will be published at the end of March. The Highways Agency
is chairing discussion of the A303's conversion to a dual carriageway
and placing it in a cut and cover tunnel. The alternative of a deep bore
tunnel is not being considered. The preferred route of the tunnel will
be announced by the Minister, Chris Smith, at the end of May. A management
plan for Stonehenge will be published by November 1999. Future land use
will be determined according to this plan (Wainwright, interview 24/2/99).
Benefits of cut-and-cover tunnel
The Master Plan reports that the proposed tunnel will reduce traffic noise
at Stonehenge to 'bird song level', enable the re-creation of areas of
permanent down land and restore the setting of the stone circle in relation
to the other 450 sites in the World Heritage area. Use of footpaths and
cycle ways within the area will be encouraged. An editorial in Antiquity
further reports the network of footpath and bridle ways in the area will
be extended (anon 1998: 733). Farmers will be compensated for no longer
ploughing land within the World Heritage site, although this step could
be taken independently of tunnel construction. Wainwright reports that
small ploughed areas would remain (interview 24/2/99). 'There will be
free access for the public to walk among the Stones' (Master plan 1998:
10). It should be noted, however, that the current barrier around the
stone circle is not a consequence of the proximity of roads, but a response
to public demonstrations during the 1980s. A fear of vandalism remains
in some quarters, which must be overcome before the barrier can be removed
(Wainwright, interview 24/2/99).
Costs of the cut-and-cover tunnel
(a) Financial cost. The estimate for the cut-and-cover tunnel is reported
to have been submitted to the Government by Ove Arup, not commissioned.
If excavations are delayed by popular demonstrations, the cost will increase.
Demonstrations against the Newbury By-pass are said to have cost about
£20 million. Similar demonstrations would raise the reported cost
of the cut and cover tunnel to 150 million pounds.
(b) Impact of tunnel construction. The cut and cover tunnel
will not disturb land outside existing the northern [Stonehenge side]
boundary of the A303, except in the western approach cutting, but a 35
metre strip would be added to the width of the existing road when land
is excavated along the southern boundary. The land belongs to the National
Trust, who own the core area of the World Heritage site (see figure 4).
Access during construction will also require a 10 metre 'buffer zone'
on both sides of the A303 (Master plan 1998: 4-5). Brian Davidson, the
recently-retired English Heritage Inspector for Stonehenge, cautions that
experience of previous construction work shows not only that a very close
watch will need to be kept on construction work to ensure it does not
encroach beyond the designated zone, but also that contracts with construction
firms must be meticulously worded to ensure no additional disturbance
is caused by access tracks for plant, etc. (Davidson, interview 15/3/99).
Disposal of the surplus from the excavation is being discussed
with English Nature. Some would be used to cover the tunnel in Stonehenge
Bottom, some to create the flyover replacing the Countess Roundabout,
and some as infill on the Salisbury Plain army training ground. English
Heritage also expects to follow the example set by the Channel Tunnel,
where surplus material was used to create natural habitats (Wainwright,
interview 24/2/99; see also Southern Nature 1998/99).
(c) Permanent impact of the approach cuttings and portals.
While the Master Plan uses computer-modified images to illustrate the
beneficial effect in the vicinity of the stone circle of closing the A344
and placing the A303 in a tunnel, it does not illustrate the impact of
the tunnel entrances and approach cuttings on the neighbouring landscape.
Plans and sections in the Master Plan indicate the western
approach cutting would be 700 metres long, the eastern approach cutting
400 metres long. Depending on the angle of the banks, the cuttings would
be 55 to 75 metres wide at the tunnel entrances. They would have a maximum
depth of some 10 metres. Both cuttings would lie entirely within the World
Heritage site. King Barrow Ridge, on which a line of round barrows stands,
is just within the eastern limit of the cut-and-cover tunnel, 100 metres
from the eastern portal. King Barrow Ridge forms the eastern boundary
of the landscape visible from Stonehenge itself. The Avenue, a prehistoric
feature further to the east, is cut by the present A303 about 50 metres
beyond the start of the proposed eastern cutting. Wainwright reports the
eastern portal will be visible from the outskirts of Amesbury, and the
western portal from the Longbarrow Cross-roads, on the western boundary
of the World Heritage site. Having said this, the relative shallowness
of a cut-and-cover tunnel would mean that the down-grade at the portals
might actually be less than for a bored tunnel, if the latter were constructed
on level ground.
The permanent impact of the approach cuttings on the landscape
within the World Heritage site is a major disadvantage of the proposed
tunnel. While the cut-and-cover tunnel would enable visitors to roam in
the vicinity of Stonehenge, the cuttings would create uncrossable barriers
along other sections of the site.
(d) Damage or destruction of archaeological sites. Five
scheduled ancient monuments and another eleven known sites fall wholly
or partly within the construction zone of the tunnel and approach cuttings
(Master plan 1998: 5). All have been damaged and only three are extant
(see figure 4 and table 1). But if these are monuments which are considered
to be of national importance, it is still questionable whether their destruction
can be recommended (Bewley, interview 13/4/99). No-one knows how many
unknown sites will be discovered during excavations for the cut and cover
tunnel. The Longbarrow Cross-roads area includes many known sites. The
distribution of known sites implies there are fewer sites within the Stonehenge
Bowl than outside it and therefore the proposed route of the cut-and-cover
tunnel itself is likely to damage or destroy relatively few unknown sites
(Wainwright, interview 24/2/99); a view supported by Mike Parker Pearson
(Parker Pearson, interview 11/3/99). However, arguments to the effect
that this low density of known sites is a consequence of its perceived
sanctity in prehistoric times should caution against a cavalier attitude
(Fielden, interview 13/4/99). Denser archaeological material may be found
in Stonehenge Bottom, while the concentration of Neolithic pits (including
'special' deposits) on King Barrow Ridge indicates that important prehistoric
remains will almost certainly be encountered in advance of tunnel construction.
Moreover, the proposed tunnel route comes close to concentrations of later
Neolithic flintwork identified by the Stonehenge Environs Project at the
Diamond and West of Stonehenge (Richards 1990). These might conceivably
be associated with subsoil features.
Wainwright considers the loss of known sites 'worth the
price' when set against the gain to the site as a whole, and its 450 known
sites. The recent editorial in Antiquity similarly described the 16 sites
threatened with damage or destruction as 'minor' (Anon 1998: 731). Brian
Davidson agrees with these assessments but points out evidence for a large
Mesolithic structure dating to c. 7000 BP has been found immediately to
the north of the stone circle; other Mesolithic sites may be uncovered
during road construction (Davidson interview 15/3/99).
A public exhibition organised by English Heritage and the
Highways Agency to promote (discussion of) the Master Plan states 'An
archaeological watching brief would take place during road construction'.
Where sites cannot be avoided, 'excavations would take place which would
provide a detailed record of the site and make a contribution to our understanding
of the past'. The apparent scarcity of sites within the Stonehenge Bowl
supports the hypothesis that it was a "sacred" or "ancestral" area during
the period from the Mid Neolithic to the early Bronze Age, when the stone
circle was used for its original purpose. Parker Pearson considers construction
of the tunnel would provide a useful transect of the "ancestral zone"
around the stone circle, to test whether few other contemporaneous sites
were constructed. Like Davidson, however he warns that Mesolithic post
holes, flint scatters etc. may be concealed along the route. The entire
route would need to be surveyed for magnetic anomalies and phosphate concentrations,
excavated and soil samples sieved (Parker Pearson, interview 11/3/99).
The Prehistoric Society takes a stronger stance, calculating that 13.5
ha. of ground in 'the most archaeologically sensitive land surface in
Europe' will be destroyed by the construction of tunnel and cuttings (Prehistoric
Society 1999: Appendix A). Modern groups to whom the area is sacred may
oppose disturbance from the cut and cover excavations. In addition to
the Prehistoric Society, concerns over the proposed scheme have been voiced
by the Wiltshire Archaeological Society, the Rambler's Association, Transport
2000 and the Druids (Fielden, interview 13/4/99). In any case, given the
sensitivity of the archaeological remains in the area a watching brief
on the tunnel construction would not be adequate: total surface collection,
shovel testing, and total area stripping should be seen as an acceptable
minimum for archaeological intervention.
A serious problem will develop at Longbarrow Cross-roads,
on the western boundary of the World Heritage site, as traffic increases
on the new dual carriageway. The A303 will undergo a 'grade separation'
from the A360, which it crosses here. A cluster of fifteen round barrows
are situated just to the northeast of the roundabout. They would be threatened
by slip roads or a flyover on the site of the present crossing, and the
junction should be moved as far as practicable to the west during construction
of the tunnel and its approaches, to enable future improvements to take
place without threat to the World Heritage site (Davidson interview 15/3/99).
The archaeology of Longbarrow Cross-roads is complex, including hut circles
and fields as well as a cemetery. The site appears to have been an important
node in the regional settlement pattern. The cost of, and time required
to excavate this area has not been taken into account (Peter Fowler interview
(e) The landscape in Stonehenge Bottom. Stonehenge Bottom
is a dry valley east of the ridge which forms the eastern boundary of
the Stonehenge Bowl. The top of the tunnel will be above the surface of
this dry valley. The mound covering the tunnel will be no higher than
the existing embankment but, with a width of 120 metres, it will be considerably
broader and will change the character of the landscape (Master Plan 1998:
fig 2). The dry valley floor is potentially a rich archaeological site
and the tunnel may change the underground drainage pattern. The architect
engaged by the constructors is reported to be most uneasy about this aspect
of the proposed cut-and-cover tunnel (Davidson interview 15/3/99).
(f) The view from the road. Many people enjoy being able
to see Stonehenge from the A303. People questioned by Maddison et al.
who were in favour of retaining the present A303, gave two main reasons:
they liked to see Stonehenge as they drove past, and/or they disliked
long tunnels (Maddison at al. 1998: 70). Brian Davidson suggests the people
of Wiltshire could be compensated for the loss of a free view through
a concessionary entrance fee (interview 15/3/99).
(g) Delivering visitors to the park and ride set-down.
The current proposals include a single, large visitor centre just beyond
the World Heritage site's eastern boundary, on the east side of the Countess
Roundabout (see figure 2). The presence of buildings at Countess Farm
on the west side of the Countess Roundabout, which might conceivably be
incorporated into a visitor centre, has not been actively investigated
(Fielden, interview 13/4/99). Visitors arriving from the west (about 30%
of visitors in the late 1980s) will have to drive through the tunnel to
park, then be taken back through the tunnel by minibus to the set-down
point at the end of the truncated A344. The additional time this costs
visitors, the road wear and cost of fuel will inevitably lead to demands
for a parking point west of Stonehenge. The least-damaging solution should
be included in a current, long-term plan (Davidson interview 15/3/99).
A case could be made for several small car parks placed around the edge
of the World Heritage site, to give walkers more ready access and to disperse
traffic. These could be concealed by trees and given an unobtrusive green
surface (Fowler interview 15/3/99).
The deep bore tunnel
Tunnel Vision identified two possible routes for a deep bore tunnel; a
long ('green route') tunnel, passing under the Avenue and Cursus and a
short ('purple route') tunnel passing under the Cursus. The short tunnel
proposal was quickly abandoned when it encountered universal opposition
from the local community (Tunnel Vision, annexe A, table A1). The longer
('green') tunnel would be approximately three and three-quarter kilometres
long (see figure 1). Until publication of the Master Plan, a deep bore
tunnel was the option favoured by both the National Trust and English
Heritage. Its direction was predicated on the need to minimise the slope
of the approach from the east, if the tunnel entrance were to be immediately
below King Barrows Ridge. In 1994, the Director General of the National
Trust, who own land on which cut-and-cover tunnel would be dug, said the
long-bore tunnel was the only feasible alternative which met World Heritage
site requirements (quoted in Fielden 1998: 735). This view was endorsed
by the Highways Agency Planning conference held in November 1995 and described
in Wainwright 1996. Wainwright changed his opinion because he was satisfied
the cut-and-cover tunnel was the only affordable option, and that it achieved
the main objective of enabling visitors to roam across the landscape around
Stonehenge (Wainwright, interview 24/2/99).
Cost of a deep bore tunnel. The cost of the longer deep
bore tunnel has been variously estimated at between £200 million
and £300 million (Tunnel Vision annexe A, Stone n.d.: 5, Wainwright
1996: 11). The method for arriving at these estimates has not been published
although Wainwright reports that foreign firms were consulted by the Department
of Transport (Wainwright, interview 24/2/99). In the words of the recent
editorial in Antiquity, the cost of the cut-and-cover tunnel has been
'plucked for discussion' (Anon 1998: 733). Lord Kennet's claim that a
3.2 km. single bore, two-track rail tunnel is being driven through North
Downs for £80 million (Kennet 1998: 736) appears however to disregard
infrastructural costs (Wainwright, interview 24/2/99). Neither the technical
specifications of the proposed deep bore tunnel, nor the geotechnical
survey on which the costing of a deep bore tunnel was based have been
published, but they would have to be made available at a public enquiry.
It has been suggested that additional funding could be sought from European
or international sources (Fielden 1998: 736). The suggestion that 'heritage
sources' should bear part of the cost contradicts, however, the 'polluter
pays' principle (Stone n.d.: 4). Indeed, enquiries made by the Wiltshire
Archaeological Society have ascertained that even if alternative sources
of funding were available, the cut-and-cover tunnel would still be the
preferred option of English Heritage (Fielden, interview 13/4/99).
One of us (RL) spoke to a qualified, professional civil
engineer who stated that the principal cost of a deep bore tunnel is setting
up the equipment, while the cost of a cut and cover tunnel is directly
related to its length. In general terms, a short (half-kilometre) deep
bore tunnel would be six times more expensive, a 2.5 kilometre deep bore
tunnel 35% more expensive than a cut and cover, but a four kilometre tunnel
only 10% more expensive. If the two kilometre cut and cover tunnel costs
£125 million, a four kilometre deep bore tunnel would cost £275
million. The new technique of spraying concrete onto the walls of the
bore is still viable. The recent collapse of the tunnel under construction
at Heathrow Airport was caused by the thinness of the sprayed concrete,
not an inherent defect in the method.
Wainwright reports that the 'green' route planned for the
deep bore tunnel would in fact only include 2.8 km. of deep bore. The
remainder of the route would be constructed by cut-and-cover in an area
where archaeological sites are more dense than on the route of the proposed
cut-and-cover tunnel (Wainwright, interview 24/2/99). The civil engineer
consulted confirms that the first 750 metres at either end of a deep bore
tunnel are usually cut and cover.
A longer tunnel following the present route of the A303.
Although the original ('green route') long tunnel was envisaged as passing
under the Avenue and Cursus, a deep bore tunnel starting further east
could follow the present route of the A303. After crossing the eastern
boundary of the World heritage site, the A303 passes through a cutting.
If the tunnel started within this cutting, it could pass further beneath
the surface of Stonebarrow Bottom, eliminating the covering embankment.
The line of the prehistoric feature, the Avenue, could then also be restored.
A four kilometre tunnel would push the start of the approach cuttings
back to the borders of the World Heritage site, but would not place them
outside the site. A longer tunnel would require above-ground ventilation
shafts (Master plan 1998: 4). The civil engineer consulted confirms that
any tunnel more than 2.5 kilometres long would require above-ground ventilators.
A four-kilometre tunnel would probably require three, each consisting
of a single-storey building. Brian Davidson suggests it would be in keeping
with a 250 year tradition to conceal such ventilators behind small tree
plantations (interview 15/3/99).
The position of the National Trust
No tunnel can be constructed without the agreement of the membership of
the National Trust. The 2.5 million members have not yet been consulted.
Land which the National Trust holds inalienably will have to be surrendered
to allow construction (Peter Fowler, interview 17/3/99). As noted above,
the Director General of the National Trust said in 1994 that the long-bore
tunnel was the only feasible alternative which met World Heritage site
Costing the heritage value of Stonehenge and the benefits
of placing the A303 in a tunnel
Stonehenge is one of 14 World Heritage sites in the UK and the 'premier
prehistoric site of Britain' (Anon 1998: 731). Its poor treatment is a
national disgrace (Tunnel Vision annexe A). The deep bore tunnel might
make good economic sense if its contribution to enhancing the heritage
value of Stonehenge could be fully costed (Stone 1998: 734). Visitors
might be discouraged if they knew part of original landscape had been
sacrificed in constructing the cut and cover tunnel (Stone n.d.: 5) while
visitor numbers might increase if it was known the site had been improved
(Maddison et al. 1998: 79).
Recent visitor levels: The exact number of people visiting
Stonehenge each year is not known, since many park on the verge of the
road and run across to the site. Recent estimates range from 700,000 to
800,000 per year (Anon 1998: 731, Maddison et al. 1998: 78, Stone n.d.:
2; Wainwright 1996: 9). One million visitors per year are expected at
the planned visitors' centre, but not all are expected to visit Stonehenge
itself, particularly in bad weather, as it will require a twenty-minute
walk to reach the site. Indeed, the site will be better protected if fewer
people visit it, and the income from visitor spending will be made at
the visitor centre (Wainwright, interview 24/2/99).
Two attempts have been made to cost the benefits of enhancing
the World Heritage site by placing the A303 in a tunnel. Both were commissioned
by English Heritage (Wainwright, interview 24/2/99).
Tunnel Vision. In 1997 the Parliamentary Office of Science
and Technology produced a report which estimated the benefits of a tunnel
in terms of the likely increase in visitors to an enhanced site. The report
took a government standard which values the citizen's non-business time
at £3 per hour. Available statistics indicated that Stonehenge was
visited by 700,000 people per year, who travelled, on average, one hour
each way and spent 20 minutes at Stonehenge. The notional use value of
the site was therefore £4.9 million per year, to which the notional
'existence' value of the site for those who did not visit it could be
added. If visitor numbers increased by 100,00 per year, but a £300
million tunnel enhanced the site sufficiently to attract a further 200,000
visitors per year, the benefit created by the tunnel over a 30 year period
would amount to £270 million.
Maddison et al. 1998 adopt a different technique. A sample
of visitors to Stonehenge, and a sample drawn from the general population,
were asked to rank 6 options for rerouting the A303. Interviewees were
asked to rank options and then to state how much extra tax they would
be willing to pay to implement their preferred option. 58% were willing
to pay £7.40 to construct a two kilometre tunnel while 42% willing
to pay £0.50p to prevent construction of a tunnel and retain the
existing surface route. If the sample were representative of the UK population
as a whole, the aggregate benefits from construction of a tunnel would
therefore be between £180-£290 million. 'These results are
mostly driven by the significant minority of respondents who care about
this issue ... (and) tend to be wealthier, more educated'. Overall, interviewees'
most preferred option, slightly ahead of a cut-and-cover tunnel, was to
reroute A303 1.5 km. to south, where it would be invisible from Stonehenge
(77, 81); while visitors preferred a northern road, without tunnel, 2
km. to north (45). However, while the southern surface route is cheap,
it was quickly rejected by planners because it crosses one of the best
parts of the World Heritage site (Wainwright, interview 24/2/99). The
northern open route is close to the 'purple' route (figure 1) which was
universally opposed by the local community. Maddison et al. assume the
only tunnel option is the cut and cover alternative, but their findings
would apply equally to a deep bore tunnel. The social value of the tunnel,
according to their estimate, would be sufficient to pay for a four kilometre
deep bore tunnel but the money is not, of course, 'real' money in the
government's hands, merely a notional value to the public.
Maddison et al may have underestimated the value of Stonehenge
to foreign visitors, which they estimate at £10 million. No-one
has tried to calculate the income from foreign visitors' spending elsewhere
in the UK, if Stonehenge is one of the attractions leading them to visit
the country. Nor has the fact that foreign visitors often pay for accommodation
in the vicinity of Stonehenge been taken into account.
Calculating the heritage value lost by destruction of sites
on the route of the cut and cover tunnel. Further information is needed
to make a proper comparison of the two tunnel options. Although English
Heritage contends the cost of destroying sites on the route of the cut
and cover is justified, no attempt has been made to calculate the value
of the sites that will be destroyed and add that to the cost of constructing
a cut and cover tunnel (cf. Fielden 1998: 735, Stone n.d.: 6). In Wainwright's
opinion there is no way of quantifying the value of sites that will be
destroyed during construction of the cut-and-cover tunnel (Wainwright,
interview 24/2/99).The number of as yet undiscovered sites is unknown,
although some predictions are possible (see discussion of the cut and
cover tunnel's route in relation to the density of archaeological sites,
above). No figure has been quoted for the cost of archaeological surveys
and excavations along the line of the cut and cover tunnel. It is unknown
whether a sum is included in the quoted cost for constructing the cut-and-cover
tunnel. Most significantly, perhaps, no attempt has been made to cost
the damage to the value of the World Heritage site caused by constructing
the approach cuttings to the tunnel.
In the light of our deliberations, and in accord with the motion recently
passed by the Council of the Prehistoric Society (included here as Appendix
A), we submit the following proposals for consideration by the WAC Executive:
1. We applaud the efforts of English Heritage and the National
Trust in attempting to improve visitor access to Stonehenge, in seeking
to remove roads from the vicinity of the monument, and in seeking to provide
adequate visitor facilities;
2. We call on the UK government to commission an independent
assessment of the cost and benefits of a long-bored tunnel for the A303;
3. We call on English Heritage to present a full set of
drawings and representations of both the cut-and-cover and long-bored
tunnels (including their entrances and approach cuttings) to the public,
to enable a full and informed debate on the alternatives;
4. We appeal to English Heritage not to cause irreversible
damage to the environs of Stonehenge for the sake of a cheaper solution
to the problem of removing surface roads.
1: Archaeological sites in the Stonehenge area. From Richards 1990.
2: Options for Stonehenge road improvements - the original proposals.
From Tunnel Vision
3: Route currently proposed for cut-and-cover tunnel. From Master Plan.
4: Location of National Trust estate within the Stonehenge World Heritage
Site. From Madison et al. 1998. From Master Plan 1998.
5: Distribution of known archaeological sites within the World Heritage
site. From Master Plan 1998.
Known sites threatened by the cut and cover tunnel (Master Plan 1998:
Anon 1998 Editorial, Antiquity 72: 731-733;
Atkinson, R.J.C. 1956 Stonehenge. London: Hamish Hamilton.
Bender, B. 1998 Stonehenge: Making Space. London: Berg.
Bender, B. and Edmonds, M. 1992 De-romancing the stones. Guardian
Chippindale, C. 1983 What future for Stonehenge? Antiquity 57, 172-80.
Chippindale, C. 1986 Stoned Henge: events and issues at the summer solstice,
1985. World Archaeology 18, 38-58.
Cleal, R.M.J., Walker, K.E. and Montague, R. 1995 Stonehenge in its Landscape:
Twentieth-Century Excavations. London: English Heritage.
Fielden, K. 1998 Antiquity 72: 735-6;
Fowler, P. 1990 Stonehenge in a democratic society. In: C. Chippindale,
P. Devereux, P. Fowler, R. Jones and T. Sebastian Who Owns Stonehenge?139-59.
Hawley, W. 1926 Report on the excavations at Stonehenge during the season
of 1924. Antiquaries Journal 6, 1-16.
HBMCE 1984 Stonehenge Study Group Report. London: English Heritage.
Kennet 1998 Antiquity 72: 736-7
Lawson, A. 1992 Stonehenge: creating a definitive account. Antiquity 66,
Maddison et al. 1998 Valuing different road options for the A303 (the
Stonehenge study). Report commissioned by English Heritage.
Master Plan 1998 Stonehenge: the master plan. English heritage, 22 September
Parker Pearson, M. and Ramilsonina 1998 Stonehenge for the ancestors:
the stones pass on the message. Antiquity 72, 308-26.
Piggott, S. 1938. The Early Bronze Age in Wessex. Proceedings of the Prehistoric
Society 4, 52-106.
Prehistoric Society 1999: Prehistoric Society response to English Heritage
re Stonehenge. To be published in the Society's Newsletter.
RCHME 1979 Stonehenge and its Environs. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University
Richards, J. 1990 The Stonehenge Environs Project. London: English Heritage.
Rosenburger, A. 1991 Stones that cry out. Guardian.
Sebastian, T. 1990 Triad: the Druid knowledge of Stonehenge. In: C. Chippindale,
P. Devereux, P. Fowler, R. Jones and T. Sebastian Who Owns Stonehenge?
88-119. London: Batsford.
Southern Nature 1998/99. Opportunities for habitat creation at Stonehenge.
Southern Nature Winter 1998/99. English Nature.
Stone, P. 1998 Antiquity 72: 733-4
Stone, P. n.d. The Stonehenge we deserve. Submitted to Minerva.
Sudjic, D. 1993 A circle of lost opportunity that will ruin Stonehenge.
Tunnel Vision 1997 Report by the Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology,
commissioned by English Heritage.
Wainwright, G.J. and Longworth, I. 1971 Durrington Walls: Excavations
1966-1968. London: Society of Antiquaries.
Woodward, A.B. and Woodward, P.J. 1996 The topography of some barrow cemeteries
in Bronze Age Wessex. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 62, 275-91.
PREHISTORIC SOCIETY RESPONSE TO ENGLISH HERITAGE RE-STONEHENGE
1. The Society supports the approach taken by both English
and the National Trust to improve visitor access and awareness of Stonehenge
in its landscape setting by closing the A344, proposing a Visitor Centre
outside the World Heritage site, building a tunnel for the A303 (as a
dual carriageway) and allowing free access to the landscape.
2. The UK government and its advisers should be congratulated
on aiming for the highest possible standards in the presentation of World
Heritage Sites and the standards set at Stonehenge should be exemplary.
These standards should include minimising damage to existing and well
preserved archaeological sites and minimising the impact on the landscape
if any construction works are planned. The Society supports the principle
of minimal risk to any protected ancient monument and would thus support
the exploration of more options (in terms of construction and funding)
than the single option of the cut-and-cover tunnel now proposed .
3. The Society believes it is essential that there should
be an independent assessment of the cost of a long-bored tunnel to act
as a comparison for the proposed cut-and-cover tunnel. The destruction
13.5 hectares of of the most archaeologically sensitive land surface in
Europe, within a World Heritage Site, may be something which future generations
will find hard to understand.
4. The implications of the proposed new road schemes
within the World Heritage Site will also have a considerable impact on
towns and villages outside the WHS and the Society would welcome further
consultation on these schemes.