Stonehenge and Avebury Setting Study - Approved by Cabinet

Wiltshire Council's Cabinet approves plan to help mitigate the potential impact of development on Stonehenge and Avebury World Heritage Site

Wiltshire Council's Cabinet has approved a Setting Study for the Stonehenge and Avebury World Heritage Site (WHS) which, if adopted by Full Council later this month (October), will be used to ensure that developments in Wiltshire do not adversely impact the internationally significant monuments and the area they are located in.

Stonehenge and Avebury WHS Setting Study SPD - Draft for adoption

• View the background
• View the decision
• 
  

Supporting documents:

• StonehengeandAveburyWHSSettingStudySPD_251007 , item 19.PDF 166 KB
• WHSSettingStudyAppendix1_251007 , item 19.PDF 2 MB
• Stonehenge and Avebury SPD 15.09.2025 c , item 19.PDF 17 MB

Decision:

Resolved:

 

That Cabinet:

 

1.    notes the response to the consultation on the draft WHS Setting Study Supplementary Planning Document (the Setting Study) set out in the Consultation Statement at Appendix 1.

 

2.    endorses the amended Setting Study as set out in Appendix 2.

 

That Cabinet recommends that Council:

 

3.    Adopts the Setting Study (Appendix 2) to Council as a supplementary planning document at its meeting on 21 October 2025.

 

4.    Delegates to the Corporate Director, Place, in consultation with the Cabinet Member for Strategic Planning, Development Management and Housing, the authority to undertake the final stages associated with the formal adoption and publication of the Setting Study, including any minor textual changes in the interests of clarity and accuracy.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

A summary of the Consultation concerns and responses:

Statutory/Advisory Bodies

Historic England

Concern: The draft SPD is thorough and robust, but suggested minor enhancements for effectiveness.

Council's Response: Incorporated technical comments via minor text amendments.

UNESCO World Heritage Centre/ICOMOS

Concern: Positive review overall, but suggested technical amendments and additions to strengthen the document, including references to key UNESCO documentation.

Council's Response: Added minor amendments where possible, such as further UNESCO references to bolster international obligations.

Natural England

Concern: Satisfied with ecological and historic environment information; no further issues.

Council's Response: None required.

National Highways

Concern: No particular comments; noted SPD contents and assessment requirements.

Council's Response: None required.

Local Interest Groups

Druid Groups

Concern: SPD should acknowledge contemporary spiritual/ceremonial value, human rights protections, experiential setting, and recommit to direct consultation with spiritual communities on planning applications.

Council's Response: Added reference to WHS Equal Opportunities Statement; definition of setting includes experiential aspects per national policy and Historic England guidance; all planning applications open to public comment.

CPRE South Wilts

Concern: Needs more numbering; greater weight on high visitor numbers' effects; undue emphasis on A303, requiring balanced view.

Council's Response: Added sub-section numbering; visitor infrastructure treated as development; roads in Stonehenge/Avebury addressed balancedly; future schemes assessed via SPD without altering decision criteria.

Cycling Opportunities Group for Salisbury

Concern: Omission of highways/Rights of Way works from HIA-required developments; prioritise reducing vehicular usage/impact.

Council's Response: Clarified HIA need for other development forms; sustainable transport for WHS Management Plan review.

Avebury Society

Concern: Supports Chapter 4 proposals; recommends cumulative impact control mechanism, including baseline study and triennial/biennial reviews.

Council's Response: Added clarification on cumulative impacts in Stage 4; monitoring for WHS Management Plan review.

Wiltshire Archaeological & NH Society

Concern: Supports OUV protection aim; balance archaeological protection with public access/research; mandate additional HIA elements for access, excavations, and community consultation.

Council's Response: Several elements outside SPD scope, already in planning process, or case-by-case; public access etc. for WHS Management Plan review.

Stonehenge Alliance

Concern: Detailed comments on setting nature, monument-landscape relationship, WHS boundary, buffer zone need, and A303.

Council's Response: Useful amendments for clarification (e.g., expanded Table 8 on HIA for major road schemes); some beyond SPD scope or for WHS Management Plan.

Town and Parish Councils

Amesbury Town Council

Concern: Greater explanation under 'need for screening' to help applicants understand development location.

Council's Response: Adjusted scoping description for clarity.

Marlborough Town Council

Concern: Supports proposals to secure/protect WHS.

Council's Response: None required.

Preshute Parish Council

Concern: Well-produced document, but significant Avebury-east monuments not in WHS.

Council's Response: Addresses existing WHS boundary (UNESCO consent needed for change); references external sites/elements with WHS relationships.

Developers/Consultants

General (two developers/planning consultants)

Concern: Welcomed clarity/certainty; but need term clarification, reduced complexity/readability; lack of balance on in/outside WHS settings, landscape vs. monuments; cumulative change and astronomical alignments concerns.

Council's Response: Amendments for ambiguity/consistency (e.g., glossary additions, section numbers); approach agreed with Historic England/UNESCO, so not all changes possible.

Members of the Public

General (varied comments)

Concerns: Document length/complexity/formatting; need applicant clarity; A303 addressing; inclusion of wider values/time periods, external monuments, buffer/boundary review; HIA/decision-making; geographic precision/terminology.

Council's Response: Reflects WHS international obligations requiring detailed information; HIA well-defined for OUV, SPD informs but does not change decision criteria (includes social/economic/environmental factors); A303 balanced; existing boundary focus (UNESCO limits); OUV landscape-centric, wider values not appropriate.

Farmers/Landowners

General

Concern: Lacks rural economy/local community recognition; extensive requirements prevent change without applicant needs balance.

Council's Response: SPD does not change decision criteria; added wording to reflect planning balance; decision-makers consider social/economic/environmental factors.

Overall Summary

• Consultation responses welcomed; amendments enhanced clarity/precision without altering substance.
• Key partners (e.g., National Trust, English Heritage) pre-consulted, no further input needed.
• Final SPD strengthened for better planning assessments near WHS.