Stonehenge - the original NIMBY

Objection to Planning Application Ref: SH/001/2500BC – Proposed Construction of Stonehenge

Dear Planning Committee,

I am writing to formally object to the planning application for the construction of Stonehenge, a proposed megalithic structure on Salisbury Plain, as outlined in application reference SH/001/2500BC. While I recognize the cultural and spiritual aspirations of this project, I have significant concerns regarding its compliance with sustainability principles, environmental policies, and resource management standards as set out in the Wessex Regional Planning Framework (WRPF) and the Tribal Environmental Stewardship Code (TESC).

Firstly, the proposed extraction and transportation of Sarsen stones from West Woods on the Marlborough Downs raises serious environmental concerns. The applicant’s Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) fails to adequately assess the cumulative impact of removing these non-renewable geological assets, particularly following the near-depletion of Sarsen stocks by the Avebury Circle Development (ref: AV/002/2600BC). The WRPF, Section 4.2, mandates that development proposals must “demonstrate minimal disruption to finite natural resources and protect the geodiversity of the region.” Extracting Sarsens from West Woods risks contravening this policy, potentially leading to irreversible damage to the landscape character of the Marlborough Downs and its associated ecosystems, including the habitats of local flora and fauna.

Furthermore, the application lacks a robust Sustainability Appraisal (SA) to evaluate the long-term ecological consequences of the project. The TESC, Clause 3.1, requires developers to provide a “clear strategy for mitigating environmental harm and ensuring resource sustainability.” The proposed method of dragging Sarsen stones from West Woods using timber sledges is not only logistically inefficient but also likely to cause soil compaction and erosion along transportation routes, contravening the Landscape Protection Guidelines (LPG), which emphasize the preservation of soil integrity for future agricultural use. No evidence has been provided to demonstrate compliance with these guidelines or to justify the absence of alternative, less invasive construction techniques, such as utilizing smaller, locally sourced materials from the Salisbury Plain area.

Additionally, the application does not adequately address the Community Cohesion and Heritage Impact Assessment (CCHIA) requirements under WRPF Policy 7.3. The construction of Stonehenge risks overshadowing existing local landmarks, such as the Durrington Timber Circle, potentially undermining the cultural heritage balance of the region. The lack of public consultation records, as required by TESC Clause 5.2, further suggests that the proposal has not sufficiently engaged with affected stakeholders, including tribal groups in the Marlborough Downs and Salisbury Plain areas who rely on these landscapes for seasonal grazing and ceremonial activities.

In conclusion, I urge the Planning Committee to refuse this application in its current form due to its non-compliance with the WRPF and TESC policies, inadequate environmental safeguards, and failure to demonstrate sustainable resource use. I recommend that the applicant revise the proposal to include a comprehensive Sustainability Appraisal, explore alternative construction methods, and engage in meaningful consultation with the communities of the Marlborough Downs and Salisbury Plain to ensure that Stonehenge, if approved, aligns with our collective commitment to environmental stewardship and cultural harmony.

Thank you for your attention to this matter. I would be grateful for the opportunity to discuss these concerns further at the upcoming planning hearing.

Yours sincerely,
[Your Name]
[Your Contact Information]
Resident, Wessex Community