Response by The Stonehenge Alliance
For responses by other organisations please scroll down


  • The Stonehenge Alliance strongly disagrees with the proposed scheme in its entirety since it would severely and irreparably damage the WHS and its setting, along with a significant number of its attributes of outstanding universal value (OUV), in direct contravention of the World Heritage Convention, planning guidance and policy for the WHS and the Vision and aims of the WHS Management Plan.
  • The scheme not only disregards but also fails to mention: the clear advice of the UNESCO/ICOMOS Advisory Missions to Stonehenge on Heritage Impact Assessment (HIA) and a choice of route; and the Decision of UNESCO’s World Heritage Committee on 6 July 2017.
  • We deplore the fact that Highway England seeks no more than comments on a scheme intended to be implemented without asking respondees about their views of the fundamental suitability of the scheme as a whole for the WHS.
  • We also deplore, in any consultation to date, the lack of route choices and the absence of detailed comparative information about rejected routes that would not damage the WHS and its OUV.
  • Many of the points made in our response to the previous consultation remain valid for the current consultation, especially under planning policy, transport issues, consultation and value for money considerations.


Misleading and inaccurate  information has repeatedly appeared in Highways England’s public documents and press statements. We have referred to some of these in correspondence with Highways England (letter to Mr Parody, 15 January 2018). Numerous instances have been found throughout the consultation process.  Here are a couple of examples:

  • “Our proposal is to build a 1.8 mile (2.9 kilometre) tunnel under the World Heritage Site . . .”.  (Public Consultation Booklet, January 2017, p.8. Note: The World Heritage Site is c.5.4km across.)
  • “The removal of traffic along the existing A303 from much of the Stonehenge landscape would improve the setting of heritage assets within the WHS, including Stonehenge itself.” (PEI Report Non-technical summary, February 2018, p.11) Note: The WHS itself is a heritage asset of the highest significance: cf. NPPF para.132; while the settings of a number of heritage assets within the WHS would be adversely affected by the A303 scheme.  Improving the setting of the henge is not the same thing as improving the setting of the Stonehenge WHS.

In addition to the misleading or untrue statements given as examples above, videos and illustrations of the completed scheme shown to the public are unrealistic, indicating very low levels of traffic, few lorries, no lighting or gantries, and minimal signage and indication of fencing.

The scheme proposal was subjected to a low profile consultation, almost exclusively targeting local motorists and residents. This is inconsistent with the future interests of a World Heritage Site.


The entire project should be reconsidered, in order to take into account the advice of UNESCO and the demands of the agreed protective planning framework for the WHS. We hope that Highways England will advise the Government that consultation on the A303 scheme is premature in view of the amount of missing data and that UNESCO’s advice needs to be fully considered in this proposal.

Our response in full to HIghways England A303 Stonehenge consultation 2018

Responses to Highways England’s consultation by other organisations

Campaign for the Protection of Rural England – South West

Consortium of Stonehenge experts – press statement 

Council for British Archaeology – awaited

ICOMOS-UK (International Council on Monuments & Sites)

Rescue – The British Archaeological Trust

Royal Society for the Protection of Birds

Wiltshire Archaeological and Natural History Society (Wiltshire Museum)

Responses by individuals

Please share