CONGRATULATIONS to Loraine Knowles, Stonehenge project director at English Heritage (EH) for setting the record straight that car and coach will remain the most feasible mode of transport for most visitors to Stonehenge for a while to come.

However, EH aspirations for other travel modes do appear to be lacking substance.

At least a travel plan co-ordinator is to be appointed by EH to reduce private car use while promoting other sustainable methods of transport. Perhaps one of the roles of this co-ordinator would be to assist cyclists and pedestrians travelling up the Woodford Valley to cross the A36 at Stonehenge bottom.

Every day in the summer at Stonehenge bottom, one can observe cyclists and pedestrians struggle to run the gauntlet of traffic to cross the A36. At least at the moment there is hatching which provides an unprotected refuge half-way across.

However, the planning application submitted by EH indicates this hatching will be removed and no safe crossing point is to be provided at that point.

EH, in their planning application action, are restricting access by the very sustainable modes of transport it says a coordinator is there to support. While one applauds this flagship “green” model with designs which will have minimal impact on the environment with energy sustainability as high priority, the “green”

aspirations will be negated a lack of “green” transport mode routes.

More definitive support needs to be provided by EH to assist safe access to Stonehenge rather than supporting the status quo of only supporting coach and car travel to Stonehenge.

DR JIMMY WALKER, Chairman of COGS (Cycling Opportunities for Salisbury)

I REFER to Loraine Knowles’ letter of December 3 on behalf of English Heritage, itself responding to Margaret Willmot’s earlier letter.

Perhaps the current proposals are relatively green, but they are still detrimental to the World Heritage Site (WHS).

Yes, it's a good idea to move the visitor centre (VC) away from the stones. However, the whole of the WHS is of international importance, and the proposals do no service to the WHS as they stand.

The “Hub” for security staff could, and should, be even less visible than proposed. The VC itself should be demure and sit discreetly in the landscape.

The area at Airman’s Cross is now open and should retain that value. The VC could be more like a low, long barrow, with a green (sedum) roof, and should not be open to the weather on the south-west facing side.

The car park, as projected, is a blot on the landscape and needs much re-thinking. The coach park will have a detrimental effect wherever it is placed within the WHS.

If the VC really has to be located there, it must have absolutely minimal, the least possible, impact on the WHS. Therefore, I ask your readers to send their comments, or objections even, to Wiltshire County planning applicationS/09/1527 in order to seek reconsideration and improvement.

PETER WICKS, Acting Chairman, CPRE South Wiltshire Group