The following is taken from the official Inquiry
transcript for 25th February 2004 with minor corrections.
The back Prospect of the beginning of the Avenue to Stonehenge
6th August 1723
from Stukeley, William, 1740,
Stonehenge: a temple restor'd to the British Druids
HA Environmental Statement Vol 2, Appendix 2,
Images 2, page 4
THE INSPECTOR: Is it The
Druid Network or the British Druid Order first, or is it one representation on behalf of both of
them?
MS ORR: One representation.
MRS EMMA RESTALL ORR
for The Druid Network and British Druid Order
THE INSPECTOR: Fine. You are Emma Restall Orr?
MS ORR: Yes, and Angela Grant.
THE INSPECTOR: I am not altogether sure whether you are wanting to cross-examine
any of the Highways Agency witnesses on their evidence in chief?
MS ORR: What I am going to ask first of all is for you to forgive me because
I have never done this before.
THE INSPECTOR: That is alright.
MS ORR: I have no idea what the system is.
THE INSPECTOR: I will try to be as user friendly as I can possibly be.
MS ORR: Thank you so much. One of the things we have done is we have got into a
bit of a muddle in that I am now effectively presenting for the British Druid Order as well as for
The Druid Network. I might begin by saying I was joint chief of the British Druid Order for nine
years, which I gave up a year ago, so I am not coming into that completely new. However, from the
fellow who just spoke, it seems that the system is that you read the proof of evidence and then
read the reply. I have not actually sorted that out in my head at all, partly because I took our
proof of evidence and I took the reply and then had worked out pretty much what I wanted to say on
the basis of both of those together, and bringing in some information from the submissions of the
British Druid Order as well. Is that acceptable? It is pretty simple and it follows pretty much the
same pattern.
THE INSPECTOR: I see no particular objection to that, do you, Mr Calvert?
MR CALVERT: No, sir. We have endeavoured to answer the questions raised directly
in the hope that that was helpful.
MS ORR: Very much so.
Top of Page
Ms
Emma Restall Orr
Questioned by THE INSPECTOR
THE INSPECTOR: What I suggest then is that I have a few questions first of all,
similar to those which I asked Mr Maguire about the nature of the organisation that he was
representing and so on. Then if you would like to go through what you want to say. I will take it
that the written representations are also in as supplementary written representations, but as long
as you touch on the issues which are in those then that is fine. If Mr. Calvert has got any
questions for you or if we have any questions we will go with them and then we will hear Mr. Jones'
response proof and if you want to ask him any questions on that, any more detailed questions to
probe beyond what he is saying in that there will be the opportunity to do that. Then, at the end
of all of that, if you would like to make a summary statement pulling it all together, but it may
be that you have done that already and there is no need to if you do not want to. If at any stage
you think, "What on earth is this all about? I am getting lost", just tell me and we will
do our best to help.
What I was keen to establish is this. First of all, about the
British Druid Order. They have included some information about the nature of the order, the number
of members and all of that sort of thing. I just wondered how the views that are expressed in that
paper were obtained.
A. I have been involved with working with Stonehenge with Clews Everard and the
Access Committee and finding ways in which the Druids can interact with Stonehenge in a positive
way for six, seven years - I cannot quite remember - eight years maybe. One of the reasons I got
involved was because so many people within the Druid community - I have to say it is an
international Druid community and a Pagan community who, to some extent, look to the Druids as they
seem to have had the interface with English Heritage much more. People write in to us with concerns
all the time and some of those concerns are outrageous: they are based on such wonderful
misinformation. Some of them are very clear and even more well-informed than I am and I have to go
and work out where they are getting the information from and how real it is. So, to a large extent,
it is a build up of information of queries, of concerns right the way from midstream/mainstream
Druidry, which is folks like us, your average normal people right the way through to the fringe
elements of Druidry, which might be represented by someone such as Arthur Pendragon, who perhaps
you are aware of, who runs the full force of the protest movement which is on the edge of Druidry
and the Pagan community and is the protest community. Queries and concerns are coming from across
the broad as well as people in America who have not been to Stonehenge since they were three years
old and feel deeply concerned. To a large extent, it is coming from there. Amassing all those
emails, all those letters coming forward and putting the understanding that people are building up.
There are also articles written in the Druid and the Pagan press and to some extent in the New Age
press as well which are not always helpful and can even be provocative in inciting people to
protect and increase their anxiety, as well as some sensible articles, but they are not always
balanced. Our view and part of the reason we are here - in fact, the major part of the reason we
are here - is because we do not want that misinformation, that protest to continue: we want to work
on a free flow of communication both ways.
Q. So the British Druid
organisation is expressed as an objection. How was that authorised within the order?
A. That would have to be understood in terms of how the orders work.
Q. Yes, that is what I am trying to get to.
A. Druidry and most Pagan organisations are fairly anarchic. If you look at it as
a spirituality which is based on individual expression, individual experience rather than a
spirituality that looks towards an authority in terms of deities. That is reflected in the way the
organisation works.
Q. That is why I am interested.
A. That anarchy really works as people coming together and expressing, "This
is what I think", "This is what I think", and then those who organise bring those
feelings together and express them. So it is not particularly organised and ordered so much as
brought together by the few people who do organise and order the masses of the order - of the group
itself. People will write and say, "What are you doing about this? This is what I think."
In the last week, I have had a dozen emails about that and letters. Over the last couple of year I
have had hundreds of letters.
Top of Page
Q. Why do
they send emails to you? Why do they write to you? You have said until recently you were the
joint...
A. I was joint chief of the British Druid Order, yes. One of the reasons they
write to me is that I am a published author and a teacher within the traditions, so people
recognise me as being someone whose voice is heard. People have seen me as a spokesperson for
Druidry to some extent. Also, I now run The Druid Network, which is an international organisation,
which was created for the sole purpose of bringing together Druids around the world - people who
are interested in Druidry, right the way through to the priesthood of the tradition - in order to
allow communication to flow for these kinds of events, so that people can pour in their
understanding and other people can access that spring of understanding of information for
themselves. So, to some extent, I am here as a representation of a network rather than of a group
of people, if you see what I mean.
Q. Yes.
A. To some extent, that is representing the conduit rather than the mass. Having
said that, if I might add also that in the last couple of months while we have been preparing this
and talking to people, actively saying, "Yes, we are going to raise an objection. Yes, we are
going to get involved", a great number of - well, all of the major groups worldwide have
actually expressed support for our perspective, for what we are doing here. That includes the
British Druid Order, who obviously asked us to present for them as well. But also the Order of
Bards, Ovates and Druids, OBOD, which is the largest Druid order in the world with an active
membership of between 5-8,000 people and up to 12,000 on their books. They are very keen to be
actively involved in what we are doing. They have also registered an objection through the
Stonehenge Alliance, which is a very important part of what we are doing here. We have not
registered an objection through the Stonehenge Alliance because we feel that their perspective,
their approach is a little bit too antagonistic and not as pro-actively positive and creative as
what we would like to be doing, so we have not. For OBOD or the Order of Bards, Ovates and Druids
to actually say, "Yes, we support the Druid Network utterly in what you are doing and we have
also registered an objection there" is quite typical of the Druid community in that they are
saying, "Yes, if you are going to be positive we will support any positive action that you are
doing. However, we have concerns." So to some extent what we are doing is, we are here as a
positive action, positive front, looking for creative communication, creative interaction, creative
process all the way through the next couple of years, the next five, six, seven, eight years,
however long it takes. I also say quite positively that Arthur Pendragon, who is this ferocious
force of protest, has also expressed support for us being here and has clearly stated that he
supports The Druid Network in what we are saying here, although he did say a couple of years ago -
some of you might remember - that if the cut-and-cover tunnel were to go ahead he would raise the
biggest road protest in the history of Europe. With the cut-and-cover not happening, that not being
on the table any more, he is sitting back and waiting to see what happens and we are doing
everything we can because we do not want road protests at all: we think it would be a waste of time
and money, which is why we are here instead of waiting for the possibility of a road protest, which
is a ludicrous thing. He is standing behind us saying, "Yes, absolutely." He said, "
Do you want me to come along on Wednesday?" "No, no, we'll be fine."
So really what we are doing is trying to avoid that problem as well by making sure there is clear
information, there is not misinformation and that the Druid community have an opportunity for
interaction and involvement in the process positively and creatively.
Top of Page
Q. That takes me on
to a point from the submission you made on behalf of The Druid Network. This is not a trick
question. I just want to understand. In paragraph 2.2 of that you say, "Our presence at this
inquiry is not then primarily to object nor to obstruct but to find clarity." Then in the
heading to section 4 it is specific objections. What I am seeking to understand is this. Do I
regard the British Druid Order and The Druid Network as objectors or as people making
representations?
A. I think there are two ways. Perhaps a better word to use would be
"concern" than "objection". This is jargon in terms of the inspector's jargon -
objecting.
Q. Yes, that is right, absolutely. I want to know where to put you in the list of
appearances. Do I put you down as an objector or someone making a representation?
A. One of the things that we feel is that our concerns are strong enough for us to
be able to sit here and say, "These are our concerns. This is what we want reassurance about.
If we do not have reassurance about that, then we become objectors." With reassurance - and
that reassurance needs to flow into concrete action rather than just the pacifying of, "Yes,
sure, we'll work it out" or "No, that's their responsibility. That's their
responsibility, not ours." So the reassurances are a condition of our support rather than just
standing here as representing people. Yes, we need reassurance, otherwise we become clear
objectors.
Q. That is helpful. What I think would be helpful to me is, you have your say, you
can answer any questions there are from the Highways Agency or from us. We will hear what the
Highways Agency have to say, but at the end of you are able to say to me, "We are persuaded by
that" or "We accept that" or "We want you to regard us as objectors", that
would leave me knowing where you stand on the issues as they go forward. Or it may be that you are
able to say, "If we had assurance on this point, that point and the other point, then we would
not be objectors, but if we do not then we are" or something of that sort. I would just like
to be clear about that. You have a statement which pulls together the submission from the British
Druid Order, your submission from The Druid Network and then we also received an email through the
programme officer with some comments on the Stonehenge road proposal and the reburial issue from
Drs. Jenny Kline and Robert Wallace. If you want to pull all of that together in what you say, that
would be helpful.
A. I think pretty much what I am going to do is pull all that together, but if
anyone has any queries on those submissions, then please do so.
Top of Page
Ms Emma
Restall Orr:
As I said to you, really we are here initially to be a
conduit for information but we do feel that we stand, in a way, representing the Druid community
worldwide in a way that we had not anticipated in the beginning, which we are very pleased about
because it is in a way that can bring this enormous and growing community together on this issue,
which is very important. But also we do not see ourselves here standing up representing just
Druidry. I think that is important. The reason we are standing here is because we are in the Druid
tradition and that gives us a momentum and a sense of importance of this in a way which other
people may not feel. But we do represent a wide range of paganisms across Caucasian and British,
American, European Caucasian paganisms, but also the spiritual community at large, anyone who feels
that Stonehenge is a sacred place, including the strange amorphous mess of New Age spiritualities
and non-aligned paganisms or unlabelled paganisms across the world who feel Stonehenge to be an
archetypal sacred space or a temple. We are here not only today but through the process of
development as a bridge through which information can flow and, in a way that Druids do, give a
word of honesty, transparency, clarity about what we do in terms of honouring this process.
Druidry for us is, very simply, a spirituality of the
land. It is about reverence for nature and that includes human nature, the nature within us and
nature around us, the environment and our ancestry. It is a spirituality which honours the
ancestors, which is why we stand here, honouring the work of our ancestors through Stonehenge and
its sacred landscape. Some people would consider the words "Druid" and
"Stonehenge" to be a debatable issue: "Druid" for some - the Celtic people -
though the word "Celtic" is now in debate, thankfully - but we stand here not about a
Celtic tradition which is dead but about a living pagan tradition, which is growing incredibly
quickly around the world on a simple understanding that it is a reverence for nature, human nature
and nature outside of humanity for the environment inside and outside, through the landscape and
our ancestry. Modern Druidry and the modern Druid community considers itself to be connected to the
priests of that time through an evolving native or indigenous nature based spirituality. Stonehenge
is not a principal temple of the Druids or of modern Pagans, but it is the principal temple for
some modern Druids and some in modern Paganism. However, for all it is a significant temple of our
people, a temple of our spiritual heritage - and that is an important word. It is a temple to us. I
would like to emphasise that I am not claiming Stonehenge for the Druids. These are questions that
people try to put forward in order to negate our representation or our perspective. I am not
claiming Stonehenge as a Druid temple: I am acknowledging it as a temple of our ancestors, a temple
of priests of the land, of a time where science and religion were one in the same, focused on the
spirituality of the land, of nature. But the Druids do have a history of interaction with
Stonehenge, some of it ridiculous, some of it bizarre, but it goes back many hundreds of years. In
terms of the Druids, I mean the Druids of the last couple of hundred years, particularly going back
through Victorian times and the 20th Century Druidry and the problems that have been caused by such
people as the road protestors and represented by Arthur Pendragon and the West Country Druids. I
have been working at Stonehenge and with English Heritage for the last 12/15 years and feel myself
dedicated utterly to the temple in a magical spiritual sense, which is what gives me the courage to
stand here even though I am wondering what on earth I am doing. As I said previously, we have
decided not to just bale in with Stonehenge Alliance because we find their perspective somewhat
antagonistic and not entirely along what we consider to be our tenet of Druidic principles of clear
communication, lack of aggression and finding bridges of inspiration in a way that we can progress
and work forwards.
We would like to say (which may be confusing) straight at the
beginning that we do support this scheme with condition. We support the scheme and the majority of
our correspondence does support something being done. The unanimous vote in all our gatherings and
the overwhelming majority of all correspondence is that something had to be done and that the World
Heritage Site objective - as my predecessor here said - the appropriate landscape setting for the
stones and immediately related ceremonial monument in the court should be restored. That is
absolutely and unambiguously supported. We are also not prepared to object to the point where
nothing is done. Therefore, we are not prepared to sit here and say, "No, the £400
million tunnel scheme should be done or nothing." That is counter to everything that we have
felt from our membership and the Druid community. It is much more important that something is done
to take away the mess that is the present situation. So we are not prepared to object to the point
of scuppering the plan.
Top of Page
However, I am going to go to concerns
straight away. In my submission, the first concern, 3.1 I put as the sanctity of the land. I am
going to go to that a little later. I am going to do the other concerns first, which include four
specific objections (trying to use your terminology and getting confused).
First of all, the route itself. We have left objections about
ecology, water, engineering, local environment, residents to other people who we feel are better
versed in this than we are. That does not mean that we support them across the board. We are aware
that there are problems here and we would like to make it clear that we acknowledge those problems
even if we do not feel it is our place - we do not have the time to go through and explore all
these from scratch. Having said that, there are concerns about all these areas and we know that
other people, particularly within the Stonehenge Alliance, are raising these issues - and the
National Trust.
There are a couple of issues that we would like to raise
and the first one is Longbarrow Crossroads. It will be profoundly affected. We are concerned about
the disruption during the process of construction. This does not only mean archaeologically: this
for us is also spiritually, magically in terms of energy, disruption to the spirits of the place
and to the serenity of the ancestors in this very powerful area. But not only through construction
but also in terms of increased presence: the roundabout will be an increased presence in terms of
noise, lighting and traffic, being an altogether bigger construction at the end. We would like to
say that we would support any move to take the road further from that important site, but not to
the point where the whole scheme is scuppered. So our support is conditional in that way. We would
like to make sure that something is done, but we would like to register our significant concern
about this area.
We would also like to register concern about the tunnel portals.
We may be wrong here, but as far as we can well the portals are fairly high up on the ridges, on
the hills on both sides where they come out. We do not see how there will be no light or noise from
these portals that just a couple more fractions of a kilometre would not take away that disruption,
taking it further down the hill, the other side of the ridge, particularly on the western
portal.
The other concern is in terms of the Avenue and, to some extent, I
would here just emphasise what I heard Mr. Maguire say earlier. The idea of the Avenue still
cutting through or the 303 still cutting through the Avenue does not, we feel, address the idea of
restoring the landscape. We are not just trying to make it a little bit better. The idea was to
restore the landscape to a powerfully respectful acknowledgement of the whole sacred landscape on
this important site. The 303 cutting through the Avenue does not do that. We acknowledge that there
will be no more damage to the Avenue than the 303 has done already, although we would like to see
that in proof - we would like to see if that is really possible, considering the amount of work
that needs to be done. However, we do not feel that it has gone far enough and we would like to see
something further happen to the Avenue. We acknowledge also that the Avenue is hardly visible at
that point, perhaps by air only, but that does not mean that we should not create something that
restores something that was before - going back to what was before that disruption of having the
A303 so large. To put an idea of something idealistic into the pot, the idea of the Avenue flowing
down and having a way of meeting the river again is something that a lot of Druids would love to
see: it would create something that is magical and is a precedent in probably worldwide
conservation of sacred sites, which we would support absolutely in any respect that we could.
One of our other concerns is the contractors' compound. We
acknowledge that there have been archaeological surveys of the entire site and we acknowledge that
in the contractors' compound the site 21 and site 22 will be protected. This was assured in the
response to our proof of evidence. However, there are two problems we have here. First of all, how
will the contractors' compound be dealt with afterwards? It is going to make a hell of a mess. And,
although this is outside the World Heritage Site, it is, according to how we feel, still in sacred
landscape. Just because it is outside the WHS does not mean that you can treat it like a
supermarket car park. We would like to have some reassurance about what will be happening to the
site, to that contractors' compound afterwards, especially because there is a strong sense of lines
of sacred barrows that come down in perfect lines through the field where the longbarrows are,
which spread all the way through the contractors' compound field. Because of those ley lines or
energy lines which are considered sacred pathways for the Druids, you are actually putting the
contractors' compound straight in the middle of that sacred pathway. We figure that there must be
more in there in terms of archaeology, so we would hope that the archaeological work which is done
beneath this mess will be thorough and transparent in terms of information flowing out from that. I
can imagine that finding something important there would cause disruption and long delays, which
nobody wants and we would, without trying to be suspicious, hope that that information would be
given out about that.
The other thing is our concern about our community, not about
you, concerns that disruption and protect could occur. We stand here as a representation of the
Druids, Pagans and, to some extent, the road protest community, wanting to make sure that there is
no need for protest. I am sure the Amesbury Residents Group and all kinds of folk can do a good
protest, but no-one can do it quite like Arthur Pendragon and all his connections. We do not want
that and we are here to register a concern that it might happen within our community and cause
chaos. Again, that would disrupt and possibly scupper the whole thing. We do not want that, so we
are here to make sure there is free flow of communication both ways.
Top of Page
This moves me on to what is perhaps our
most important concern: the sanctity of the land. Everything that I have said in terms of the
Avenue, the contractors' compound, the archaeology, heritage and everything I feel that other
people are putting forward, so to some extent I am making it clear that this is important for us,
but I am also clear that I am not the best person to talk about those things.
Where I do feel myself to be possibly the only one standing
up within the inquiry to speak is about the sanctity of the land and so this is my point of
emphasis. Your documentation - and I have never had quite so much paperwork on my desk before - I
hope you guys give thanks to the trees and use recycling as much as possible - the documentation is
profoundly and absolutely cover to cover a secular piece of work. Of course. I understand that. But
it does not help in terms of reassuring the spiritual community. One of the most important and
powerful words that is used - and I can find it mostly in Mr. Lawson's proof of evidence but
elsewhere - is that the area is termed a resource. This is both insensitive and offensive to a
great number of people within the spiritual community. We understand that it is jargon of your
business, your field of work, but to call it a resource gives the impression to the spiritual
community that it is there simply as a commercial enterprise for British tourism. Cultural heritage
is about tourism, it is not about honouring the sacred nature of this site. I would ask, please,
that the word "resource" is either removed or worked more gently so that it does not
incite offence. People get very upset, in the same way that perhaps the cathedrals of London or
Canterbury or Durham would be called a resource for English tourism. It is not for us a resource,
it is profoundly a temple and not a temple of our dead ancestors but a temple of a working, living
and growing spiritual community and a temple of a spiritual community or a spirituality that we
feel is an indigenous part of our culture, of our people, to the point that it is an intuitive, an
instinctive part of all we are as a British race, as a British people.
In the cultural heritage summary proof of evidence and in the
environmental statement the Highways Agency acknowledges the spiritual aspects of Stonehenge,
recognising its importance to different groups, and in the response to the Druid Network HA/DN/1
you have said, "The concerns of the Druid Network are fully recognised and respected",
which we acknowledge. But we do not feel reassured, we just acknowledge that you have acknowledged
where we are.
There is still no sense that Stonehenge is a temple to us: it is
our cathedral, if you like. Although we understand that you will look after it in all kinds of
ways, it is still a resource with money flowing through it for the Highways Agency and those
dealing with this project. We want to transfer that acknowledgement, your kind acknowledgement,
into concrete action.
Top of Page
Here I would move from the key concerns into
how this can be done, which is 3.5.1 in my summary and my proof of evidence. I have actually put
these in a way which perhaps is clearer into three different categories. First, communication;
second, ritual; third, human remains.
The first is communication, which is probably the
most important in terms of what we are doing here now. We are aware of the public community liaison
group, the PCLG, and Philip Shallcross, who is head of the British Druid Order, was attending on my
behalf and on behalf of the British Druid Order and Arthur Pendragon for the Council of British
Druid Orders and the Loyal Arthurian War Group. So you have got mainstream and the fringe groups of
Druidry coming together there in the PCLG. I did not attend those meetings. Perhaps Philip
Shallcrass and Arthur Pendragon should be here because they did, but they have asked me to be here
instead. However, we understand that not a great deal was done at these meetings. Some people may
feel that it was, but coming back through Philip Shallcross and Arthur Pendragon nothing seems to
have been clearly confirmed through these meetings. We also understand (although we may be wrong) -
I think it was Andy Taylor, your public liaison officer, who said that no other meetings are
planned - no meetings are planned for the future. We have not yet met Andy Taylor. She has
responded to my email requesting a meeting and we hope to meet her today or in the near future. I
do not know how long she has had the job and how well informed she is, so our information is wrong
that it comes from her. However, before I get to Andy Taylor and the public liaison group, in our
statement of evidence we talked about having a meeting which prepared a statement of intent. In
your response to us, you affirmed our suggestion that a meeting could be arranged between the
Highways Agency project team and the Druid Network and other relevant bodies to prepare a statement
of intent. That statement of intent we are asking for because it is a way in which we can settle
the concerns of the spiritual community. The statement is essentially about your acknowledgement of
the site as a living temple and the way in which the project carries out the development over the
next years with recognition of the site as a temple. We need two-way communication with regard to
this and what is agreed in the statement of intent needs to be binding. In other words, we are not
interested in pacifying, we are interested in action. We suggest the statement of intent includes
an acknowledgement of the sanctity of the land and the recognition of not only the stone circle but
the barrows as temples and shrines within the landscape. The intent also to communicate with the
public liaison officer, because I know sometimes these people do not have the information and are
not given fully the information, so that you will communicate with the public liaison officer and
the spiritual community through her and with her. There is an intent to inform us of process and
progress throughout the inquiry and the development of the site, an intent to allow an involvement
of the Druid and spiritual community, ensuring ritual can be made at appropriate, relevant times
and intent to inform us when archaeological finds are made and the intent to allow us involvement
at such times. And again, going back to our code of honour, our code of honour, which is about
transparency of honour and honesty, ensuring mutual respect between all parties involved. We are
aware of the public liaison officer, Andy Taylor, as I have said. We have just been introduced to
her in the last few days and we hope to have a meeting organised, but this must be a continuous,
active consultation and not just one meeting. I am aware that this may not be the place to talk
about that, but this is certainly the place to demand that it is done, because it is a part of our
condition of support and not objection. We are very keen to disseminate information throughout the
Druid Network, the Pagan Network and the Pagan communities, Paganisms and its communities around
the world and acknowledge that this can be done through Andy Taylor and her own web pages. However,
we again emphasise that we need a clear flow of information that is happening from here on so that
all information comes through to us. It will stop any possibility of antagonism and protest through
the process. We have come across the idea of the contracted environmental management plan and,
frankly, I am afraid, do not quite understand it. Perhaps you can clarify that. It seems to come up
at different points and never quite says what it is going to do: perhaps that is because we do not
have all the information, having not been able to get to Salisbury Library and read through the
pages. It would be wonderful if some of these things were on a website to allow a little more
transparency. However, we understand the CEMP, the Contractors Environmental Management Plan will
address what is done with archaeological finds, but we need more clarification on this. We are
seeking, again, dissemination of information in order to ensure support all round and creative
relationships. So communication. It is essentially important and with good communication we can
ensure - with the correspondence that comes into our office, we want to be able to say, "Don't
worry, this is OK. This is the fact. We have got this information from the horse's mouth. Forget
the rumours, forget the gossip. This is what is going on." Only in that way will we avoid any
possibility of Pendragon style protest.
Top of Page
Our second point is ritual. In our proof of
evidence, 3.5.3, we talk about rituals which allow the Druid and spiritual communities'
involvement. Involvement is a very important way of allowing the community to be comfortable with
what is happening. Most people in the community will believe us when we say, "Yes, it's all
right" or we say, "No, it's not." One of the ways we can allow the energy to flow
clearly and positively is if you give people the opportunity to come to the site and make ritual.
In your response you have said the HA team have said you would be willing to discuss these wishes
in the context of other considerations such as health and safety; believe me, Druids will be there
with hard hats if it is necessary, even on the open fields when there is not a machine for miles
around they will wear hard hats because you tell them to, if you allow them to be there. We are not
a proud people, but we are a strong people. Every opportunity to keep people off the construction
site we are sure will be used by the construction team, but if we can work it clearly so there are
times and there are places where Druids can be involved, making rituals in accordance with their
own spiritual needs, this will help the whole process along, magically, spiritually and in terms of
process around the world. But here we need concrete response from you, not theoretical acceptance,
not pacification.
The times that these rituals can be done clearly can be organised so that there is least danger and
complications around construction. We are not stupid, we just want interaction according to the
rights of our spirituality. Suggested times for rituals which will help the community support the
project are the turning of the first sod, the breaking of the ground right at the beginning. This
can be done before anything is there, right at the beginning, which can ease the spirits of the
ancestors. We would like a ritual around Longbarrow Crossroads where the disruption will be,
particularly on the contractor's compound and around the barrows, the Long Barrow and the barrows
that go up through that magical line. We would like ritual around The Avenue, particularly at the
Hele Stone, which is important. We are concerned about the disruption that will happen with the
removal of the A344 around the Hele Stone, and at times of archaeological finds, especially where
there are human remains (if there are) and, perhaps positively for all of us, at the end of the
work, where we would suggest a celebratory procession and a re-consecration of the land would be
great for you guys as well as a wonderful way of concluding and allowing the Druid community to
express their involvement positively with what has happened. How you guys look at it may be quite
different, but for us we are doing this for our children, for the next generation of Druids, even
though we will have ten years of disruption perhaps to our lives. This we do for our children and
we want to be a part of the celebration of that gift for our children, to have the site in a sacred
environment.
We would like to be able to advertise and write up stories of these rituals in the bardic
tradition, but we do not anticipate large numbers of people because the Druid community tends to
work on the basis of representation, not in the way that you might understand, through hierarchies,
but in a way through reputation and action. So if someone is saying this group of people, this
body, this order, this grove, these priests are doing right, there will be many people who are
there in spirit supporting it, making prayers and sending offerings rather than being there in
person. We are not looking at thousands of people, I doubt we are even looking at hundreds of
people, although at the beginning and end there may well be, through the Cor Gawr Gorsedd and other
groups which are physically based at Stonehenge. It may be just a handful of people, but numbers
are not important, it is the action and how many times I have e-mails from people saying "All
I need to know is that one of you is there, that there are priests there and involved. That makes
me happy, that will be alright." So no excuse, please, we want to be there and any arguments
that you say that we cannot be there for various rituals, we will sneak around and work out why you
say no, and we will turn up with hard hats and whatever you ask. That is in terms of ritual, we feel
that would be profoundly useful for the spiritual community, not only the Druid community but the
pagan community, the new age community and those who are concerned about the whole thing from the
travellers and road protest groups.
Top of Page
The third thing is human remains.
To some extent we are leaving objections about archaeology to those who are objecting specifically,
but we are keen to make it clear that any archaeological find that is made, we want information
about that running back through the process, through the public liaison, through the archaeological
organisations who are involved in taking responsibility. To some extent, human remains is the main
issue and it may be felt that our work here in terms of human remains is an excuse to talk about
human remains, which is a big political issue, and I do not want that to be felt because that is
not really the point. We are talking specifically about this project. In your response to our
objections, and it was given in the response to British Druid Order objection as well, you suggested
we get in touch with the human remains Working Group. However, the Human Remains Working Group -
which is not the Home Office as you state, it is the Department of Culture, Media and Sport - this
is really focusing on archaeological remains and human remains which are already in boxes in museum
basements and it does not address what is happening immediately with finds that come to the surface
here and now. If we can work out a way of interacting and communicating through the process of this
project, I think this will set a precedent which can be positive all round, for all of us - for you
in terms of how it makes you look through this process in dealing with the World Heritage Site and
as a world issue looking at archaeology, but also through the spiritual and pagan communities in
terms of how you deal with specifically pagan human remains. Within druidry, ancestors are not dead
and long-gone and forgotten, they are not lost in time, there is a sense of the ancestors being
with us all the time. They are not only in our genes and in our blood, but in the air we breathe.
They are a constant presence around and within us. This is not theoretical, it is a key part, a
core part, of our spirituality and our perspective of life, and when I talk about Stonehenge and the
landscape as being a temple, it is not just about the land, the skylarks and the waterways, it is
also about our ancestors and the presence of our ancestors. To some extent this is where the most
problem comes, people express their concerns about the shifting of mud, but really what they are
talking about is an emotional sense of a disrespect for ancestors, for the ancestry, and the
spiritual heritage of our land. I cannot really emphasise that enough, it is about respect, honour,
reverence for the ancestors. However, when we are looking at re-burial issues and archaeological
issues in terms of paganism and druidry, we are not looking at the Christian sense of what a
re- burial is, we are not looking for individual re-burial of one person with a headstone. This is
not what Pagan re-burial is about - mind you, neither are we looking at hanging up the dead so that
the crows can eat them, or putting skulls into walls like our ancestors would have done 2000 years
ago. It is about recognition of the Pagan dead in the 21st century context which makes sense,
acknowledging ancestry, acknowledging ancient spirituality, acknowledging the evolution of that
ancient spirituality and acknowledging what we can do about it right now, in a way which appeases
the sense of concern about disrespect.
We are not looking for mandatory re-burial, but we are looking for mandatory consultation. In
DN/2/1 which is really from the British Druid Order, Professors Kline and Wallace talking about
re-burial, they have been looking at that in archaeological circles for some rime. I have also been
talking to Professor Ronald Hutton who, to some extent, disagrees, but I have been talking to him
in a way that he supports what we are doing, which is about consultation, not mandatory re-burial.
In this way we make it clear that we do not want to stop archaeologists studying what is found,
that is very important, but what we do not want is the default process to be putting it in boxes
that are left in basements of museums. To some extent the Pagan community feels it is even worse to
have these bones on show, but to be left in boxes is not acceptable unless there is good proof that
this is necessary in terms of study.
The response to us was that the Highways Agency, by its contractor, would ensure that there is full
liaison between all relevant parties in the event of such circumstances arising, ie the unearthing
of human remains. We want to make it clear that the Druid community and representations of the
Druidal spiritual community are relevant parties in this and if we are looking at the politics of
archaeology, science, history and the money of the Highways Agency and the Government, then the
spiritual community I can imagine is not considered particularly relevant. I have to say that part
of our condition of support of this project is that the Druid community is a relevant party in
terms of what is found archaeologically, specifically in terms of human remains.
Our suggestion that a shrine is put up to the dead - your response was this is nothing to do with
us, it is to do with English Heritage, we are the Highways Agency and we are not going to put
anything on the Highways Agency in terms of a shrine for the dead or re-burial of the dead. We
acknowledge that absolutely, that is logical, we would not consider otherwise. However, what we do
not want is for that request to be passed on from pillar to post, pacifying until eventually
someone hopes we give up. We are not going to do that; again, it is part of what we want, this is
part of our condition of support that either group has a gathering of people who are involved in
this, we look at what can be done. If bones need to be kept and in fact artefacts that are found
need to be kept, then we are asking for a way in which the Druid and spiritual communities can
honour those bones in a box in a museum basement. It needs to be acknowledged on site where the
prayers and ritual can be made in some way.
Top of Page
I think that probably sums up in terms
of what I want to present, and I would go back to my concluding remarks in my proof of evidence.
The Druid Network supports the idea of returning Stonehenge and its environs to an open landscape
to better honour the temple and surrounding monuments. However, the proposal for improvements lacks
any acknowledgement of this ancient site's significance as a working temple for existing spiritual
and religious communities. As a result, it also lacks the sensitivity needed in terms of
communication with those communities. A major concern is the potential lack of respect given to our
ancestors and their physical remains. Without that there is potential for all kinds of problems,
and we would not be able to be
THE INSPECTOR: Thank you for that.
Mr Calvert, I do not think there was really any additional point in that, it was an elaboration and
a gloss on the papers that were already provided, but if you would like a few minutes to take
instructions on anything that was raised there, I am very willing to offer that opportunity.
MR CALVERT: Thank you for the offer, sir, but no.
THE INSPECTOR: Are there any questions in cross-examination?
MR CALVERT: Given the way the case has developed, and indeed your helpful
questions at the beginning, it may I think be more helpful if I now get Mr Jones on behalf of the
Highways Agency to try and deal with every one of those points that has been put. I have been doing
my best to make a note of them as they have been going through.
THE INSPECTOR: Yes.
MR CALVERT: Then I would offer him for cross-examination and, really, I would have
to see where we get to between us.
Top of Page
THE INSPECTOR: That is
fine. Are there any questions that you want to raise, Mr Cochrane?
MR COCHRANE: Yes, one or two.
Ms Emma Restall Orr
Questioned by MR COCHRANE
MR COCHRANE: I just wanted to clarify with
you - I am sure I am not the only person in this room who knows very little about the Druid
rituals, but first of all what do you mean by the temple when you look at the Stonehenge site? What
do you mean by the temple?
A. We talk about the temple and the sacred landscape and the shrines, and to some
extent these are words which are inter-related. The temple we see as the stone circle itself, but
it also includes the energy and the alignment, so it spreads out almost like a web, out from the
stone circle. We would consider the long barrows to be shrines, but understanding that it is a
modern term. We look at them as shrines to the dead, so the shrines and the temple connected create
the sacred landscape with the environment within which it is. Someone said to me the other day why
are you involved in Stonehenge, it is a crazy place with all kinds of problems over the years, and
it is, that is part of the reason we are involved on military land. It was obviously a temple which
was created by a military elite, it is an extraordinary history, but to some extent that is a
reflection of the land itself in our perspective, the energy is the land. So the temple includes
the land itself as well as the Stones, and the way that people have honoured the dead around the
landscape as well, so the shrines are the barrows, including The Avenue which is the avenue into
the temple itself through the landscape.
Q. I wonder if you could expand on that by
describing for my benefit or both Inspectors' benefit the type of access that you have at the
moment to Stonehenge and the type of access you would ideally like to see if the core area is freed
from traffic. How would that work?
A. At the moment we have access out of tourist hours to do ritual privately at the
site, in which case we can go into the site itself, into the Stones themselves, the temple circle.
We meet in the car park and go under the horrid little tunnel and process ourselves along the
pavement and over the barrier and aground. We have put up with it for very many years. What we
would love to see and what we anticipate - with all positivity and optimism - is a way that we can
access the temple along The Avenue, in a procession along The Avenue, which takes us past the Heel
Stone and into the temple in order to do rituals within the stone circle itself. But we would also
anticipate ritual at the barrows in a way that is not very often done - it is done occasionally, it
is done occasionally illegally at the moment, people skip over fences in order to leave offerings
for the dead - in a way that is open and free and accepted and acceptable for everyone involved.
Because of the more open access it is anticipated that many people will not feel the need to come
in before or after opening hours with special access grants, they will be able to come and leave
offerings and make ritual a lot more simply, for themselves, in their own way, instead of having to
be part of a group coming in at specific access times. This I think will make it a lot easier for
the whole Pagan and Druid community to work with the site, and it will make it a lot calmer. The
access and the interaction with the site will be calmer because people will be more autonomous and
less needing to go to specific organisations. But I think people will use the barrows as well in a
way that they do not do now.
Q. If this Scheme goes ahead and the
fences are removed, the road is removed and there is an open landscape with footpaths, would you
see the Druid and Pagan Network having access all the time or for certain ceremonies? Is there a
programme, a timetable of ceremonies? I know there are the obvious ones, but how do you see that
happening throughout the year?
A. I might add that I am not one who supports the 21st June extravaganza of 15,000
people. I do not attend that, I was part of the access committee and I left the access committee at
the point where I found I could not support that kind of access any more - although we do have
representation at the access committee, but we do not support that kind of festival.
I would assume that we would still be in communication with English Heritage and for private ritual
there would, we hope, still be the possibility of access out of hours where ritual could be done in
a way which was not disrupted by tourists or, indeed, disrupting to tourists. I would imagine, as I
said before, that many people would not need that and they would come in and do ritual quietly by
themselves in small groups, just as a part of the tourist flow, as if people come into a cathedral
and sit down and make prayers instead of having to be a part of the service.
Q. I was thinking more in terms of what you
said about a processional way along The Avenue, for example. How often would that be used?
A. What I would like to do is talk about it with English Heritage as to what is
appropriate. We found at Avebury we found we were attracting so many people, particularly at the
summer solstice, that it was causing problems, so we stopped going to Avebury at the summer
solstice in order to make it easier on both the site and the local community. So we are very clear
about interacting in a way which is mutually beneficial and mutually respectful. I would imagine
that through The Druid Network at least it would be nice to be able to do it at midsummer's dawn,
as we already do, and at midwinter solstice as we already do, which would be twice a year. Anything
beyond that would be by negotiation and making sure that everyone was happy. I am not sure how many
people will be involved afterwards, or if the numbers will go down or increase. I suspect that we
will just have to wait and see.
Q. Just one last question. Are these
services (if I can call them that) organised centrally or is it as anarchic as you said at the
beginning?
A. No, it is very much organised. For ceremonies like that there is a priesthood
which is organised and people come along, almost like a congregation, and they are part of a
ceremony that takes place. The ceremony is very simply an acknowledgement of sprits of place, the
spirits of the land, the water, the sky, the ancestors of the creatures of that place, of the
Stones. Then we look at the time of year, honouring the point in the year, the cycle of the moon or
the sun, very simply, sharing creativity in terms of stories and song, making prayers for the dead
and the dying before we close. The most important part is simply acknowledgement and reverence
expressed within that group for the spirits of place and the spirits of nature and the gods.
Q. Thank you, Mrs Orr.
THE INSPECTOR: Thank you very much.
Shall we move then to Mr Jones and the issues that you want to raise in addition to the
proofs?
MR CALVERT: Certainly, sir. I would anticipate that I would probably be half an
hour or more.
THE INSPECTOR: I was thinking that possibly we would get through the whole of the
business before lunch, but if that is the case then it would be sensible to have a break now, if
that is not going to be terribly inconvenient for anybody. It is just coming up to 12.58 and I
adjourn until two o'clock.
(Lunch adjournment).
Top of Page
THE
INSPECTOR: Ladies and gentlemen, it is 2 o'clock and the Inquiry is therefore resumed. Is
there anything of an administrative nature which anybody needs to raise before we proceed? If not,
Mr. Calvert, would you like to take Mr. Jones through - there are two response proofs, are there
not? I leave it to you.
MR. CALVERT: I was not going to take Mr. Jones through the proof, because we have
answered both those documents and you have the answers before you. What I was going to endeavour to
do was to take Mr. Jones through what Ms. Orr actually stated this morning so that there is a
meeting of minds between the Highways Agency and Ms. Orr, hopefully.
MR. CHRIS JONES, Called
Examined by MR. CALVERT
Q. Mr. Jones, as I understood it,
there were three main headings, one was the route itself, the second was ritual and the third was
human remains. Perhaps we could start with the route itself. Under those there were a number of
sub-headings and the first of which was Longbarrow Crossroads.
Ms. Orr had concerns about the process of construction: disruption to the spirit of place at the
crossroads and, in particular, increased presence in terms of lighting and traffic. She said that
she would support any move to take the crossroads further away, but not to the extent that the
scheme is - I think her words were - scuppered. Do you want to comment on any of that?
A. The first thing to say potentially is just to reinforce the process of liaison
that we would look to establish to make sure that we do not just have the one meeting that we are
talking about today, but it is the start of a process by which we would pass on information and
keep you fully informed about what is going on with the project between now and wherever it goes in
the future. As part of that, there is still work to be done at Longbarrow: we are still looking,
for instance, at whether the junction needs to be lit. At the moment, it is our judgment that on
safety grounds it ought to be lit: it would save lives if it was lit. That is a piece of work that
we are still studying further in discussion with Heritage. So we will have an answer for that in
due course. There is the planting, the landscape design that still has to be finalised. So there
are issues to be explored still which potentially determine whatever the final impact of the scheme
is at Longbarrow. What is proscribed at the moment is defined by the draft orders in terms of the
layout of the junction and what we would be able to achieve within the draft orders, so if the
scheme went ahead it would be constructed within the context of the draft orders. But, as part of
that process, what we can say is that we would keep you fully informed about what is going on and
about design refinements that might take place to mitigate the impact there.
Q. And the issue of whether the junction can be taken further away from the long
barrow and the other monuments and the effect upon the scheme of so doing - do you want to deal
with that?
A. It is within the context of the scheme as it stands at the moment, as it has
been published within the draft orders. The junction would have to be at the location proposed. So
the only way that it could move further away would be via a different scheme, potentially a long
tunnel. That would be a different proposal and we know what has happened with the idea of long
tunnels in the past: that means that the scheme potentially would be dropped in the future, it just
would not go ahead. So it would not satisfy your aspirations to achieve something rather than
nothing. The risk would be that if that particular option would be pursued then the potential is
for nothing to happen rather than for something to happen.
MR. CALVERT: Sir, I do not know how you wish to proceed - and I am totally open to
whatever you wish, but I can either pause at the end of each topic and allow Ms. Orr to ask any
questions she wants while all minds are thinking of the subject before moving on to the next one or
not.
THE INSPECTOR: Shall we do that, Ms. Orr?
MS. ORR: That is all right.
THE INSPECTOR: Thank you for the offer.
Mr Chris Jones
Cross-examined by MS. ORR
Q. Thank you. As you say, I am not willing to risk the 400 million just being
thrown in the bin, so to speak, and we do not get anything, which is why we are not pursuing that
option. But it was also my understanding that a longer tunnel would still disrupt the Longbarrow
Crossroads anyway because of the detouring of the 360, so even the long tunnel would not really be
an option.
A. A long tunnel could work in that the western portal of the long tunnel could be
broadened so it emerged on the west side of the A360. That would mean that the junction itself
would have to be taken further to the west, so the A360 itself would have to be diverted in a
westerly direction to join the new junction located further to the west, so it would still have an
impact on the local landscape there in terms of the roads sweeping westwards in order to avoid
interfering with the western portal position.
Q. In part, that is why we are not jumping at that idea: because it would cause
more disruption, particularly in a place where there were no roads anyway. Putting in new roads is
a crazy idea.
A. But the only way that could be achieved would be by abandoning the present
proposals and pursuing new proposals, new orders. The only way that that might be achieved is if
the Government were prepared to put up that sort of sum of money.
Q. If we were looking at the crossroads then in terms of the scheme itself, having
two roundabouts and then the flyover - I am not sure if I am using the right terminology - there is
a bridge and two roundabouts and the road underneath it, is there not?
A. Yes, the design as it stands takes the A303 down in a cutting; the existing
road stays at its existing level. The junction layout is revised. We are promised a meeting after
the inquiry today, so we can take you through all of the details and show you all of these things
on a plan so that you can understand. The main A303 would be buried and the A360 would carry on over
the top at the same level as it is today.
Q. Would there be any road closer to the barrows - any work at all that is closer
to the barrows at that crossroads in the new scheme?
A. No, the design is what is called a dumbbell design. The imagine that that
conjures is that there is a roundabout to the north of the A303 and another roundabout at the south
of the A303, so the one to the north of the A303 is obviously the one that would be closest to the
long barrow and round barrows in the north-west quadrant, but that new roundabout would be
physically further away than is the existing roundabout.
Top of Page
MS. ORR: That is what we
hoped. In terms of planting, is this another issue that we are going to do on to or can I raise it
here?
THE INSPECTOR: Please do.
MS. ORR: In terms of planting - taking out trees, obviously we will be losing
trees and then replanting. Is that something that you could do in a way which is in consultation
with the organisation of Druid groups so that they could be involved? Is that your area of
responsibility or is that someone else?
A. I can make that my area of responsibility and ensure that it happens.
Q. Thank you.
A. Yes, we would include that as part of the discussions and consultation. It
would also take part with English Heritage, of course, as well, so it would be a multi layered
consultation in that sense and what we would look to achieve would be the best solution to satisfy
all concerned.
Q. However romantic it is, there is a great connection between Druidry and trees
and it is a way of allowing the community, even the romantics within the community, to get involved
in that way. That would be a lovely way of planting or replanting trees.
A. There are landscape proposals there at the moment contained within the
environmental statement and proposals before the inquiry. We can show you those and discuss
whatever flexibilities there might be in them.
Mr Chris Jones
Examined by MR. CALVERT
and
Cross-examined by MS. ORR
MR CALVERT: The second issue that I noted
concerned tunnel portals. The concern is that the tunnel portals as proposed in the published
scheme are higher on the ridge - I think I quote correctly - and there is a worry as to why noise
and light would not disrupt the neighbourhood from the tunnel portals. Can you help with that?
A. Again, there might be a misunderstanding which we can clarify further outside
the inquiries with plans and drawings showing exactly how the proposals would look there.
Essentially, the portals would not be high up on the ridge lines: they are over and beyond the
ridge lines and then buried down low.
MS. ORR: That is what we hoped and we were shown otherwise, not by a reliable
source perhaps, so if you can show us that they would be down and they would be hidden, that would
be fine.
A. Completely out of sight from within the Stonehenge bowl and from the stones.
The road surface would be in a cutting about 14 metres or so deep. Then the tunnel itself would be
at a height of 7/8 metres or so, something like that, so you would have several metres of ground
over the top of the tunnel. That gives you an indication as to how low the road itself would be
and, indeed, the top of the portal would be in that position. So over and beyond the ridge lines
and out of sight.
MR. CALVERT: Would you be prepared to continue that discussion at the meeting
later this afternoon?
A. Yes, we can show you not just the plans but graphical imagery of it.
MS. ORR: Including the lighting, which is something that is concerning people:
that you will have a flood of lighting at the portals.
A. No, there will not be a flood of lighting at the portals.
The only lighting is within the tunnel. There will not be lighting outside the tunnel, so the light
effect would be confined to the area of the portal itself.
MR. CALVERT: Does the lighting in the tunnel vary at all?
A. The lighting in the tunnel - there is an intensity according to the time of day
and where you are in the tunnel to ease the transition from driving from the light or dark into the
tunnel itself and the coming out again at the other end, but as far as the overall effect that I
think that you are worried about that I believe is a misplaced concern and we will be able to
demonstrate and show you that.
Q. Just to make it clear, does that mean the lighting dims at night or brightens
at night?
A. It brightens at night and dims during the day. I will check the details and we
will show you downstairs.
THE INSPECTOR: My understanding was that it was the other way round on the basis
of, paradoxically, the light is greater during the day.
A. It is, yes. It is because of the light outside that you need a greater
intensity in the tunnel during the day in order to adjust between the circumstances. That is
right.
MR. CALVERT: Does that cover all the issues relating to the tunnel?
MS. ORR: Yes.
Top of Page
MR. CALVERT: The next
point was the Avenue. The scheme does not address restoring the landscape on this important site.
The A303 cutting through the Avenue does not do this. If I can just pause there for a moment. Is
there a cutting proposed through the Avenue?
A. No, there is no cutting.
MS. ORR: What I mean is the A303 still cuts the Avenue. The 344 is taken away and
stops that dissection of the Avenue, whereas the 303 still cuts the Avenue at the eastern
side.
MR. CALVERT: Could you just explain what the proposals are where the road crosses
the Avenue? Is it going to affect any archaeological feature, for instance, related to the
Avenue.
A. The new road would have no physical impact on the Avenue. It would be
marginally above the existing road there and so it would not have any additional effect over and
above that which the existing road has on the Avenue.
MS. ORR: What do you mean by "above"?
A. Above the level.
Q. Just higher in terms of levels?
A. Yes.
Q. Why would it be higher? It would mean pouring more and more concrete on
it.
A. It is just the gradient as it emerges from the tunnel and has to get to a
position where it rejoins the existing road. But, again, we can show you those elevations on plans
downstairs so that it is all clear.
MR. CALVERT: But would the archaeological feature of the Avenue be disturbed at
all?
A. No.
MS. ORR: No more than it is now?
A. No more than it is now.
Q. But it is not restoring what we could have.
A. That would be correct. The only way that you could restore the Avenue in the
sense of reuniting the Avenue would be to extend the tunnel and the tunnel would have to be
extended by several hundred metres in an easterly direction, so the road passed under the Avenue,
allowing the ground then to be reinstated on top of the tunnel, but, again, you are running into
potential issues about the deliverability and it is a different scheme, which would mean that the
existing scheme would not be going ahead.
Q. Are there issues other than the financial that made that scheme
undeliverable?
A. It is an alternative - actually, no, it is not an alternative that is before
the inquiry. There are issues associated with it that are raised by the National Trust, as you
know, and we will be dealing with issues that the Trust have raised in the context of extending the
tunnel by 600 metres at the eastern end to allow it to pass under the Avenue. That is in our
response to the National Trust and, again, that document is in the library now, so, again, we could
turn to that potentially and work through those issues so that you can understand those issues as
well
Q. To some extent here we are just emphasising our perspective of the sanctity of
the Avenue and we are leaving the National Trust to make that case, because we feel they would do
it better than us in this respect. But we would like to state that we would prefer it that way, but
we are not willing to object to the point of scuppering.
MR. CALVERT: The Druids would like to see the Avenue recreated down to the river.
Even if the scheme was extended in tunnel under the Avenue, would that enable the Avenue to be
recreated down to the river?
A. I guess you are aware of the other physical features that obstruct the
possibility of taking it down to the river. There are a number of other public highways, of course,
that it crosses south of the A303 and there are Grade I listed buildings and grounds constructed
over the top of the Avenue itself and much of the Avenue, of course, is in private land over those
sections in any event, so there are practical issues that probably make that last aspiration
impossible in today's terms at least.
MS. ORR: Impossible in today's terms, but we go step by step.
MR. CALVERT: Is one of those buildings also a listed building?
A. Yes.
Q. It might not be looked at only in today's terms.
A. Yes, there is a Grade I listed building.
THE INSPECTOR: Is there anything else on either side?
MS. ORR: I am happy to leave that to the National Trust to continue.
Top of Page
MR. CALVERT: There
were concerns expressed about the contractors' compound. Assurance was sought that they would be
protected and, in particular, information was required as to how they would be dealt with after the
works were completed, how the mess would be removed and an acknowledgement that the land would be
put back into the state that it started.
A. The short answer is, we will tidy up after ourselves. The monuments themselves
would be protected and there would be a full investigation and survey before the contractors'
compound is constructed, so that would all be assessed and dealt with in terms of whatever it is
that we might find there, but once the works have been completed the contractors' compound would be
taken away and the whole area restored again to what it is today.
Q. Is the land on the contractors' compound to be stripped or is it going to be
covered and protected?
A. Covered and protected.
Q. So would there be any question of exploratory archaeology?
A. Not in terms of digging holes in the ground and that sort of thing.
MS. ORR: So none of that area will be dug?
A. No.
Q. You will have an archaeological survey, but you will not dig it?
A. Correct.
Q. Or has the survey already been done?
A. The survey has already been done. It is just a question of whether there is
anything else that people might judge as necessary before the contractors' compound is there, but
in principle there is no disturbance of the ground: it is all protected.
MR. CALVERT: Could you just explain what "protected" means in this
sense?
A. Protected means essentially building on top of what is there at the moment, so
that the ground itself is left undisturbed and then we take things away and it is just
re-established as it is at the moment.
Q. We heard earlier with the haul route that some form of geotextile would be put
on the ground and then hardcore on top of that. How does that compare with what is intended for
the ----
A. It is constructed in a way that just lifts things above current levels so there
is no below ground disturbance and one is building above what is there and making sure that then
that would be taken away and reinstated afterwards.
MS. ORR: Will that be over the whole area?
A. Yes.
Q. I can imagine that - I was talking to David Batchelor and various people about
what you were talking about for the haul road, which seems fine, I can understand that, but for
this area surely there will be things of enormous weight sitting on that ground over a period of
time rather than just trucks coming to and fro.
A. No, the greater weight would be on the haul road. The contractors' compound is
just where people working - perhaps some storage facilities, but it essentially is where people are
working from.
Q. I was imagining storing of ----
A. There will be storage of materials and such like, but, again, it is all
designed in a way that means that loads are distributed and the ground itself below is
protected.
MR. CALVERT: When you say the whole area will be covered, is that in fact correct
or is there a scheduled monument within the proposed compound area?
A. Yes, except for fencing around those area of that particular scheduled monument
to ensure that monument is fenced off and not exposed to risk of any sort of damage.
Top of Page
Q. That completes that
particular subject. The next heading was disruption and protest.
MS. ORR: This really moves into the idea of communications and keeping
communication flowing.
MR. CALVERT: Free flow of communication is the point. Is that something of which
you would approve on behalf on behalf of the Highways Agency, Mr. Jones?
A. Absolutely, especially if it results in no disruption and protest at the end of
it. I started the discussion. We will ensure that there is full liaison and liaison in a meaningful
way so that we are passing on information which is understood and you are able to deal with that
information and pass it on yourself, so your groups know what is happening.
Q. What I think was required was not just assurances but something more than just
assurances. On whose behalf do you speak at this inquiry?
A. The Secretary of State for Transport.
MS. ORR: Can I say wonderful, great. Is that enough? Or should I say "Come
on"?
A. I think the point is that it is with a certain amount of authority, so when we
say that things will happen they will happen.
Q. There are three areas in terms of communication. First of all, the public
liaison officer, Andy, who I just met briefly and who I am going to see after this meeting as well,
Andy Taylor. The other one was in terms of the archaeology: actually having communication and being
within that free flow of information and on-going meetings about the archaeology. There is the
public liaison, which is the basic, the overall, and then the archaeology, which is the specific,
but also perhaps something to begin with which puts together a statement of intent with regard to
the sanctity of the land and the understanding of the land which can be passed back through my
networks to ease concern through the spiritual community. So those three are the areas that we are
looking at.
A. What we need by the sounds of it are appropriate fora for the different subject
matter so that there is appropriate expertise providing you with that information that you seek
both about general progress and what is going on with the scheme and the level of detail in terms
of archaeological exploration and issues to do with your own concerns about the way that the land
and Stonehenge itself is being treated. I suspect that we would want to co-join English Heritage
and probably the National Trust in those discussions as well, because you would not just want them
with the Highways Agency, you would want them with those bodies that have further responsibilities
for Stonehenge and the World Heritage Site generally.
Q. So in terms of practice, I am in touch with Andy Taylor. Now, where else would
I go and how else would those meetings be organised?
A. That is something that we can discuss just to make sure that we know what your
communications channels are meant to be as well as we provide you with whatever contact details are
appropriate for you to come into our organisation.
Q. Thank you.
Top of Page
MR. CALVERT: The next
heading that I had was sanctity of land. It was, I think, requested that the Highways Agency would
use rather more sensitive language, in particular the word "resource" was objected to.
Have I summarised correctly?
MS. ORR: You have indeed. I can understand that it is a jargon word and I do not
want to be pernickety about it but it is a little bit insensitive, yes. You can carry on using the
jargon that you use, but be aware that other people find that difficult, so we need an explanation
for the sensitive in this area.
A. We will try and be careful about where we use it, how we use it and what we use
it to describe to different audiences. The last thing we would wish to do is to create offence in
our use of it. It is totally unintended.
Q. It is the acknowledgement of it being a living temple, which we have not heard
and that is probably what people are looking for, that acknowledgement, as opposed to the Druid
community, which is striving and very much succeeding in finding its place in society and in the
establishment of British culture as it was and finding it again. To have that acknowledged, clearly
would be ----
A. Yes.
Q. And he avoids saying it still. Go on, say it! Do you acknowledge that
Stonehenge is a temple to the spiritual community?
A. I acknowledge that you - I am happy to, yes. It is something which is part of
the broad spectrum of interest and appreciations and values of Stonehenge from everyone.
MR. CALVERT: As part of the deposit documents, is there a document called "An
Historic Landscape Report", which has endeavoured to try and encapsulate these matters?
A. Yes, there is an historic landscape report within the environmental statement.
Again, we can show you that downstairs so that you are aware of it. There are also - and, again, we
have produced extracts from various documents that we can give you later - you have mentioned the
proof of evidence and the volume of information that is difficult to get through. It has been
difficult for me to get through, let alone everybody else reading all of this. There are various
places in those documents which do refer to your organisations and your concerns and our
acknowledgement of those concerns.
MS. ORR: We need to know where they are so that the average person who does not
have everything at their fingertips can be assured that there is acknowledgement. Thank you.
Top of Page
MR. CALVERT: The next heading
that I have got is positive action and the first point was communication: although the Druids are
aware of the Public Community Liaison Group it did not appear to have resolved anything in
its previous meetings and, what is more, no further meetings are planned; is that right or wrong or
what is the situation?
A. I think it is a correct summary of what was said to my memory as well. I
thought the criticism of the PCLG was a little unfair because much information has been passed via
PCLGs to exactly how the scheme has been developed and timescales, what surveys are being carried
out. All of that information has been provided by the PCLG, so maybe there is a problem with
further communication beyond that as well as to how things are then being disseminated outside the
PCLG, shall we say? The series of meetings of the PCLG have been temporarily suspended while we go
through the statutory process, but there is every intention to resurrect it once we have emerged
from the statutory process the other side and we know what is happening with the scheme. In the
meantime, with contact and liaison arrangements, we can keep people informed as best we are able to
as to what is going on.
MS. ORR: I feel reassured that the PCLG will continue, but also the public liaison
officer will be fine and an assurance that there will be other meetings, looking at the statement
of intent. I am happy with the communications.
MR. CALVERT: Will you look at the statement of
intent itself and the items in it? What was asked for was an agreed meeting to prepare a statement
of intent, a written document, that it should inform progress, ensuring that ritual can be made at
the site, inform about archaeological finds, if any, and follow the code of honour of the Druids.
Those are the notes I made.
A. Again, I am happy for such a meeting to take place so it can discuss some of
those points and hopefully put together some statement which would satisfy us both in terms of how
things would be taken forward so that everybody understands what it is that we are trying to do
together. Again, I would suggest that we include English Heritage and, potentially, the National
Trust within that arrangement as well.
MS. ORR: Very much so, yes.
MR. CALVERT: It was also asked that there be continuous consultation in relation
to this and not just one meeting.
A. Yes.
Q. The second main heading was ritual and
what was asked was an opportunity to come to the site to make ritual at times and places to be
discussed, but in particular the turning of the first sod around Longbarrow, around the Avenue,
particularly the Heel Stone, if any archaeological finds, particularly human remains, were
recovered and at the end of the works as a celebration.
A. Again, I see no difficulty with that in principle. We would obviously have to
discuss the details, but sod turning, for instance, and doing something at that time - it should be
possible to sort something out satisfactorily and likewise in other activities at other stages. I
see no reason why it should not be possible to sort things out.
Q. If I could just ask one more question to clarify that. Would that have to be
limited to the land that was actually acquired by the Highways Agency? If, for instance, a
celebration was wanted at the end of the scheme after the Highways Agency had completed the scheme,
would that have to be agreed by the National Trust as landowner if it was on their land or, indeed,
English Heritage if it was on their land?
A. That is obviously a function as to how many organisations are co-joined in this
process. The agency only has authority and power to do what it can on its own land, on the highway
land. But, for instance, after the scheme is built it should be possible to sort something out or
during the course of construction on our land - it should be possible to sort something out, but I
guess that, again, you would want to potentially consider what is happening within the World
Heritage Site generally and you would wish to have those discussions with Heritage and Trust as
well, so that collectively we see what is possible within the land within our overall ownership and
control.
Q. So you were speaking in relation to the land that the Highways Agency would own
during the course of construction.
A. In terms of our power to make sure that something happens, but I see no reason
why it should not be as a result of a co-operative partnership between all concerned.
MS. ORR: That would be important. We have good relations, I believe, with English
Heritage and we hope to establish those with the National Trust in this area as well. We can all
talk together and find something which is mutually beneficial.
MR. CALVERT: No doubt it might be conditional on your receiving an invitation to
the final party as well, Mr. Jones!
A. If there is a final party, yes.
MS. ORR: You would be welcome.
Top of Page
MR. CALVERT:
The third subject, human remains. The issue in relation to the human remains working group and,
obviously, the Home Office. The question really is how human remains would be dealt with and could
they please be dealt with with respect.
A. Certainly with respect. Exactly how they are dealt with, of course, depends on
who has what authority in order to approve of what is going on in different circumstances, but what
we can ensure at least is that there is due process and liaison with relevant parties, including
yourselves as a relevant party, so that people are kept informed about what happens in the event of
us discovering some human remains.
MS. ORR: Could you be clear about that line of authority? Who is in fact
responsible? Where does the authority lie?
A. We had understood it was via the Home Office in terms of licences as to exactly
what goes on in those circumstances and we had understood as well that the working party was under
the auspices of the Home Office: there is a website that is produced by the Society of Antiquaries,
but it sounds as if you may know more about that working party than we do at the moment. Whether it
is the Home Office or not, we can sort out who it is that is taking this matter forward in trying
to resolve how the process is going to work in the future. But, as we understand it at the moment
at least, it is a question of obtaining licences from the Home Office to deal with these
things.
Q. Are you prepared to work precedent here instead of just going along default
lines?
A. I think we can explore the potential of creating best practice, if you like.
That is another term. But, at the end of the day, we have to be governed by whatever regulations
are in place that oblige things to happen. What we can explore is what difficulties those
prescribed approaches cause. There is no reason why then discussions cannot take place with
authorities that need to perhaps review how regulations are working.
Q. Because we have experience here of human remains, being Pagan human remains,
being reburied in this area and we are keen to continue that practice within sensible
consultation.
A. Yes.
MR. CALVERT: The next subsidiary point to
that was the question of a possible shrine (if I have used the right word). It was accepted that
this was not really a question for the Highways Agency, but Ms. Orr did not want to be left in
limbo, as it were, with nobody actually addressing the issue. Are the relevant parties English
Heritage and National Trust in relation to the ownership of land again?
A. I think that would be the case.
Q. Are they both represented at this inquiry?
A. Yes, they are, sitting over there.
Q. If we make sure that everybody is joined in our discussions, that is just one
of the items on the agenda and it can be discussed with those people who have authority and ability
to be able to respond to it.
MS. ORR: That is really what we wanted to make sure here: that there was a net
that was connected, as opposed to just people passing the buck from place to place, thank you.
A. What I was trying to indicate is that they are listening at this very
moment.
MR. CALVERT: I believe I have now completed the list of points. Was there anything
else, Ms. Orr, that I have missed that you wanted to raise?
MS. ORR: No, I think that is fine.
MR. CALVERT: That is our evidence. On the regime you have set, I think it falls to
Ms. Orr to mark us as to how we have done.
THE INSPECTOR: Are there any questions you want to raise, Mr. Cochrane? No?
(The witness withdrew)
Top of Page
THE
INSPECTOR: If those are all the questions that you want to put to Mr. Jones, is there
anything else you want to say by way of summary of your case and can you, in particular, assist me
in whether I should regard you as objective or someone making representations in the light of what
you have heard today?
MS. ORR: Can I just take a moment?
THE INSPECTOR: Of course, yes.
MS. ORR: I think we would probably say that we would still stand as an
objector.
THE INSPECTOR: That is fine.
MS. ORR: But on the basis that a great deal of our concerns are actually being
dealt with by other organisations, like The National Trust looking at The Avenue, like the
Stonehenge Alliance dealing with various other bits and pieces. However, there is a reason why we
are not dealing with these, not only because we are deciding to let the better-versed talk about
those issues, but also because we do not want to be obstructive and it is important I think. I am
very happy with how questions have been answered, I feel that we have got more information to feed
back into our networks and any other questions we have I think will either be answered by other
people over the next coming weeks, or at meetings which I feel will now certainly take place. So I
think we are happy.
THE INSPECTOR: If your position changes in any way while this Inquiry is still
running - but please not after it has closed - feel free to put a letter in to make that
clear.
Is there anything else that you want to say in summary of your position, or are you content that we
understand it?
MR CALVERT: Might I indicate that on the list we had from the Programme Officer it
was asked that we have three witnesses present for cross-examination. It may be that we have now
covered all the subjects.
THE INSPECTOR: That is why I asked at the start whether there was any question on
the evidence-in-chief.
MS ORR: I do not think so. I had a list of questions to put to the different
departments, but actually almost all of it has been covered and what has not been covered I feel
will be covered by going through information with you outside the Inquiry and at meetings from here
on. Yes, I think everything has been covered.
THE INSPECTOR: Fine, thank you very much. Do you want to close on this one, Mr
Calvert?
MR CALVERT: No, sir.
THE INSPECTOR: Thank you very much indeed.
