So! here it is from the horses mouth....oops! I of course mean....
The Planning Inspectorate
and it being a huge document, I've read - a little of it, especially the second document:
"The Secretary of State decision letter" PDF 737". https://infrastructure.planninginspectorate.gov.uk/wp-content/ipc/uploads/projects/TR010025/TR010025-002180-STON%20-%20Secretary%20of%20State%20Decision%20Letter.pdf
To save you wading through the whole document and to cut through all the gobble de gook.....you need to read from para 30 which is the bit the naysayers have latched on to and gone no further. However, if you also read para's 33, 34, and 35 it puts the prophets of doom's opinions and negativity regarding the decision, into perspective:
33. It is the ExA’s opinion that when assessed in accordance with NPSNN, the
Development’s effects on the OUV of the WHS, and the significance of heritage assets
through development within their settings taken as a whole would lead to substantial harm
[ER 5.7.333]. However, the Secretary of State notes the ExA also accepts that its
conclusions in relation to cultural heritage, landscape and visual impact issues and the other
harms identified, are ultimately matters of planning judgment on which there have been
differing and informed opinions and evidence submitted to the examination [ER 7.5.26]. The
Secretary of State notes the ExA’s view on the level of harm being substantial is not
supported by the positions of the Applicant, Wiltshire Council, the National Trust, the English
Heritage Trust, DCMS and Historic England. These stakeholders place greater weight on
the benefits to the WHS from the removal of the existing A303 road compared to any
consequential harmful effects elsewhere in the WHS. Indeed, the indications are that they consider there would or could be scope for a net benefit overall to the WHS [ER 5.7.54, ER
5.7.55, ER 5.7.62, ER 5.7.70, ER 5.7.72 and ER 5.7.83].
34. The Secretary of State notes the differing positions of the ExA and Historic England,
who has a duty under the provisions of the National Heritage Act 1983 (as amended) to
secure the preservation and enhancement of the historic environment. He agrees with the
ExA that there will be harm on spatial, visual relations and settings that weighs against the
Development. However, he notes that there is no suggestion from Historic England that the
level of harm would be substantial. Ultimately, the Secretary of State prefers Historic
England’s view on this matter for the reasons given [ER 5.7.62 – 5.7.69] and considers it is
appropriate to give weight to its judgment as the Government’s statutory advisor on the
historic environment, including world heritage. The Secretary of State is satisfied therefore
that the harm on spatial, visual relations and settings is less than substantial and should be
weighed against the public benefits of the Development in the planning balance.
35. Whilst also acknowledging the adverse impacts of the Development, the Secretary of
State notes that Historic England’s concluding submission [Examination Library document
AS-111] states that it has supported the aspirations of the Development from the outset and
that putting much of the existing A303 surface road into a tunnel would allow archaeological
features within the WHS, currently separated by the A303 road, to be appreciated as part of
a reunited landscape, and would facilitate enhanced public access to this internationally
important site [ER 5.7.62] and that overall it broadly concurs with the Applicant’s Heritage
Impact Assessment [ER 5.7.66]. Furthermore, it is also noted from Historic England’s
concluding submission that it considers the Development proposes a significant reduction
in the sight and sound of traffic in the part of the WHS where it will most improve the
experience of the Stonehenge monument itself, and enhancements to the experience of the
solstitial alignments [ER 5.12.32]. It considers that, alongside enhanced public access, these
are all significant benefits for the historic environment.
36. The Secretary of State also notes from Historic England’s concluding submission made during the examination [Examination library document AS-111] that its objective
through the course of the examination was to ensure that the historic environment is fully
and properly taken into account in the determination of the application and, if consented,
that appropriate safeguards be built into the Development across the dDCO, OEMP and the
Detailed Archaeological Mitigation Strategy (“DAMS”) [ER 5.7.63]. Whilst it is also noted that
Historic England identified during the examination a number of concerns where further
information, detail, clarity or amendments were needed, particularly around how the impacts
of the Development would be mitigated, their concluding submission states that its concerns
have been broadly addressed. Historic England believe that the dDCO, OEMP and DAMS
set out a process to ensure that heritage advice and considerations can play an appropriate
and important role in the construction, operation and maintenance of the Development. As
a consequence of the incorporation of the Design Vision, Commitments and Principles in
the OEMP, together with arrangements for consultation and engagement with Historic
England, it considers sufficient safeguards have been built in for the detailed design stage
and there are now sufficient provisions for the protection of the historic environment in the
dDCO. It is Historic England’s view that the DAMS is underpinned by a series of scheme
specific research questions which will ensure that an understanding of the OUV of the WHS
and the significance of the historic environment overall will guide decision making and
maximise opportunities to further understand this exceptional landscape. It considers the
DAMS will also ensure that the archaeological mitigation under the Site Specific Written
Schemes of Investigation (“SSWSIs”) will be supported by the use of innovative methods
10
and technologies and the implementation of an iterative and intelligent strategy, which will
enable it to make a unique contribution to international research agendas.
37. Given the amendments and assurances requested and received during the course of
the examination and the safeguards that are now built into the DCO overall, Historic England
states in the concluding submission that it is confident of the Development’s potential to
deliver benefits for the historic environment.
38. The Secretary of State also notes that Historic England would continue to advise the Applicant on the detail of the design and delivery of the Development through its statutory
role and its roles as a member of Heritage Monitoring and Advisory Group and of the
Stakeholder Design Consultation Group. The ExA agrees with Historic England’s view that
this would also help minimise impact on the OUV, and delivery of the potential benefits for
the historic environment [ER 5.7.69].
40. Similarly, the Secretary of State also notes the National Trust’s support for the
Development and view that, if well designed and delivered with the utmost care for the
surrounding archaeology and chalk grassland landscape, the Development could provide
an overall benefit to the WHS. It also considers the Development could help to reunite the
landscape providing improvements to monument setting, tranquility and access for both
people and wildlife.
43. The Secretary of State has also carefully considered the ExA’s concerns and the
respective counter arguments and positions of other Interested Parties, including ICOMOSUK, WHSCU, the Stonehenge Alliance, the COA and the CBA in relation to the effects of
elements of the Development on the OUV of the WHS and on the cultural heritage and the
historic environment of the wider area raised during the examination. The Secretary of State
notes in particular the concerns raised by some Interested Parties and the ExA in respect of
the adverse impact arising from western tunnel approach cutting and portal, the proposed
Longbarrow Junction and, to a lesser extent, the eastern approach and portal [ER 5.7.207].
He accepts there will be adverse impacts from those parts of the Development. However,
on balance and when considering the views of Historic England and also Wiltshire Council,
he is satisfied that any harm caused to the WHS when considered as a whole would be less
than substantial and therefore the adverse impacts of the Development should be balanced
against its public benefits.
57. The sensitivity of the WHS environment to people’s beliefs and their rights to exercise
those beliefs is recognized. The broader WHS landscape’s religious and spiritual
significance is also understood and appreciated. Furthermore, the Secretary of State notes
that no evidence was presented to suggest that the Development would prevent or limit
anyone from exercising these rights [ER 5.11.66]. The ExA considers the Applicant has fully
addressed this issue and is satisfied that the Development would accord with the NPSNN
[ER 7.2.46]. The Secretary of State agrees. He also agrees that article 16 of the dDCO, as
revised during the examination, would address the concerns of the Druid Orders in respect
16
to the treatment of human remains [ER 7.2.47]
113. Accordingly, the Secretary of State has decided to grant the application for
development consent.
It goes on to paragraph 115 for you all to read and enjoy!
And so....we come back to our curate's egg...A "curate's egg" is something described as partly bad and partly good. In its original usage, it referred to something that is obviously and entirely bad, but is described out of politeness as nonetheless having good features that redeem it. Wikipedia
In essence: You can't please all of the people all of the time!!
|
|
|
|
|
