SJ article about TRO - click to view
BBC article regarding TRO - click to view
Stonehenge Traffic Regulation Order Inquiry
PRESS RELEASE: VICTORY FOR COMMON SENSE AT STONEHENGE
The
Public Enquiry Inspector Mr A. Boyland, has returned his recommendation
to Wiltshire Council after the Public Enquiry on the proposed TRO
affecting the BOAT's in the Stonehenge World Heritage Site.King Arthur's closing submission at the enquiry: http://www.wiltshire.gov.uk/stonehenge-king-arthur-pendragon-closing-submission.pdf extract:
"So now we come to the remedy where common sense may hopefully prevail; I invite the Inspector to recommend a modification to the order be made in that should the Stopping Up Order be placed on the lower section of the A344 the remaining section of the metalled road be restricted by a Traffic Regulatory Order as requested. A No right turn onto BY-Way 12 West bound on the A303 is sought from the Highways Agency and the By-ways Open to All Traffic be left as they are at present and as the name implies, BY-ways Open to All traffic."
Mr Boyland's report and recommendations: http://www.wiltshire.gov.uk/stonehenge-inquiry-recommendation-report.pdf
It appears that the Inspector has erred on the side of common sense and found himself in agreement with points made in King Arthur's closing submission, and has recommended that the proposed TRO be made with modification to the A344 ONLY, leaving the byways in the WHS still open to all traffic, as they have been.
KING ARTHUR PENDRAGON
TITULAR HEAD AND BATTLE CHIEFTAIN LOYAL ARTHURIAN WARBAND
www.warband.org.uk
TELEPHONE: 07840277812
EMAIL: k.pendragon@yahoo.co.uk
"So now we come to the remedy where common sense may hopefully prevail; I invite the Inspector to recommend a modification to the order be made in that should the Stopping Up Order be placed on the lower section of the A344 the remaining section of the metalled road be restricted by a Traffic Regulatory Order as requested. A No right turn onto BY-Way 12 West bound on the A303 is sought from the Highways Agency and the By-ways Open to All Traffic be left as they are at present and as the name implies, BY-ways Open to All traffic."
Mr Boyland's report and recommendations: http://www.wiltshire.gov.uk/stonehenge-inquiry-recommendation-report.pdf
It appears that the Inspector has erred on the side of common sense and found himself in agreement with points made in King Arthur's closing submission, and has recommended that the proposed TRO be made with modification to the A344 ONLY, leaving the byways in the WHS still open to all traffic, as they have been.
KING ARTHUR PENDRAGON
TITULAR HEAD AND BATTLE CHIEFTAIN LOYAL ARTHURIAN WARBAND
www.warband.org.uk
TELEPHONE: 07840277812
EMAIL: k.pendragon@yahoo.co.uk
CLOSING SUBMISSIONS - 4th October 2011
King Arthur Pendragon
I have presented my case to this inquiry and that of the Council of British Druid Orders in what I hope is a dignified and professional ( if somewhat impassioned at times) manner, and I hope to do likewise with my closing submissions.
I am not a civil or religious rights lawyer, trained in such matters as are learned counsel for the Authorities, but have presented my evidence, and that of the membership and general public that I represent as Advocate and thank the Inspector for this opportunity.
This Inquiry has heard from a number of Objectors on a number of differing issues. I will confine my closing submissions to what may be deemed ‘our’ objections, that is not too say, that we are not in agreement with the other objectors or the evidence that they have presented before this Inquiry, but merely that we would not wish here to unnecessarily burden the Inspector with repetition.
Our case as set out in our evidence relies on the European convention of Human Rights, and specifically to, Articles 9, 10,11, & 14, now co-opted into British Law as The Human Rights Act; We rely also on, Custom and Use in British law and on the fact that it is incumbent on the Authorities to protect such ‘rights’ or at the very least not to place unnecessary restrictions on the exercising of any such rights; which in my submission the introduction of the Traffic Regulatory Order sought here today would do; Therefore making it illegal to progress such an order (without modification) in its present form.
English Heritage and Wiltshire Council have throughout this Inquiry claimed the support from other agencies including Wiltshire Police and the National Trust. Neither of which attended this Inquiry although I understand that they were invited to do so.
You may take from that what you will, I believe that it shows ‘tacit support’ at best for their position, and at worst a reluctance to lay themselves open to public scrutiny of their position.
I would have liked answers to some of my concerns regarding the Safety aspect of introducing this proposed Traffic Regulatory Order from the Police.
And from National Trust the where-with-all should it be introduced to access their land by the general public but any assurances I may have sought on these matter were not forthcoming.
We have heard in evidence that it is the duty of the Promoting Authority to balance the use of ALL highway users, and in deed this is in the enabling legislation, and is in my submission, the very reason for this Inquiry. I therefore invite the Inspector to take the view that until that has occurred the rights and opinions of any third party such as English Heritage, whether in their capacity as a Government Agency or a neighbouring land owner are of little or no consequence.
Had this Inquiry of confined itself to the views of the Highway users alone it is my submission that any such balancing would have been heavily weighted against these proposals.
Much has been made of the fact that Other Agencies, a wide variety of Stakeholder, Public consultations, This report, that report, the over arching strategy etc, and we have heard in evidence the A303 referred too as ‘The Elephant in the room’ It is quite clear to me (as one of the respondents to many of these consultations) that the ‘goal posts’ have most definitely been moved over the years as modifications have been put in place.
It was the original plan (with little or no thought to the By-ways) to remove Traffic, the traffic in question being carried along the A303 corridor and the A344 that we The Council of British Druid Orders and in my submission many of the other agencies and groups consulted signed up to.
Not the proposals that are currently on the table, and most if not All the work done in securing our support and in my submission that of the other Agencies and certainly the wider public was done on the premise that the A303 be removed from the World Heritage Site.
It may be that some thought the loss of Amenity (the ability to use the by-ways for Vehicular access) was ‘a small price to pay’ given the greater gain to the Amenity of the World Heritage Site of the removal of the A303 and A344, but a far larger price to pay with the retention of the A303.
It may however be simply that little or no thought had been given to the possible loss of this (the By-ways Open to All Traffic’s) Amenity, Which did not surface until much later in the consultation process. Either way, it seems to me that the general public were and still are, largely unaware of the ramifications of this proposed Traffic Regulatory Order.
Were Moray to conduct a survey on the High Street of any of our major cities today I would be very surprised if many, or any surveyed were aware of these proceedings or that the right to pull over anywhere in the World Heritage Site, save for English Heritage’s car park (as and when they deem to open) was to be determined by the possible introduction of a Traffic Regulatory Order by Wiltshire Council.
Indeed I would be surprised if many had even heard of a TRO, let alone thought for one minute that such a minor thing could alter the way future generations view Stonehenge, as has been conceded to by English Heritage when giving evidence to this Inquiry.
Visitors to Stonehenge and the World Heritage site oft’ times turn up even now after how many years? And are surprised to find the current visitors centre and are often both shocked and amazed to find they are required to pay in order to view what they consider ‘Their’ Heritage.
Many choosing in stead to view the ‘Stones’ from the roadside. It is this ‘right’ that the introductions of the proposed TRO will extinguish.
A right (perceived or otherwise) we the Council of British Druid Orders claim. To be a ‘right’ that has in one way or another existed since ‘time in memorial’ a term used to denote time before legal memory, a time set by the statute of Westminster 1275 as 1189.
And in my submission
A ‘Right’ enshrined in British law
My reading of the relevant law is as follows;
CUSTOM
A rule of conduct, obligatory on those within its scope, established by long usage.
A valid custom must be of immemorial antiquity, certain and reasonable, obligatory, not repugnant to Statute law though it may derogate from common law.
General Customs are those of the whole country, for example’ the general custom of merchants.
Particular customs are the usage of particular trades
Local Customs are customs of certain parts of the country
USAGE
A uniformity of conduct of persons with regard to the same act or matter. A usage may harden into custom.
TIME IMMEMORIAL
Term used to denote a time before legal memory.
The Statute of Westminster 1275 fixed it at 1189
In my submission this is a right far greater than that of a provincial Council to wave away ‘at a stroke of a pen’ with such a minor order as is sought here today. As is the protection of my ‘Rights’ as contained in Articles 9,10,11, & 14, Human Rights Act. Formally a Treaty Obligation, now co-opted into British Law. Therefore in my submissions the Traffic Regulatory Order sought here today would be (were it implemented without modification) Illegal.
We have heard from English Heritage, how they propose to cater for the Solstice’s and Equinox, the proposal they put forward without consultation I might add, with us or any of the other Pagan or Druid Groups, Is ill-conceived, unrealistic, totally inadequate and unworkable as they would have realised had we been consulted, and will in my submission, create far more problems than it aims to solve.
They would have ‘us’ turn up punctually on the day and date given (arbitrarily set in stone) timing our arrival to coincide with their opening, with no thought to the prevailing traffic conditions on the various motorway networks and arterial routes throughout Britain and beyond, that we must use, as our members and congregation embark upon their pilgrimages from differing towns, villages, and cities, throughout Britain and increasingly in recent times the remainder of Europe, and arrive punctually as one, in an orderly fashion.
It is oft’ time said, by me at least, that organising Pagans is likened to “Herding cats” but with the best will in the world it is in my submission totally unrealistic to think that any group, (Pagan or otherwise) would find this achievable let alone in any way acceptable.
And what part of a three day festival do they fail to understand?
And then what?
The German Motorcyclist, and yes he does exist, as does the French motorist, and the Robin Reliant driver from the South coast, and the trucks from London, Glastonbury, and Derbyshire and the car drivers from Leeds Liverpool and Birmingham, and many more to numerous to mention from Amesbury to Aberdeen, Brighton to Belfast, Kent to Kentish Town, who attend Solstice and Equinox, they are all not only expected to arrive at the same time to coincide with the opening of the English Heritage car park but then to depart without rest bite or having communed with their colleges and make their return journey in an equally ordered fashion?
No longer ‘allowed’ to access the World Heritage site, to stop and talk, to share in a glass of communal mead, to converse with friends old and new. But in stead, forced to rush from their religious observances in order to ‘clear’ the EH car parks for the arrival of the ‘paying’ visitor.
We were told in evidence that Churches, Synagogues and Mosques have ‘opening times’ and I do not doubt it, but One Night and three hours, three times a year, Could one imagine making such an offer to members of other faiths, and their reaction to such an offer?
Furthermore, there is no reference what-so-ever in the evidence we have heard to any other times of the year, for our Spiritual and Religious observances and I am far from convinced that such crumbs as may be dropped from the masters table are in anyway a fulfilment of the legal obligation of a government agency to protect my rights.
It is my submission that the implementation of the proposed Traffic Regulatory Order sought here today will make it impossible for my rights and that of others under Articles 9, 10, 11, and 14 of the Human rights act to be protected.
Nor am I satisfied that this responsibility for some reason unbeknown and unexplained to me, should have been somehow passed on to English Heritage by Wiltshire Council.
We have heard from Wiltshire council, there justification for the implementation of the orders sought here today and again I am far from convinced. They would have us believe that the loss of Amenity is in the interests of improving the Amenity somewhat of an oxymoron I think, and I can see little or no gain in closing the By-ways to traffic, whilst leaving them open to Agricultural vehicles and failing to address the problems associated with the A303.
We have heard both from the Authority and their supporters how they are being very selective in their interpretation of the Management plan, and make no secret of it.
Reducing traffic in the WHS to them means its ok for Tractors but not recreational vehicle users, ok to move the same volume of traffic around the site and actually increase traffic within the World Heritage Site by the addition of their Vehicle Transit System, Which I personally find both offensive and intrusive.
When asked about what possible damage this might cause to the Amenity of the world Heritage site the County Archaeologist could not even guess as to the length or weight of this land train and again relied on English Heritage’s evidence, clearly showing that all studies and assessments and the responsibility for them had been undertaken by English Heritage whom it was agreed in cross examination where and remain an interested party.
We have as I have already stated here, heard a lot about Action plans and schemes. The original vision that I signed up on behalf of The Council of British Druid Orders (having attended innumerable meetings hosted by Mot McDonald and the Highways agency) seems to have been lost along the way.
Replaced with a watered down version, more akin to ‘Theme park Stonehenge’ No longer is the A303 trunk to be removed from The WHS and I submit that without that any partial solution is nothing more than window dressing, an exercise in being seen to do the right thing.
Never have I witnessed such a vivid demonstration of ‘the tail wagging the dog’ as I have done at these proceedings. English Heritage may be a Government agency but it is Wiltshire Council, whose logo ‘Where everybody matters’ who should be leading this charge and in stead, as these proceedings clearly demonstrated are being steadily pushed from behind. It would seem to me that some obviously matter more than others.
And never have I witnessed so much ‘Buck passing’ as I have in these proceedings. Wiltshire council and their counsel relying on bias interpretation of Data prepared to support English Heritages planning application, and English Heritage when questioned on safety issues arising from the interpretation of such data, offering the baton to the Highways Agency, who like so many other agencies where not at the Inquiry to be challenged.
We have heard, the same ‘trite’ answers over and over again how it is said to improved the Amenity of the World Heritage Site, to deny access to motor vehicle users and how much better it will be.
Better for whom I ask?
Not, better for the casual visitor to the World Heritage site who will be forced to park (at no doubt considerable expense) in English Heritages car park.
Not, better for the ‘out of hours visitor who simply will not be able to pull over anywhere within the World Heritage Site.
Not, better, for the recreational Vehicle user who will be excluded.
Not, better for the Pilgrim who would wish to witness Sun-rise and Sun-set in the Environs of Stonehenge (for which it was built).
Not, better for the Pagan or Druid who would wish to make his or her observances in the Environs of their Temple.
Not, better for the attendees of Solstice and Equinox who will be given a few crumbs from the Masters Table.
Not, better for the foreign tourist, who would be no longer able to break their journey to the West Country.
Not, better for the English who believe it is their Heritage.
No better simply for English heritage who believe it is theirs.
No The Order sought here today is in my submission are aimed fairly and squarely at the casual visitor, and we (my Order) have presented to this Inquiry a petition signed by over 800 of them gathered in less than one month who chose to ‘pull over’ on by-way 12.
That is;
Over 800 people who chose not to use English Heritages car park,
Over 800 people who chose not to avail themselves of English Heritage’s services,
Over 800 people who refused to pay to park
Over 800 people who refused to ‘Pay for view’
Over 800 potentially lost customers for EH,
Over 800 people should this order be implemented who will be left with No alternative but to pay to park, and pay to view
Over 800 people who would potentially risk life and limb to pull over on the verges of the A303 instead. But, that will not happen of course because we have been assured by the traffic modelling expert employed by English Heritage to promote this plan otherwise haven’t we? I for one am NOT convinced by any such assurances.
Let’s face it; All the objectors here at this inquiry are nothing more that collateral damage. As EH have stated in Evidence “There will be some losers, and I for one do not intend to be one of them. I will not yield my Human rights up to the great God of Revenue Protection and see NO reason why the recreational Motor vehicle user, and others should do either.
We have heard that the phrase “NOT VIABLE” with regard to English Heritage’s new visitors centre was used no less than seven times in the minutes of a meeting when deciding to adopt these Traffic Regulatory Orders. These measures are not aimed at The Pagan community nor the Recreational Motor Vehicle user quite simply because neither group, pay to park or pay to view. As I have stated, we are merely ‘the losers’ collateral damage.
English Heritage would have us believe that the light use of light motorcyclists will or possibly could do more damage than a heavy weight farm tractor that will not be excluded from using these By-ways, I may not be a civil engineer or an Archaeologist or in any way an expert in this field but really?
We have heard a lot of well rehearsed and trite answers, but we have not heard, from perhaps the only person in the room that could have provided sensible answers;
The only person in the room with first hand and hands on experience of running Stonehenge for English Heritage and all of the associated problems of a Three day Celebration, Peter Carsen Director of Stonehenge English Heritage.
When I requested he be called as a Hostile witness this was denied and I was forced to address my questions elsewhere and was directed to refrain from questioning the witness on matters out of their field of expertise. Denied also the right to question the other agencies NT, Wiltshire Police, The Highways Agency and offered in stead a plethora of Archaeologists, a traffic management specialist who was employed to promote English Heritage’s planning application for the proposed new visitor centre and an Officer of Wiltshire Council who continually referred the Inquiry to the evidence of English Heritage.
The effect on this proposed Traffic Regulatory Order would be to enforce a Curfew on the World Heritage site. The supporting witnesses have conceded that it will change the way Stonehenge is viewed for future generations and have used words and phases such as “Ordered parking” and “Improvement to Amenity” to justify such a change and drawn the analogy to The Tower of London, Salisbury Cathedral, Blenheim Palace and the Roman Baths. In my submission Stonehenge and its environs is so much more and that is why it has World Heritage Site status. A point that seem to have been totally lost on English Heritage when marketing Stonehenge but conveniently remembered when it comes to backing, nay requesting, a Total ban on parking save for in their new visitors centre on payment of a fee of course.
So now we come to the remedy where common sense may hopefully prevail;
I invite the Inspector to recommend a modification to the order be made in that should the Stopping Up Order be placed on the lower section of the A344 the remaining section of the metalled road be restricted by a Traffic Regulatory Order as requested.
A No right turn onto BY-Way 12 West bound on the A303 is sought from the Highways Agency and the By-ways Open to All Traffic be left as they are at present and as the name implies, BY-ways Open to All traffic.
And I reiterate what I said in my opening statement
“Should this Inquiry choose to recommend and or the Authorities try to implement said Order, we will mount a legal challenge based on the facts as we see them and contained in my and our Evidence.
We will be robust in any such challenge and will pursue every avenue open to us.
Whilst other Pagan and Druid groups may procrastinate and possibly demonstrate, we, (and My Order in particular) will leave no stone unturned in the pursuit of natural Justice. Nor will we shirk from our responsibilities to future generations who would be denied such freedoms as we hold so dear and that would be denied to them by the imposition of such an orders as is sought here today.”
It is noted that neither counsel for Promoting Authority or Their Supporting agency, Wiltshire Council and English Heritage have challenged our assertions under European or British Law (time in memorial) as to our Rights;
And in my submission,
It is these ‘Rights’ that both Authorities have a statutory duty to protect and have throughout the evidence given to this Inquiry failed to fulfil as would the implementation and application of this Order were it to be progressed without modification.
Any attempt by the Authorities to prevent us from exercising our Lawful rights as contained in Articles 9.10.11, and 14 of the convention, British law (custom and use) or common law, will result Not only in a Legal challenge but in a withdrawal and removal of our support for any of the agencies concerned.
It is my belief that in all probability, this in turn would have a knock on effect that would lead to our membership and the membership of other organisation, and individuals making where appropriate acts of civil disobedience, against any such Authority, and a return to the confrontational tactics employed by both Authority and Protestor alike in the late eighties, and early nineties.
We have fought hard for what little rights we have in and around Stonehenge and we will not give them up lightly.
We would consider the imposition of this Order not only a violation of our rights but a betrayal of trust and as such as said in my opening statement, The Battle lines are and in deed, had they not already have been, would most certainly be drawn”.
And I for my part am not styled Battlechieftain without good reason. We will not go quietly into the night. We shall rise up with one voice. And the Battle Cry shall be;
Freedom, Freedom, Freedom…..
I have presented my case to this inquiry and that of the Council of British Druid Orders in what I hope is a dignified and professional ( if somewhat impassioned at times) manner, and I hope to do likewise with my closing submissions.
I am not a civil or religious rights lawyer, trained in such matters as are learned counsel for the Authorities, but have presented my evidence, and that of the membership and general public that I represent as Advocate and thank the Inspector for this opportunity.
This Inquiry has heard from a number of Objectors on a number of differing issues. I will confine my closing submissions to what may be deemed ‘our’ objections, that is not too say, that we are not in agreement with the other objectors or the evidence that they have presented before this Inquiry, but merely that we would not wish here to unnecessarily burden the Inspector with repetition.
Our case as set out in our evidence relies on the European convention of Human Rights, and specifically to, Articles 9, 10,11, & 14, now co-opted into British Law as The Human Rights Act; We rely also on, Custom and Use in British law and on the fact that it is incumbent on the Authorities to protect such ‘rights’ or at the very least not to place unnecessary restrictions on the exercising of any such rights; which in my submission the introduction of the Traffic Regulatory Order sought here today would do; Therefore making it illegal to progress such an order (without modification) in its present form.
English Heritage and Wiltshire Council have throughout this Inquiry claimed the support from other agencies including Wiltshire Police and the National Trust. Neither of which attended this Inquiry although I understand that they were invited to do so.
You may take from that what you will, I believe that it shows ‘tacit support’ at best for their position, and at worst a reluctance to lay themselves open to public scrutiny of their position.
I would have liked answers to some of my concerns regarding the Safety aspect of introducing this proposed Traffic Regulatory Order from the Police.
And from National Trust the where-with-all should it be introduced to access their land by the general public but any assurances I may have sought on these matter were not forthcoming.
We have heard in evidence that it is the duty of the Promoting Authority to balance the use of ALL highway users, and in deed this is in the enabling legislation, and is in my submission, the very reason for this Inquiry. I therefore invite the Inspector to take the view that until that has occurred the rights and opinions of any third party such as English Heritage, whether in their capacity as a Government Agency or a neighbouring land owner are of little or no consequence.
Had this Inquiry of confined itself to the views of the Highway users alone it is my submission that any such balancing would have been heavily weighted against these proposals.
Much has been made of the fact that Other Agencies, a wide variety of Stakeholder, Public consultations, This report, that report, the over arching strategy etc, and we have heard in evidence the A303 referred too as ‘The Elephant in the room’ It is quite clear to me (as one of the respondents to many of these consultations) that the ‘goal posts’ have most definitely been moved over the years as modifications have been put in place.
It was the original plan (with little or no thought to the By-ways) to remove Traffic, the traffic in question being carried along the A303 corridor and the A344 that we The Council of British Druid Orders and in my submission many of the other agencies and groups consulted signed up to.
Not the proposals that are currently on the table, and most if not All the work done in securing our support and in my submission that of the other Agencies and certainly the wider public was done on the premise that the A303 be removed from the World Heritage Site.
It may be that some thought the loss of Amenity (the ability to use the by-ways for Vehicular access) was ‘a small price to pay’ given the greater gain to the Amenity of the World Heritage Site of the removal of the A303 and A344, but a far larger price to pay with the retention of the A303.
It may however be simply that little or no thought had been given to the possible loss of this (the By-ways Open to All Traffic’s) Amenity, Which did not surface until much later in the consultation process. Either way, it seems to me that the general public were and still are, largely unaware of the ramifications of this proposed Traffic Regulatory Order.
Were Moray to conduct a survey on the High Street of any of our major cities today I would be very surprised if many, or any surveyed were aware of these proceedings or that the right to pull over anywhere in the World Heritage Site, save for English Heritage’s car park (as and when they deem to open) was to be determined by the possible introduction of a Traffic Regulatory Order by Wiltshire Council.
Indeed I would be surprised if many had even heard of a TRO, let alone thought for one minute that such a minor thing could alter the way future generations view Stonehenge, as has been conceded to by English Heritage when giving evidence to this Inquiry.
Visitors to Stonehenge and the World Heritage site oft’ times turn up even now after how many years? And are surprised to find the current visitors centre and are often both shocked and amazed to find they are required to pay in order to view what they consider ‘Their’ Heritage.
Many choosing in stead to view the ‘Stones’ from the roadside. It is this ‘right’ that the introductions of the proposed TRO will extinguish.
A right (perceived or otherwise) we the Council of British Druid Orders claim. To be a ‘right’ that has in one way or another existed since ‘time in memorial’ a term used to denote time before legal memory, a time set by the statute of Westminster 1275 as 1189.
And in my submission
A ‘Right’ enshrined in British law
My reading of the relevant law is as follows;
CUSTOM
A rule of conduct, obligatory on those within its scope, established by long usage.
A valid custom must be of immemorial antiquity, certain and reasonable, obligatory, not repugnant to Statute law though it may derogate from common law.
General Customs are those of the whole country, for example’ the general custom of merchants.
Particular customs are the usage of particular trades
Local Customs are customs of certain parts of the country
USAGE
A uniformity of conduct of persons with regard to the same act or matter. A usage may harden into custom.
TIME IMMEMORIAL
Term used to denote a time before legal memory.
The Statute of Westminster 1275 fixed it at 1189
In my submission this is a right far greater than that of a provincial Council to wave away ‘at a stroke of a pen’ with such a minor order as is sought here today. As is the protection of my ‘Rights’ as contained in Articles 9,10,11, & 14, Human Rights Act. Formally a Treaty Obligation, now co-opted into British Law. Therefore in my submissions the Traffic Regulatory Order sought here today would be (were it implemented without modification) Illegal.
We have heard from English Heritage, how they propose to cater for the Solstice’s and Equinox, the proposal they put forward without consultation I might add, with us or any of the other Pagan or Druid Groups, Is ill-conceived, unrealistic, totally inadequate and unworkable as they would have realised had we been consulted, and will in my submission, create far more problems than it aims to solve.
They would have ‘us’ turn up punctually on the day and date given (arbitrarily set in stone) timing our arrival to coincide with their opening, with no thought to the prevailing traffic conditions on the various motorway networks and arterial routes throughout Britain and beyond, that we must use, as our members and congregation embark upon their pilgrimages from differing towns, villages, and cities, throughout Britain and increasingly in recent times the remainder of Europe, and arrive punctually as one, in an orderly fashion.
It is oft’ time said, by me at least, that organising Pagans is likened to “Herding cats” but with the best will in the world it is in my submission totally unrealistic to think that any group, (Pagan or otherwise) would find this achievable let alone in any way acceptable.
And what part of a three day festival do they fail to understand?
And then what?
The German Motorcyclist, and yes he does exist, as does the French motorist, and the Robin Reliant driver from the South coast, and the trucks from London, Glastonbury, and Derbyshire and the car drivers from Leeds Liverpool and Birmingham, and many more to numerous to mention from Amesbury to Aberdeen, Brighton to Belfast, Kent to Kentish Town, who attend Solstice and Equinox, they are all not only expected to arrive at the same time to coincide with the opening of the English Heritage car park but then to depart without rest bite or having communed with their colleges and make their return journey in an equally ordered fashion?
No longer ‘allowed’ to access the World Heritage site, to stop and talk, to share in a glass of communal mead, to converse with friends old and new. But in stead, forced to rush from their religious observances in order to ‘clear’ the EH car parks for the arrival of the ‘paying’ visitor.
We were told in evidence that Churches, Synagogues and Mosques have ‘opening times’ and I do not doubt it, but One Night and three hours, three times a year, Could one imagine making such an offer to members of other faiths, and their reaction to such an offer?
Furthermore, there is no reference what-so-ever in the evidence we have heard to any other times of the year, for our Spiritual and Religious observances and I am far from convinced that such crumbs as may be dropped from the masters table are in anyway a fulfilment of the legal obligation of a government agency to protect my rights.
It is my submission that the implementation of the proposed Traffic Regulatory Order sought here today will make it impossible for my rights and that of others under Articles 9, 10, 11, and 14 of the Human rights act to be protected.
Nor am I satisfied that this responsibility for some reason unbeknown and unexplained to me, should have been somehow passed on to English Heritage by Wiltshire Council.
We have heard from Wiltshire council, there justification for the implementation of the orders sought here today and again I am far from convinced. They would have us believe that the loss of Amenity is in the interests of improving the Amenity somewhat of an oxymoron I think, and I can see little or no gain in closing the By-ways to traffic, whilst leaving them open to Agricultural vehicles and failing to address the problems associated with the A303.
We have heard both from the Authority and their supporters how they are being very selective in their interpretation of the Management plan, and make no secret of it.
Reducing traffic in the WHS to them means its ok for Tractors but not recreational vehicle users, ok to move the same volume of traffic around the site and actually increase traffic within the World Heritage Site by the addition of their Vehicle Transit System, Which I personally find both offensive and intrusive.
When asked about what possible damage this might cause to the Amenity of the world Heritage site the County Archaeologist could not even guess as to the length or weight of this land train and again relied on English Heritage’s evidence, clearly showing that all studies and assessments and the responsibility for them had been undertaken by English Heritage whom it was agreed in cross examination where and remain an interested party.
We have as I have already stated here, heard a lot about Action plans and schemes. The original vision that I signed up on behalf of The Council of British Druid Orders (having attended innumerable meetings hosted by Mot McDonald and the Highways agency) seems to have been lost along the way.
Replaced with a watered down version, more akin to ‘Theme park Stonehenge’ No longer is the A303 trunk to be removed from The WHS and I submit that without that any partial solution is nothing more than window dressing, an exercise in being seen to do the right thing.
Never have I witnessed such a vivid demonstration of ‘the tail wagging the dog’ as I have done at these proceedings. English Heritage may be a Government agency but it is Wiltshire Council, whose logo ‘Where everybody matters’ who should be leading this charge and in stead, as these proceedings clearly demonstrated are being steadily pushed from behind. It would seem to me that some obviously matter more than others.
And never have I witnessed so much ‘Buck passing’ as I have in these proceedings. Wiltshire council and their counsel relying on bias interpretation of Data prepared to support English Heritages planning application, and English Heritage when questioned on safety issues arising from the interpretation of such data, offering the baton to the Highways Agency, who like so many other agencies where not at the Inquiry to be challenged.
We have heard, the same ‘trite’ answers over and over again how it is said to improved the Amenity of the World Heritage Site, to deny access to motor vehicle users and how much better it will be.
Better for whom I ask?
Not, better for the casual visitor to the World Heritage site who will be forced to park (at no doubt considerable expense) in English Heritages car park.
Not, better for the ‘out of hours visitor who simply will not be able to pull over anywhere within the World Heritage Site.
Not, better, for the recreational Vehicle user who will be excluded.
Not, better for the Pilgrim who would wish to witness Sun-rise and Sun-set in the Environs of Stonehenge (for which it was built).
Not, better for the Pagan or Druid who would wish to make his or her observances in the Environs of their Temple.
Not, better for the attendees of Solstice and Equinox who will be given a few crumbs from the Masters Table.
Not, better for the foreign tourist, who would be no longer able to break their journey to the West Country.
Not, better for the English who believe it is their Heritage.
No better simply for English heritage who believe it is theirs.
No The Order sought here today is in my submission are aimed fairly and squarely at the casual visitor, and we (my Order) have presented to this Inquiry a petition signed by over 800 of them gathered in less than one month who chose to ‘pull over’ on by-way 12.
That is;
Over 800 people who chose not to use English Heritages car park,
Over 800 people who chose not to avail themselves of English Heritage’s services,
Over 800 people who refused to pay to park
Over 800 people who refused to ‘Pay for view’
Over 800 potentially lost customers for EH,
Over 800 people should this order be implemented who will be left with No alternative but to pay to park, and pay to view
Over 800 people who would potentially risk life and limb to pull over on the verges of the A303 instead. But, that will not happen of course because we have been assured by the traffic modelling expert employed by English Heritage to promote this plan otherwise haven’t we? I for one am NOT convinced by any such assurances.
Let’s face it; All the objectors here at this inquiry are nothing more that collateral damage. As EH have stated in Evidence “There will be some losers, and I for one do not intend to be one of them. I will not yield my Human rights up to the great God of Revenue Protection and see NO reason why the recreational Motor vehicle user, and others should do either.
We have heard that the phrase “NOT VIABLE” with regard to English Heritage’s new visitors centre was used no less than seven times in the minutes of a meeting when deciding to adopt these Traffic Regulatory Orders. These measures are not aimed at The Pagan community nor the Recreational Motor Vehicle user quite simply because neither group, pay to park or pay to view. As I have stated, we are merely ‘the losers’ collateral damage.
English Heritage would have us believe that the light use of light motorcyclists will or possibly could do more damage than a heavy weight farm tractor that will not be excluded from using these By-ways, I may not be a civil engineer or an Archaeologist or in any way an expert in this field but really?
We have heard a lot of well rehearsed and trite answers, but we have not heard, from perhaps the only person in the room that could have provided sensible answers;
The only person in the room with first hand and hands on experience of running Stonehenge for English Heritage and all of the associated problems of a Three day Celebration, Peter Carsen Director of Stonehenge English Heritage.
When I requested he be called as a Hostile witness this was denied and I was forced to address my questions elsewhere and was directed to refrain from questioning the witness on matters out of their field of expertise. Denied also the right to question the other agencies NT, Wiltshire Police, The Highways Agency and offered in stead a plethora of Archaeologists, a traffic management specialist who was employed to promote English Heritage’s planning application for the proposed new visitor centre and an Officer of Wiltshire Council who continually referred the Inquiry to the evidence of English Heritage.
The effect on this proposed Traffic Regulatory Order would be to enforce a Curfew on the World Heritage site. The supporting witnesses have conceded that it will change the way Stonehenge is viewed for future generations and have used words and phases such as “Ordered parking” and “Improvement to Amenity” to justify such a change and drawn the analogy to The Tower of London, Salisbury Cathedral, Blenheim Palace and the Roman Baths. In my submission Stonehenge and its environs is so much more and that is why it has World Heritage Site status. A point that seem to have been totally lost on English Heritage when marketing Stonehenge but conveniently remembered when it comes to backing, nay requesting, a Total ban on parking save for in their new visitors centre on payment of a fee of course.
So now we come to the remedy where common sense may hopefully prevail;
I invite the Inspector to recommend a modification to the order be made in that should the Stopping Up Order be placed on the lower section of the A344 the remaining section of the metalled road be restricted by a Traffic Regulatory Order as requested.
A No right turn onto BY-Way 12 West bound on the A303 is sought from the Highways Agency and the By-ways Open to All Traffic be left as they are at present and as the name implies, BY-ways Open to All traffic.
And I reiterate what I said in my opening statement
“Should this Inquiry choose to recommend and or the Authorities try to implement said Order, we will mount a legal challenge based on the facts as we see them and contained in my and our Evidence.
We will be robust in any such challenge and will pursue every avenue open to us.
Whilst other Pagan and Druid groups may procrastinate and possibly demonstrate, we, (and My Order in particular) will leave no stone unturned in the pursuit of natural Justice. Nor will we shirk from our responsibilities to future generations who would be denied such freedoms as we hold so dear and that would be denied to them by the imposition of such an orders as is sought here today.”
It is noted that neither counsel for Promoting Authority or Their Supporting agency, Wiltshire Council and English Heritage have challenged our assertions under European or British Law (time in memorial) as to our Rights;
And in my submission,
It is these ‘Rights’ that both Authorities have a statutory duty to protect and have throughout the evidence given to this Inquiry failed to fulfil as would the implementation and application of this Order were it to be progressed without modification.
Any attempt by the Authorities to prevent us from exercising our Lawful rights as contained in Articles 9.10.11, and 14 of the convention, British law (custom and use) or common law, will result Not only in a Legal challenge but in a withdrawal and removal of our support for any of the agencies concerned.
It is my belief that in all probability, this in turn would have a knock on effect that would lead to our membership and the membership of other organisation, and individuals making where appropriate acts of civil disobedience, against any such Authority, and a return to the confrontational tactics employed by both Authority and Protestor alike in the late eighties, and early nineties.
We have fought hard for what little rights we have in and around Stonehenge and we will not give them up lightly.
We would consider the imposition of this Order not only a violation of our rights but a betrayal of trust and as such as said in my opening statement, The Battle lines are and in deed, had they not already have been, would most certainly be drawn”.
And I for my part am not styled Battlechieftain without good reason. We will not go quietly into the night. We shall rise up with one voice. And the Battle Cry shall be;
Freedom, Freedom, Freedom…..
My bardic performance delivered to the Public Inquiry today - 28th September 2011
Arthur Pendragon, Senior Druid, attending this Inquiry in his capacity as Battlechieftain of The Council of British Druid Orders.
Opening address to the public Inquiry
“I wish to make it clear from the outset
It is our contention that the imposition of the proposed Traffic Regulatory Orders in and around the vicinity of Stonehenge are illegal, for the reasons I shall give shortly when reading from a prepared statement.
Should this Inquiry choose to recommend and or the Authorities try to implement said Orders, we will mount a legal challenge based on the facts as we see them and contained in my statement.
We will be robust in any such challenge and will pursue every avenue open to us.
Whilst other Pagan and Druid groups may procrastinate and possibly demonstrate, we, and my Order in particular will leave no stone unturned in the pursuit of natural Justice. Nor will we shirk from our responsibilities to future generations who would be denied such freedoms as we hold so dear and that would be denied to them by the imposition of such orders as are sought here today.
In short, Gentlemen/Ladies, the Battle-lines are drawn!”
A LITTLE LEGAL BACKGROUND
I challenged the ‘so called’ Exclusion Zone in and around Stonehenge over a fourteen year period between 1986 and 2000.
This involved:
Several criminal charges being brought against me and No convictions.
I brought and won a case against Wiltshire Constabulary for wrongful arrest and unlawful imprisonment.
I lost a Judicial Review against Wiltshire Constabulary, English Heritage, Salisbury District Council and the Home Secretary.
And took a case against H.M.Goverment to the European Court of Human Rights.
But as they say the Devil is in the detail, so let’s get to it and set out our case as to why any such imposition would be illegal…..
KING ARTHUR PENDRAGON
BATTLECHIEFTAIN
COUNCIL OF BRITISH DRUID ORDERS
OPPOSITION TO Traffic Regulatory Order’s
HUMAN RIGHTS
SOLSTICE AND EQUINOX
(1) The Solstice and Equinox are a Three day celebration, occurring at and around the Longest-Shortest and Equal days of the year. Widely held by the Druid and Pagan community to mark what is generally believed in our communities, as the turning of the wheel, the natural progression of the seasons.
(2) The Council of British Druid Orders complains that the imposition of a TRO on By-way12 (The Neveravon coach road Amesbury) would violate our rights under article 9, 10 and 11 of the Convention,
(3) In that we would be prevented from being present and/or carrying out a Druid ceremony at Stonehenge at the sunrises for Equinox’s and Solstice’s.
(4) We complain that the imposition of a Traffic Regulatory Order would fail to protect our rights sufficiently under Articles 9, 10, and 11 of the Convention.
(5) A Further violation of Article 14 of the Convention would occur because by prohibiting all people from celebrating at Stonehenge , Druids and Pagans would be disproportionately discriminated against, since the Solstices and Equinox’s have particular significance for our beliefs.
(6) These points were ‘held’ by the European Court of Human Rights when the ‘so called’ Exclusion Zone in and around Stonehenge was challenged by Arthur Pendragon in November 1998 when The European court ruled that any Exclusion was only permitted in a free and democratic society if it could be shown to be in the interests of National Security.
Which this proposed TRO application clearly is not.
OTHER TIMES OF THE YEAR
(7) The same considerations should be given to other times of the year when Druids and Pagans wish to Worship at Stonehenge , such as Full and New Moons and rare Astronomical events, such as Eclipse. Other Pagan Festivals include the cross quarter days, known as the Fire Festivals Imbolc, Beltaine, Lughnasadh, and Samhain. Or (May Day, Lammas, Candle mass and Halloween as they are known to the Christian Calendar)
CIVIL RIGHTS
(8) The imposition of a TRO on the Droves in question would not only be disproportionate to the Druid and Pagan community who use them as a ‘pull in’ for Worship but also to the ‘Tourist’ who does likewise and the many other groups who use the Droves for recreational reasons.
(10) It would give, (coupled with the proposed new visitors centre and car park) English Heritage an unfair Monopoly on Stonehenge and the surrounding Landscape.
HEALTH AND SAFETY
(11) It is our belief that any such imposition of Traffic Regulatory Orders on the by-ways surrounding Stonehenge will inevitably result in an increase in traffic ‘Pulling over’ on the verges of the A303, and an increase in pedestrian traffic passing and re-passing across what is a major arterial route. Constituting a very real risk to the Health and Safety of pedestrians and motor vehicle passengers and drivers alike.
CONCLUSION
(12) We, The Council of British Druid Orders, and our entire membership of Orders and associates are therefore against any such imposition
King Arthur Pendragon,
Battlechieftain, Council of British Druid Orders.
Appendix
HUMAN RIGHTS ACT
Article 9
Freedom of thought, conscience and religion
1 Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief, in worship, teaching, practice and observance.
2 Freedom to manifest one’s religion or beliefs shall be subject only to such limitations as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society in the interests of public safety, for the protection of public order, health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.
Article 10
Freedom of expression
1 Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers. This Article shall not prevent States from requiring the licensing of broadcasting, television or cinema enterprises.
2 The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary.
Article 11
Freedom of assembly and association
1 Everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and to freedom of association with others, including the right to form and to join trade unions for the protection of his interests.
2 No restrictions shall be placed on the exercise of these rights other than such as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others. This Article shall not prevent the imposition of lawful restrictions on the exercise of these rights by members of the armed forces, of the police or of the administration of the State.
Article 14
Prohibition of discrimination
The enjoyment of the rights and freedoms set forth in this Convention shall be secured without discrimination on any ground such as sex, race, colour, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, association with a national minority, property, birth or other status.
NOTES ON HUMAN RIGHTS ACT
(to be given as Oral evidence to the Non Statutory Public Inquiry)
Article 9
(1) We claim both alone and in the community with others, both public and private, for Worship, Teaching, Practice and Observance, apply in this instance.
(2) None of the reasons listed in The Caveat or Codicil apply in this instance.
Article 10
(1) We claim The Freedom to impart information and ideas apply in this instance.
(2) Again we claim, None of the reasons listed in The Caveat or Codicil apply in this instance
Article 11
(1) We claim The Freedom of Peaceful Assembly & Association apply in this case.
(2) Again we claim, None of the reasons listed in The Caveat or Codicil apply in this instance.
Article 14
(1) We claim, Religion and association with a National minority. Apply in this case.
Summery of Human Rights Act. And how we believe it should be applied in this case.
It is our belief that what we have stated here regarding the Human Rights Act will be agreed by the legal Dept’s of both EH and Wiltshire Council as a ‘Given’ and by any Counsel that they would engage the services of.
The only ‘Bone of Contention’ we envisage is the question as to whether or not it is incumbent on the Authorities to make such provision for the ‘parking’ and accessibility, of motor vehicles for any such worship and observances.
With up to 30,000 attending the Summer Solstice and 2,000 the winter, and with NO adequate public transport. It is our contention that it is.
The local parishes can not make provision for such parking and the nearest place that could is Salisbury.
The question we should ask is, “Is it right and proper to expect pilgrims to arrive at/ in and around, Salisbury and to walk the ten to twelve miles throughout the night, under cover of Darkness in order to attend a sunrise ceremony on unlit and unpaved A roads? We think not.
We are not asking the Authorities to even make such provision but not to deny and /or restrict such provision as is already available, as we believe the imposition of the TRO’s sought here today would.
SUPPLIMENTRY EVIDENCE
A THREE DAY CELEBRATION
In point (1) line 1 of my main evidence;
I State
“The Solstice and Equinox are a Three day Celebration”
It is not that this is without parallel in British culture;
Christmas eve, Christmas Day, Boxing Day,
Good Friday, Easter Sunday, Bank Holiday Monday.
Not so alien and outlandish as to be un-comprehendible.
The very reason that Easter is a moveable feast is that it is computed as the first Sunday after the first Full moon after the Vernal Equinox. It is just that ‘Our’ three days are celebrated at a differing ‘time’ to those of the Christian faith, and the Secular British society.
Here I will demonstrate that to be so, and touch on some of the reasons why and more importantly, how it works in practice.
For the purpose of this demonstration I shall explain how it worked out from a first hand point of view for me over the course of this Inquiry and most recent Equinox.
As some of you are aware (or had noticed) I was unable to attend this Inquiry last Thursday 22nd of September.
It’s not without Irony, that this was because my Priestess and I were the Guests of English Heritage at Old Wardor Castle performing a Pagan Handfasting (form of wedding ceremony) for a couple who work for Wiltshire council.
They had planned their wedding Ceremony, including the civil part at the registry office to coincide with what they consider the Autumn Equinox 22nd September.
Friday 23rd as some of you may also be aware I was presiding at the Open access at Stonehenge Dawn where a number of Guests Pilgrims and Attendees had gathered (parking on byway 12) throughout the night of the 22nd September in preparation for the dawn ceremony of the 23rd.
Saturday 24th, our celebrations turned to the Northern section of the world Heritage site and the Pilgrims and Pagans gathered at the Avebury complex.
There has long since been various views as to whether the Equinox is the mid point between Solstice’s or the actual day of equal light and Equal Darkness and the Druids and the Astrologers have differing views on this. Pagan preferences as to whether it should be ‘marked’ at sun-rise or sun-set also come into play;
For the reasons as stated briefly in the Para’ above and to show how this works in practice I wish to enter photographic evidence of a ceremony that took place at Sun set in the NT field adjacent to Stonehenge and the vehicles parked up on by-way 12 in order for the attendees to take part.
You will note that they are date and time coded.
Merlin of England performed this ceremony (as is his proffered interpretation as to the ‘right time’ and indeed the social network sites (mine included) were, and for the most part, still are, awash with his comments that the celebrations (dawn 23rd) were in fact “Equinot” and his sun-set 25th were the true Equinox.
It is clear from this evidence that people of a Pagan persuasion and faith will ‘turn up’ at various times (over a Three day period) to celebrate Equinox and use the by-ways subject to these proposed Traffic Regulatory Orders to access either the so called monument field as managed by English Heritage, or when not available, the surrounding landscape.
You will be aware also that sun-rise and or sun-set are the times at which these religious observances occur and I would merely bring to your attention at this stage, for I will deal with it in greater detail when cross examining witnesses for English Heritage the fact that they, English Heritage have already conceded that;
“ ‘the imposition of the TRO’s will change the way people access the Stonehenge environment”
CLOSING
I was hoping to question Peter Carsen, Director of Stonehenge for English Heritage at this Inquiry calling him as a hostile witness as he is the only person at this Inquiry from the other side of the room with any ‘hands on experience as to how Solstice and Equinox celebrations work in practice, however that has been denied and I wish it noted.
With regards to the Equinox and Solstice being a three day event Learned council for English Heritage have agreed in evidence that English Heritage have on occasions been instructed by Wiltshire Police to open up for public access and religious observance. This has been for safety reasons due to weight of number ,on what may only be described as (from their point of view) the wrong day, a day either side of the agreed managed open access. This has occurred at both Winter Solstice and Equinox and more famously Summer when the ‘Daily Mail’ run the story entitled ‘Druids Celebrate on the wrong day’
Later in my closing submissions I will invite the Inspectors to recommend a modification to the orders sought here today to effectively close the A344 and leave the By-ways as they are.
The opposition case may in my view be summed up in one work; Sanitisation and ours in another single word;
FREEDOM
Opening address to the public Inquiry
“I wish to make it clear from the outset
It is our contention that the imposition of the proposed Traffic Regulatory Orders in and around the vicinity of Stonehenge are illegal, for the reasons I shall give shortly when reading from a prepared statement.
Should this Inquiry choose to recommend and or the Authorities try to implement said Orders, we will mount a legal challenge based on the facts as we see them and contained in my statement.
We will be robust in any such challenge and will pursue every avenue open to us.
Whilst other Pagan and Druid groups may procrastinate and possibly demonstrate, we, and my Order in particular will leave no stone unturned in the pursuit of natural Justice. Nor will we shirk from our responsibilities to future generations who would be denied such freedoms as we hold so dear and that would be denied to them by the imposition of such orders as are sought here today.
In short, Gentlemen/Ladies, the Battle-lines are drawn!”
A LITTLE LEGAL BACKGROUND
I challenged the ‘so called’ Exclusion Zone in and around Stonehenge over a fourteen year period between 1986 and 2000.
This involved:
Several criminal charges being brought against me and No convictions.
I brought and won a case against Wiltshire Constabulary for wrongful arrest and unlawful imprisonment.
I lost a Judicial Review against Wiltshire Constabulary, English Heritage, Salisbury District Council and the Home Secretary.
And took a case against H.M.Goverment to the European Court of Human Rights.
But as they say the Devil is in the detail, so let’s get to it and set out our case as to why any such imposition would be illegal…..
KING ARTHUR PENDRAGON
BATTLECHIEFTAIN
COUNCIL OF BRITISH DRUID ORDERS
OPPOSITION TO Traffic Regulatory Order’s
HUMAN RIGHTS
SOLSTICE AND EQUINOX
(1) The Solstice and Equinox are a Three day celebration, occurring at and around the Longest-Shortest and Equal days of the year. Widely held by the Druid and Pagan community to mark what is generally believed in our communities, as the turning of the wheel, the natural progression of the seasons.
(2) The Council of British Druid Orders complains that the imposition of a TRO on By-way12 (The Neveravon coach road Amesbury) would violate our rights under article 9, 10 and 11 of the Convention,
(3) In that we would be prevented from being present and/or carrying out a Druid ceremony at Stonehenge at the sunrises for Equinox’s and Solstice’s.
(4) We complain that the imposition of a Traffic Regulatory Order would fail to protect our rights sufficiently under Articles 9, 10, and 11 of the Convention.
(5) A Further violation of Article 14 of the Convention would occur because by prohibiting all people from celebrating at Stonehenge , Druids and Pagans would be disproportionately discriminated against, since the Solstices and Equinox’s have particular significance for our beliefs.
(6) These points were ‘held’ by the European Court of Human Rights when the ‘so called’ Exclusion Zone in and around Stonehenge was challenged by Arthur Pendragon in November 1998 when The European court ruled that any Exclusion was only permitted in a free and democratic society if it could be shown to be in the interests of National Security.
Which this proposed TRO application clearly is not.
OTHER TIMES OF THE YEAR
(7) The same considerations should be given to other times of the year when Druids and Pagans wish to Worship at Stonehenge , such as Full and New Moons and rare Astronomical events, such as Eclipse. Other Pagan Festivals include the cross quarter days, known as the Fire Festivals Imbolc, Beltaine, Lughnasadh, and Samhain. Or (May Day, Lammas, Candle mass and Halloween as they are known to the Christian Calendar)
CIVIL RIGHTS
(8) The imposition of a TRO on the Droves in question would not only be disproportionate to the Druid and Pagan community who use them as a ‘pull in’ for Worship but also to the ‘Tourist’ who does likewise and the many other groups who use the Droves for recreational reasons.
(10) It would give, (coupled with the proposed new visitors centre and car park) English Heritage an unfair Monopoly on Stonehenge and the surrounding Landscape.
HEALTH AND SAFETY
(11) It is our belief that any such imposition of Traffic Regulatory Orders on the by-ways surrounding Stonehenge will inevitably result in an increase in traffic ‘Pulling over’ on the verges of the A303, and an increase in pedestrian traffic passing and re-passing across what is a major arterial route. Constituting a very real risk to the Health and Safety of pedestrians and motor vehicle passengers and drivers alike.
CONCLUSION
(12) We, The Council of British Druid Orders, and our entire membership of Orders and associates are therefore against any such imposition
King Arthur Pendragon,
Battlechieftain, Council of British Druid Orders.
Appendix
HUMAN RIGHTS ACT
Article 9
Freedom of thought, conscience and religion
1 Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief, in worship, teaching, practice and observance.
2 Freedom to manifest one’s religion or beliefs shall be subject only to such limitations as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society in the interests of public safety, for the protection of public order, health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.
Article 10
Freedom of expression
1 Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers. This Article shall not prevent States from requiring the licensing of broadcasting, television or cinema enterprises.
2 The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary.
Article 11
Freedom of assembly and association
1 Everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and to freedom of association with others, including the right to form and to join trade unions for the protection of his interests.
2 No restrictions shall be placed on the exercise of these rights other than such as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others. This Article shall not prevent the imposition of lawful restrictions on the exercise of these rights by members of the armed forces, of the police or of the administration of the State.
Article 14
Prohibition of discrimination
The enjoyment of the rights and freedoms set forth in this Convention shall be secured without discrimination on any ground such as sex, race, colour, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, association with a national minority, property, birth or other status.
NOTES ON HUMAN RIGHTS ACT
(to be given as Oral evidence to the Non Statutory Public Inquiry)
Article 9
(1) We claim both alone and in the community with others, both public and private, for Worship, Teaching, Practice and Observance, apply in this instance.
(2) None of the reasons listed in The Caveat or Codicil apply in this instance.
Article 10
(1) We claim The Freedom to impart information and ideas apply in this instance.
(2) Again we claim, None of the reasons listed in The Caveat or Codicil apply in this instance
Article 11
(1) We claim The Freedom of Peaceful Assembly & Association apply in this case.
(2) Again we claim, None of the reasons listed in The Caveat or Codicil apply in this instance.
Article 14
(1) We claim, Religion and association with a National minority. Apply in this case.
Summery of Human Rights Act. And how we believe it should be applied in this case.
It is our belief that what we have stated here regarding the Human Rights Act will be agreed by the legal Dept’s of both EH and Wiltshire Council as a ‘Given’ and by any Counsel that they would engage the services of.
The only ‘Bone of Contention’ we envisage is the question as to whether or not it is incumbent on the Authorities to make such provision for the ‘parking’ and accessibility, of motor vehicles for any such worship and observances.
With up to 30,000 attending the Summer Solstice and 2,000 the winter, and with NO adequate public transport. It is our contention that it is.
The local parishes can not make provision for such parking and the nearest place that could is Salisbury.
The question we should ask is, “Is it right and proper to expect pilgrims to arrive at/ in and around, Salisbury and to walk the ten to twelve miles throughout the night, under cover of Darkness in order to attend a sunrise ceremony on unlit and unpaved A roads? We think not.
We are not asking the Authorities to even make such provision but not to deny and /or restrict such provision as is already available, as we believe the imposition of the TRO’s sought here today would.
SUPPLIMENTRY EVIDENCE
A THREE DAY CELEBRATION
In point (1) line 1 of my main evidence;
I State
“The Solstice and Equinox are a Three day Celebration”
It is not that this is without parallel in British culture;
Christmas eve, Christmas Day, Boxing Day,
Good Friday, Easter Sunday, Bank Holiday Monday.
Not so alien and outlandish as to be un-comprehendible.
The very reason that Easter is a moveable feast is that it is computed as the first Sunday after the first Full moon after the Vernal Equinox. It is just that ‘Our’ three days are celebrated at a differing ‘time’ to those of the Christian faith, and the Secular British society.
Here I will demonstrate that to be so, and touch on some of the reasons why and more importantly, how it works in practice.
For the purpose of this demonstration I shall explain how it worked out from a first hand point of view for me over the course of this Inquiry and most recent Equinox.
As some of you are aware (or had noticed) I was unable to attend this Inquiry last Thursday 22nd of September.
It’s not without Irony, that this was because my Priestess and I were the Guests of English Heritage at Old Wardor Castle performing a Pagan Handfasting (form of wedding ceremony) for a couple who work for Wiltshire council.
They had planned their wedding Ceremony, including the civil part at the registry office to coincide with what they consider the Autumn Equinox 22nd September.
Friday 23rd as some of you may also be aware I was presiding at the Open access at Stonehenge Dawn where a number of Guests Pilgrims and Attendees had gathered (parking on byway 12) throughout the night of the 22nd September in preparation for the dawn ceremony of the 23rd.
Saturday 24th, our celebrations turned to the Northern section of the world Heritage site and the Pilgrims and Pagans gathered at the Avebury complex.
There has long since been various views as to whether the Equinox is the mid point between Solstice’s or the actual day of equal light and Equal Darkness and the Druids and the Astrologers have differing views on this. Pagan preferences as to whether it should be ‘marked’ at sun-rise or sun-set also come into play;
For the reasons as stated briefly in the Para’ above and to show how this works in practice I wish to enter photographic evidence of a ceremony that took place at Sun set in the NT field adjacent to Stonehenge and the vehicles parked up on by-way 12 in order for the attendees to take part.
You will note that they are date and time coded.
Merlin of England performed this ceremony (as is his proffered interpretation as to the ‘right time’ and indeed the social network sites (mine included) were, and for the most part, still are, awash with his comments that the celebrations (dawn 23rd) were in fact “Equinot” and his sun-set 25th were the true Equinox.
It is clear from this evidence that people of a Pagan persuasion and faith will ‘turn up’ at various times (over a Three day period) to celebrate Equinox and use the by-ways subject to these proposed Traffic Regulatory Orders to access either the so called monument field as managed by English Heritage, or when not available, the surrounding landscape.
You will be aware also that sun-rise and or sun-set are the times at which these religious observances occur and I would merely bring to your attention at this stage, for I will deal with it in greater detail when cross examining witnesses for English Heritage the fact that they, English Heritage have already conceded that;
“ ‘the imposition of the TRO’s will change the way people access the Stonehenge environment”
CLOSING
I was hoping to question Peter Carsen, Director of Stonehenge for English Heritage at this Inquiry calling him as a hostile witness as he is the only person at this Inquiry from the other side of the room with any ‘hands on experience as to how Solstice and Equinox celebrations work in practice, however that has been denied and I wish it noted.
With regards to the Equinox and Solstice being a three day event Learned council for English Heritage have agreed in evidence that English Heritage have on occasions been instructed by Wiltshire Police to open up for public access and religious observance. This has been for safety reasons due to weight of number ,on what may only be described as (from their point of view) the wrong day, a day either side of the agreed managed open access. This has occurred at both Winter Solstice and Equinox and more famously Summer when the ‘Daily Mail’ run the story entitled ‘Druids Celebrate on the wrong day’
Later in my closing submissions I will invite the Inspectors to recommend a modification to the orders sought here today to effectively close the A344 and leave the By-ways as they are.
The opposition case may in my view be summed up in one work; Sanitisation and ours in another single word;
FREEDOM
22nd September 2011
The Council of British Druid Orders, through their Office of BattleChieftain and Stonehenge Arch Druid (Arthur & Rollo) will be giving evidence at the Public Inquiry, in opposition to the proposed implementation of Tro's throughout the World Heritage site, as will The Sacred Grove of The Western Isles. Many other groups and individuals will not, yet they continue to try to undermine those that are prepared to speak out against this injustice. As I have said on many occasions; Lead,Follow or get out of the way.....
PRESS RELEASE and photo opportunity - PUBLIC INQUIRY
Salisbury Rugby club
Starts 10am Tuesday 20th September. King Arthur Pendragon (a fully robed) Senior Druid and Pagan Priest, is once again preparing to take on the Authorities on behalf of the ‘common man’ in his very own distinctive style;
Wiltshire Council and English Heritage are intent on changing the way that future generations access Stonehenge and are proposing Traffic Regulatory Orders on ALL the by-ways and Droves within The World Heritage Site, which will give English ‘Heretics’ (as Arthur refers to them) an Unfair (and very lucrative, financially,) Monopoly on Parking, and as he will claim, when giving evidence to the Inquiry is an infringement of his and the visitors Human Rights.
Set to ‘run’ until 5th October, it promises to be another land mark case in Arthur’s long history of challenging the Authorities at Stonehenge.
He recently appeared at the Royal Courts of Justice requesting a Judicial Review of the Minister of Justice’s decision to grant a five year extension to Sheffield University to study Human Remains taken from Stonehenge. As far back as 1998 (after a twelve year campaign) he took a case against H.M. Government to the European Court at Strasburg over the so called ‘exclusion zone’ in and around Stonehenge at the Summer Solstice. This promises to be yet another case of Arthur standing up for the Liberty of the ‘little man’ against the weight of an ever increasingly Authoritarian state.
FOR MORE INFORMATION
http://www.facebook.com/l.php?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwarband.org.uk%2Fpage6.htm&h=jAQAocFUtAQC7LyYZHtl05_-WZI83PsCi9Yxx-BujAPIFqw
www.warband.org.uk
email k.pendragon@yahoo.co.uk
King Arthur's mobile 07840277812
Starts 10am Tuesday 20th September. King Arthur Pendragon (a fully robed) Senior Druid and Pagan Priest, is once again preparing to take on the Authorities on behalf of the ‘common man’ in his very own distinctive style;
Wiltshire Council and English Heritage are intent on changing the way that future generations access Stonehenge and are proposing Traffic Regulatory Orders on ALL the by-ways and Droves within The World Heritage Site, which will give English ‘Heretics’ (as Arthur refers to them) an Unfair (and very lucrative, financially,) Monopoly on Parking, and as he will claim, when giving evidence to the Inquiry is an infringement of his and the visitors Human Rights.
Set to ‘run’ until 5th October, it promises to be another land mark case in Arthur’s long history of challenging the Authorities at Stonehenge.
He recently appeared at the Royal Courts of Justice requesting a Judicial Review of the Minister of Justice’s decision to grant a five year extension to Sheffield University to study Human Remains taken from Stonehenge. As far back as 1998 (after a twelve year campaign) he took a case against H.M. Government to the European Court at Strasburg over the so called ‘exclusion zone’ in and around Stonehenge at the Summer Solstice. This promises to be yet another case of Arthur standing up for the Liberty of the ‘little man’ against the weight of an ever increasingly Authoritarian state.
FOR MORE INFORMATION
http://www.facebook.com/l.php?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwarband.org.uk%2Fpage6.htm&h=jAQAocFUtAQC7LyYZHtl05_-WZI83PsCi9Yxx-BujAPIFqw
www.warband.org.uk
email k.pendragon@yahoo.co.uk
King Arthur's mobile 07840277812
Draft inquiry programme
STONEHENGE TRAFFIC REGULATION ORDER INQUIRY
by Arthur Pendragon on Wednesday, 13 July 2011
STONEHENGE TRAFFIC REGULATION ORDER INQUIRY
COMMENCING 20 SEPTEMBER 2011
DRAFT INQUIRY PROGRAMME
PLEASE NOTE THAT THIS PROGRAMME MAY BE THE SUBJECT OF FURTHER CHANGES
Tuesday 20th
Opening statements by Wiltshire Council and English Heritage
David Bullock, Melanie Pomerroy-Killinger Wilt’ Council;
David Lear, Ms Loraine Knowles, Dr Amanda Chadburn EH
Wednesday 21st
Orcheston Parish Council
Sam Shepherd, Chairman
Cross Examine;
David Bullock
David Lear
Ms Loraine Knowles
John Doxey
Cross Examine
TBC
Thursday 22nd
Councillor Ian West
Keith Johnson, Colin Mills, Chris Stanbury;
John Jackson
Cross Examine
David Bullock
Friday 23rd
John Pritchard
Sally Pritchard
Richard Collns
Keith Dobson
Cross Examine
David Bullock
Monday 26th
2PM START
Vic Price
Andrew Waring
Don Oakley
David Flippance
Tuesday 27th
LARA
Cross Examine
Melanie Pomerroy-Killinger
David Lear
Ms Loraine Knowles
Dr Amanda Chadburn
Wednesday 28th
LARA
Alan Kind
Dave Giles
Dave Tilbury
Closing Submissions LARA
Thursday 29th
Bill Riley
Cross Examine
David Bullock
Melanie Pomeroy-Killinger
King Arthur Pendragon
Cross Examine
David Bullock
Melanie Pomeroy-Killinger
David Lear
Friday 30th
King Arthur Pendragon
Cross Examine;
Ms Loraine Knowles
Dr Amanda Chadburn
Monday 3rd October
2pm Start
Rollo Maughfling
Mrs Foster-Young
Tuesday 4th
Lois Lloyd
Cross Examine
David Bullock
Melanie Pomeroy-Killinger
David Lear
Ms Loraine Knowles
Dr Amanda Chadburn
Wednesday 5th
Closing Submissions by King Arthur Pendragon
Closing Submissions English Heritage
Closing Submissions Wiltshire Council
by Arthur Pendragon on Wednesday, 13 July 2011
STONEHENGE TRAFFIC REGULATION ORDER INQUIRY
COMMENCING 20 SEPTEMBER 2011
DRAFT INQUIRY PROGRAMME
PLEASE NOTE THAT THIS PROGRAMME MAY BE THE SUBJECT OF FURTHER CHANGES
Tuesday 20th
Opening statements by Wiltshire Council and English Heritage
David Bullock, Melanie Pomerroy-Killinger Wilt’ Council;
David Lear, Ms Loraine Knowles, Dr Amanda Chadburn EH
Wednesday 21st
Orcheston Parish Council
Sam Shepherd, Chairman
Cross Examine;
David Bullock
David Lear
Ms Loraine Knowles
John Doxey
Cross Examine
TBC
Thursday 22nd
Councillor Ian West
Keith Johnson, Colin Mills, Chris Stanbury;
John Jackson
Cross Examine
David Bullock
Friday 23rd
John Pritchard
Sally Pritchard
Richard Collns
Keith Dobson
Cross Examine
David Bullock
Monday 26th
2PM START
Vic Price
Andrew Waring
Don Oakley
David Flippance
Tuesday 27th
LARA
Cross Examine
Melanie Pomerroy-Killinger
David Lear
Ms Loraine Knowles
Dr Amanda Chadburn
Wednesday 28th
LARA
Alan Kind
Dave Giles
Dave Tilbury
Closing Submissions LARA
Thursday 29th
Bill Riley
Cross Examine
David Bullock
Melanie Pomeroy-Killinger
King Arthur Pendragon
Cross Examine
David Bullock
Melanie Pomeroy-Killinger
David Lear
Friday 30th
King Arthur Pendragon
Cross Examine;
Ms Loraine Knowles
Dr Amanda Chadburn
Monday 3rd October
2pm Start
Rollo Maughfling
Mrs Foster-Young
Tuesday 4th
Lois Lloyd
Cross Examine
David Bullock
Melanie Pomeroy-Killinger
David Lear
Ms Loraine Knowles
Dr Amanda Chadburn
Wednesday 5th
Closing Submissions by King Arthur Pendragon
Closing Submissions English Heritage
Closing Submissions Wiltshire Council
Update on Public Inquiry
Traffic Regulation Order in the vicinity of Stonehenge Addendum to Pre-Inquiry Note 1
ID/2
TRAFFIC REGULATION ORDER
IN THE VICINITY OF STONEHENGE
ADDENDUM TO PRE-INQUIRY NOTE (PIN)
This note contains important information for those intending to take part in the Traffic Regulation Order Inquiry. It should be read with the original PIN for the Stopping Up Orders and Traffic Regulation Order Inquiries, dated 13 April 2011.
The Inquiries
1. The Stopping Up Orders (SUOs) Inquiry closed on 27 June 2011. No more evidence or submissions relating to the merits of these Orders will be accepted by the Inspector.
2. This note concerns only the Traffic Regulation Order (TRO) Inquiry, which was adjourned on 27 June 2011 without having heard any substantive submissions or evidence. So far it has heard only submissions relating to the procedure before, and the timing of, the Inquiry.
3. The Inquiry will resume at 10:00am on Tuesday 20 September 2011 at Salisbury Rugby Football Club, Castle Road, Salisbury, SP1 3SA.
Scope of the Inquiry
4. The Inquiry is concerned only with the draft TRO. Further evidence or submissions relating to the SUOs will not be accepted.
5. As indicated in the PIN, the Inspector is aware that planning permission has been granted for ‘decommissioning of existing visitor facilities and a section of the A344; the erection of a new visitor centre, car park, coach park and ancillary services building; and related highways and landscaping works’ on land at Airmans Corner, land south east of the junction of the A360 and A3441.
6. The Inspector advised in the PIN that, while that permission is of relevance to some or all of the Orders with which the Inquiries will be concerned, their outcomes cannot alter that decision. Therefore it is neither necessary nor appropriate for the Inquiries to hear evidence on the cases for or against that development or about the circumstances of its approval.
7. There still seems to be some confusion about this in some quarters. It is not the case, as some have suggested, that there may be no mention of the proposed visitor centre etc. The stated purpose of the TRO is ‘to improve the amenity of the area’2, and the Inspector will welcome evidence and submissions on the extent to which the TRO would fulfil this purpose, having regard to that proposal. However, matters such as the
1 Granted to English Heritage by Wiltshire Council on 23 June 2010 (ref. S/2009/1527/FULL)
2 Statement of Reasons para 1.2 Traffic Regulation Order in the vicinity of Stonehenge Addendum to Pre-Inquiry Note 2
appropriateness of the location, design and other details of the visitor centre, and the processes leading to the granting of planning permission for it, are not matters for this Inquiry.
Procedure at the Inquiry
8. Again some participants seem unsure about certain points. For the avoidance of doubt, even though these stages may not be separately identified on the Inquiry programme and subject to the need to avoid repetition as indicated in the PIN, every objector appearing will have the opportunity to:
• Make opening submissions*;
• Cross-examine any or all of the witnesses for Wiltshire Council and English Heritage*;
• Give their own evidence (on which they may be cross-examined by Wiltshire Council and/or English Heritage); and
• Make closing submissions*.
* these are optional.
9. Normally objectors would do all of these in the one session for which they are programmed. However, requests for any departures from this (eg. making closing submissions at the end of the Inquiry) should be made as soon as possible through the Programme Officer and will be accommodated if reasonably possible.
Evidence
10. The deadline for the submission of proofs of evidence and summaries has passed. All evidence submitted by 25 May will be taken into account, but normally no additional evidence will be accepted. The adjournment of the Inquiry should not be regarded as ‘extra time’ in this respect. The only circumstances in which new evidence will be accepted are:
• Where the Inspector is satisfied that the evidence in question could not reasonably have been submitted within the deadline (for example because it had not been published at the time); or
• Where an objector who was not previously notified of the Inquiry wishes to be heard.
11. In these instances the evidence and any summary thereof must be submitted to reach the Programme Officer no later than Tuesday 23 August in accordance with the arrangements set out in paragraphs 21-23 of the PIN.
12. Parties may also submit rebuttal evidence, if they wish (it is not obligatory). This is evidence that seeks to counter evidence submitted by opposing parties, and must be clearly referenced to the specific evidence it addresses. This is not an opportunity to ‘slip in’ new evidence simply to supplement that already submitted.
13. Any rebuttal evidence by each party (including Wiltshire Council and English Heritage) will be given at the time of presentation of its main
Traffic Regulation Order in the vicinity of Stonehenge Addendum to Pre-Inquiry Note 3
evidence. The texts of rebuttal evidence will be provided in advance to all parties appearing at the Inquiry.
14. Rebuttal evidence and any summary thereof must be submitted to reach the Programme Officer no later than Tuesday 6 September, again in accordance with the PIN.
Legal arguments
15. I share the view of English Heritage that any legal arguments (including any relating to alleged procedural defects) to be advanced should be submitted prior to the resumption of the Inquiry. In order that any necessary responses can also be submitted before the resumption, the same dates as for evidence will apply. That is, arguments should be submitted no later than Tuesday 23 August with responses no later than Tuesday 6 September.
Programme
16. All parties should supply the Programme Officer as soon as possible with updated estimates of how long they expect to take in each relevant stage in presentation of their cases (including cross-examination of opposing witnesses). They should also notify her of any problems or constraints affecting the revised draft programme.
17. In the interests of the smooth running of the Inquiry and to avoid inconveniencing subsequent parties, parties significantly over-running their programmed time may be required to return at a later date to suit the Inquiry.
Alan Boyland
Inspector
8 July 2011
ID/2
TRAFFIC REGULATION ORDER
IN THE VICINITY OF STONEHENGE
ADDENDUM TO PRE-INQUIRY NOTE (PIN)
This note contains important information for those intending to take part in the Traffic Regulation Order Inquiry. It should be read with the original PIN for the Stopping Up Orders and Traffic Regulation Order Inquiries, dated 13 April 2011.
The Inquiries
1. The Stopping Up Orders (SUOs) Inquiry closed on 27 June 2011. No more evidence or submissions relating to the merits of these Orders will be accepted by the Inspector.
2. This note concerns only the Traffic Regulation Order (TRO) Inquiry, which was adjourned on 27 June 2011 without having heard any substantive submissions or evidence. So far it has heard only submissions relating to the procedure before, and the timing of, the Inquiry.
3. The Inquiry will resume at 10:00am on Tuesday 20 September 2011 at Salisbury Rugby Football Club, Castle Road, Salisbury, SP1 3SA.
Scope of the Inquiry
4. The Inquiry is concerned only with the draft TRO. Further evidence or submissions relating to the SUOs will not be accepted.
5. As indicated in the PIN, the Inspector is aware that planning permission has been granted for ‘decommissioning of existing visitor facilities and a section of the A344; the erection of a new visitor centre, car park, coach park and ancillary services building; and related highways and landscaping works’ on land at Airmans Corner, land south east of the junction of the A360 and A3441.
6. The Inspector advised in the PIN that, while that permission is of relevance to some or all of the Orders with which the Inquiries will be concerned, their outcomes cannot alter that decision. Therefore it is neither necessary nor appropriate for the Inquiries to hear evidence on the cases for or against that development or about the circumstances of its approval.
7. There still seems to be some confusion about this in some quarters. It is not the case, as some have suggested, that there may be no mention of the proposed visitor centre etc. The stated purpose of the TRO is ‘to improve the amenity of the area’2, and the Inspector will welcome evidence and submissions on the extent to which the TRO would fulfil this purpose, having regard to that proposal. However, matters such as the
1 Granted to English Heritage by Wiltshire Council on 23 June 2010 (ref. S/2009/1527/FULL)
2 Statement of Reasons para 1.2 Traffic Regulation Order in the vicinity of Stonehenge Addendum to Pre-Inquiry Note 2
appropriateness of the location, design and other details of the visitor centre, and the processes leading to the granting of planning permission for it, are not matters for this Inquiry.
Procedure at the Inquiry
8. Again some participants seem unsure about certain points. For the avoidance of doubt, even though these stages may not be separately identified on the Inquiry programme and subject to the need to avoid repetition as indicated in the PIN, every objector appearing will have the opportunity to:
• Make opening submissions*;
• Cross-examine any or all of the witnesses for Wiltshire Council and English Heritage*;
• Give their own evidence (on which they may be cross-examined by Wiltshire Council and/or English Heritage); and
• Make closing submissions*.
* these are optional.
9. Normally objectors would do all of these in the one session for which they are programmed. However, requests for any departures from this (eg. making closing submissions at the end of the Inquiry) should be made as soon as possible through the Programme Officer and will be accommodated if reasonably possible.
Evidence
10. The deadline for the submission of proofs of evidence and summaries has passed. All evidence submitted by 25 May will be taken into account, but normally no additional evidence will be accepted. The adjournment of the Inquiry should not be regarded as ‘extra time’ in this respect. The only circumstances in which new evidence will be accepted are:
• Where the Inspector is satisfied that the evidence in question could not reasonably have been submitted within the deadline (for example because it had not been published at the time); or
• Where an objector who was not previously notified of the Inquiry wishes to be heard.
11. In these instances the evidence and any summary thereof must be submitted to reach the Programme Officer no later than Tuesday 23 August in accordance with the arrangements set out in paragraphs 21-23 of the PIN.
12. Parties may also submit rebuttal evidence, if they wish (it is not obligatory). This is evidence that seeks to counter evidence submitted by opposing parties, and must be clearly referenced to the specific evidence it addresses. This is not an opportunity to ‘slip in’ new evidence simply to supplement that already submitted.
13. Any rebuttal evidence by each party (including Wiltshire Council and English Heritage) will be given at the time of presentation of its main
Traffic Regulation Order in the vicinity of Stonehenge Addendum to Pre-Inquiry Note 3
evidence. The texts of rebuttal evidence will be provided in advance to all parties appearing at the Inquiry.
14. Rebuttal evidence and any summary thereof must be submitted to reach the Programme Officer no later than Tuesday 6 September, again in accordance with the PIN.
Legal arguments
15. I share the view of English Heritage that any legal arguments (including any relating to alleged procedural defects) to be advanced should be submitted prior to the resumption of the Inquiry. In order that any necessary responses can also be submitted before the resumption, the same dates as for evidence will apply. That is, arguments should be submitted no later than Tuesday 23 August with responses no later than Tuesday 6 September.
Programme
16. All parties should supply the Programme Officer as soon as possible with updated estimates of how long they expect to take in each relevant stage in presentation of their cases (including cross-examination of opposing witnesses). They should also notify her of any problems or constraints affecting the revised draft programme.
17. In the interests of the smooth running of the Inquiry and to avoid inconveniencing subsequent parties, parties significantly over-running their programmed time may be required to return at a later date to suit the Inquiry.
Alan Boyland
Inspector
8 July 2011
Response to Adjournment date TRO Inquiry
30 June 2011
I have recieved an answer to my complaint about the date of the Adjurnment of the Inquiry and am satisfied with the Inspestors responce, and have replied as follows;
Thank the Inspector for his swift response on behalf of both myself and the Council which I represent in this matter.
I fully understand the 'mechanics' involved in coming to such a decision and the constraints put upon reaching same. It is as I said in my previous correspondence unfortunate that it 'clashes' with the Autumn Equinox celebrations, throughout the Pagan world and at Stonehenge.
My main concern was that we would be expected to give evidence during the Equinox celebrations, which you appear to have allayed, and whilst I can not speak for my Pagan and Druid colleges in this matter I will endeavour to attend the Inquiry in full (even if I might attend after 'a night on the Drove' and a dawn ceremony at Stonehenge), and trust the Inspector will think none the worse of me for dozing off at the, shall we say, less interesting parts of the Inquiry.
And thank you, for your time and trouble in this matter. I can not obviously speak for all others in this matter, who may view things rather differently to me, however I shall do what I can to allay their fears that the re-scheduling of the Inquiry is prejudicial to our case.
King Arthur
Battlechieftain
Council of British Druid Orders /|\
I have recieved an answer to my complaint about the date of the Adjurnment of the Inquiry and am satisfied with the Inspestors responce, and have replied as follows;
Thank the Inspector for his swift response on behalf of both myself and the Council which I represent in this matter.
I fully understand the 'mechanics' involved in coming to such a decision and the constraints put upon reaching same. It is as I said in my previous correspondence unfortunate that it 'clashes' with the Autumn Equinox celebrations, throughout the Pagan world and at Stonehenge.
My main concern was that we would be expected to give evidence during the Equinox celebrations, which you appear to have allayed, and whilst I can not speak for my Pagan and Druid colleges in this matter I will endeavour to attend the Inquiry in full (even if I might attend after 'a night on the Drove' and a dawn ceremony at Stonehenge), and trust the Inspector will think none the worse of me for dozing off at the, shall we say, less interesting parts of the Inquiry.
And thank you, for your time and trouble in this matter. I can not obviously speak for all others in this matter, who may view things rather differently to me, however I shall do what I can to allay their fears that the re-scheduling of the Inquiry is prejudicial to our case.
King Arthur
Battlechieftain
Council of British Druid Orders /|\
MORE MIS-INFORMATION!
by Arthur Pendragon on Thursday, 30 June 2011
PLEASE POST AND REPOST TO ALL INTERESTED PARTIES
More mis-information, copied from the same sources.
"As the first part of the inquiry was "suspended/adjourned" due to a procedural problem, its more than likely the whole inquiry will be started again rather than restarted. Basically its down to a lack of "Disclosure" regarding rules of evidence lol"
MY RESPONSE
By the first part of the Inquiry, I take it they mean THE FIRST INQUIRY which was concerned with the Stop up Orders for the A344 alone and not the Vehicle Restriction Orders on the By-ways.
This Inquiry was Closed, not suspended or adjourned.
The second Inquiry (concerned with the VRO's on the by-ways) was Adjourned and not for "Disclosure" or anything to do with rules of evidence, but Rules of Service (on a technicality).
I take no pleasure in correcting their errors, well a little maybe but seriously though, if they are supposed to be advising people what has occured at an Inquiry they were not present at, at least they should get their facts right before plastering them all over the web.
King Arthur Pendragon
Battlechieftain
Council of British Druid Orders
Objector (in attendance) /|\
PLEASE POST AND REPOST TO ALL INTERESTED PARTIES
More mis-information, copied from the same sources.
"As the first part of the inquiry was "suspended/adjourned" due to a procedural problem, its more than likely the whole inquiry will be started again rather than restarted. Basically its down to a lack of "Disclosure" regarding rules of evidence lol"
MY RESPONSE
By the first part of the Inquiry, I take it they mean THE FIRST INQUIRY which was concerned with the Stop up Orders for the A344 alone and not the Vehicle Restriction Orders on the By-ways.
This Inquiry was Closed, not suspended or adjourned.
The second Inquiry (concerned with the VRO's on the by-ways) was Adjourned and not for "Disclosure" or anything to do with rules of evidence, but Rules of Service (on a technicality).
I take no pleasure in correcting their errors, well a little maybe but seriously though, if they are supposed to be advising people what has occured at an Inquiry they were not present at, at least they should get their facts right before plastering them all over the web.
King Arthur Pendragon
Battlechieftain
Council of British Druid Orders
Objector (in attendance) /|\
MIS-INFORMATION!
by Arthur Pendragon on Tuesday, 28 June 2011
Do not be taken in by 'know it all's' who claim to be informing you about the Public Inquiry they did not attend or the one that they may or may not attend later this year. Below is a statement copied from Sacred Grove Western Isles, proporting to be informative and factual. I was at both Inquiries and believe me it is so factually inaccurate it's almost Laughable. I will correct the errors after the Text and you will see what I mean.
"PUBLIC INQUIRY ADJOURNED UNTIL 20 SEPTEMBER 2011!!!
Due to procedural issues being raised by some of those attending the Inquiry, this had to be postponed until 20 September - notice of which has been given today Monday 27 June - the date that the TRO aspect of the Inquiry was due to start.
The Stopping Up Order [grassing over of A344] part of the Inquiry was opened at the end of last week, but this will have to be gone through again in September - hopefully those attending who also celebrate the pagan festivals then will be able to be heard in the latter stages therefore not co inciding with Autumn Equinox.
We will keep you up to date as and when we are contacted by the programme officer of the Inquiry and the Inspector."
MY RESPONSE
THE SUO INQUIRY WAS OPENED AT THE START OF LAST WEEK AND CLOSED ON MONDAY OF THIS WEEK not as reported opened at the end of last week. AND AS IT HAS NOW BEEN FORMALLY CLOSED IT WILL CERTAINLY NOT HAVE TO BE GONE THROUGH AGAIN IN SEPTEMBER.
AS FOR THEM KEEPING ANYONE UP TO DATE, Check out my Facebook if you really are interested, or let those of us who are, and are in attendance get on with it.
Lead, Follow or Get out of the way, and that particularly applies to well meaning 'know it all's' like this!
Do not be taken in by 'know it all's' who claim to be informing you about the Public Inquiry they did not attend or the one that they may or may not attend later this year. Below is a statement copied from Sacred Grove Western Isles, proporting to be informative and factual. I was at both Inquiries and believe me it is so factually inaccurate it's almost Laughable. I will correct the errors after the Text and you will see what I mean.
"PUBLIC INQUIRY ADJOURNED UNTIL 20 SEPTEMBER 2011!!!
Due to procedural issues being raised by some of those attending the Inquiry, this had to be postponed until 20 September - notice of which has been given today Monday 27 June - the date that the TRO aspect of the Inquiry was due to start.
The Stopping Up Order [grassing over of A344] part of the Inquiry was opened at the end of last week, but this will have to be gone through again in September - hopefully those attending who also celebrate the pagan festivals then will be able to be heard in the latter stages therefore not co inciding with Autumn Equinox.
We will keep you up to date as and when we are contacted by the programme officer of the Inquiry and the Inspector."
MY RESPONSE
THE SUO INQUIRY WAS OPENED AT THE START OF LAST WEEK AND CLOSED ON MONDAY OF THIS WEEK not as reported opened at the end of last week. AND AS IT HAS NOW BEEN FORMALLY CLOSED IT WILL CERTAINLY NOT HAVE TO BE GONE THROUGH AGAIN IN SEPTEMBER.
AS FOR THEM KEEPING ANYONE UP TO DATE, Check out my Facebook if you really are interested, or let those of us who are, and are in attendance get on with it.
Lead, Follow or Get out of the way, and that particularly applies to well meaning 'know it all's' like this!
OPEN LETTER TO THE INQUIRY INTO THE TRO STONEHENGE PUBLIC INQUIRY
28th June 2011
I am not a conspiracy theorist, and am not levelling any such accusations at the Inspector or the Inquiry. However I feel I must protest in the strongest terms at the effective re-scheduling of the Inquiry to coincide with ‘our’ Equinox Celebration.
I have already started receiving complaints from our community (especially as the original Inquiry date coincided with our Solstice) as incidentally did the planning meeting at which the permissions for the visitor Centre were granted last year.
It is I realise a practical date in a secular world. But as a great deal of weight is given to these dates in our opposition to the imposition of these TRO.’s (The very reason for the Inquiry) It is an unfortunate choice, and I make no more of it then that.
However, others in ‘our’ community will I am afraid see it, rather differently, and have already made representations to me, to that effect.
As the inspector rightly pointed out to me when I brought this point to his attention at the Inquiry “You can’t please everybody” .
I do feel however, given the weight of evidence already submitted by both ‘ourselves’ and English Heritage and rebuttal evidence by Wiltshire Council relating to Solstice and Equinox that this is indeed an unfortunate turn of events that will (rightly or wrongly) be seen by many as prejudicial to our case and discriminatory to our faith.
King Arthur Pendragon
Battle Chieftain
Council of British Druid Orders
(Objector)
I am not a conspiracy theorist, and am not levelling any such accusations at the Inspector or the Inquiry. However I feel I must protest in the strongest terms at the effective re-scheduling of the Inquiry to coincide with ‘our’ Equinox Celebration.
I have already started receiving complaints from our community (especially as the original Inquiry date coincided with our Solstice) as incidentally did the planning meeting at which the permissions for the visitor Centre were granted last year.
It is I realise a practical date in a secular world. But as a great deal of weight is given to these dates in our opposition to the imposition of these TRO.’s (The very reason for the Inquiry) It is an unfortunate choice, and I make no more of it then that.
However, others in ‘our’ community will I am afraid see it, rather differently, and have already made representations to me, to that effect.
As the inspector rightly pointed out to me when I brought this point to his attention at the Inquiry “You can’t please everybody” .
I do feel however, given the weight of evidence already submitted by both ‘ourselves’ and English Heritage and rebuttal evidence by Wiltshire Council relating to Solstice and Equinox that this is indeed an unfortunate turn of events that will (rightly or wrongly) be seen by many as prejudicial to our case and discriminatory to our faith.
King Arthur Pendragon
Battle Chieftain
Council of British Druid Orders
(Objector)
OPPOSITION FOR THE UPCOMING PUBLIC INQUIRY
Part of 'our' Opposition. for the up-coming Public Inquiry.
by Arthur Pendragon on Friday, 27 May 2011
KING ARTHUR PENDRAGON
BATTLECHIEFTAIN
COUNCIL OF BRITISH DRUID ORDERS
OPPOSITION TO Traffic Regulatory Order’s
HUMAN RIGHTS
SOLSTICE AND EQUINOX
(1) The Solstice and Equinox are a Three day celebration, occurring at and around the Longest-Shortest and Equal days of the year. Widely held by the Druid and Pagan community to mark what is generally believed in our communities, as the turning of the wheel, the natural progression of the seasons.
(2) The Council of British Druid Orders complains that the imposition of a TRO on By-way12 (The Neveravon coach road Amesbury) would violate our rights under article 9, 10 and 11 of the Convention,
(3) In that we would be prevented from being present and/or carrying out a Druid ceremony at Stonehenge at the sunrises for Equinox’s and Solstice’s.
(4) We complain that the imposition of a Traffic Regulatory Order would fail to protect our rights sufficiently under Articles 9, 10, and 11 of the Convention.
(5) A Further violation of Article 14 of the Convention would occur because by prohibiting all people from celebrating at Stonehenge , Druids and Pagans would be disproportionately discriminated against, since the Solstices and Equinox’s have particular significance for our beliefs.
(6) These points were ‘held’ by the European Court of Human Rights when the ‘so called’ Exclusion Zone in and around Stonehenge was challenged by Arthur Pendragon in November 1998 when The European court ruled that any Exclusion was only permitted in a free and democratic society if it could be shown to be in the interests of National Security.
Which this proposed TRO application clearly is not.
OTHER TIMES OF THE YEAR
(7) The same considerations should be given to other times of the year when Druids and Pagans wish to Worship at Stonehenge , such as Full and New Moons and rare Astronomical events, such as Eclipse. Other Pagan Festivals include the cross quarter days, known as the Fire Festivals Imbolc, Beltaine, Lughnasadh, and Samhain. Or (May Day, Lammas, Candle mass and Halloween as they are known to the Christian Calendar)
CIVIL RIGHTS
(8) The imposition of a TRO on the Droves in question would not only be disproportionate to the Druid and Pagan community who use them as a ‘pull in’ for Worship but also to the ‘Tourist’ who does likewise and the many other groups who use the Droves for recreational reasons.
(10) It would give, (coupled with the proposed new visitors centre and car park) English Heritage an unfair Monopoly on Stonehenge and the surrounding Landscape.
HEALTH AND SAFETY
(11) It is our belief that any such imposition of Traffic Regulatory Orders on the by-ways surrounding Stonehenge will inevitably result in an increase in traffic ‘Pulling over’ on the verges of the A303, and an increase in pedestrian traffic passing and re-passing across what is a major arterial route. Constituting a very real risk to the Health and Safety of pedestrians and motor vehicle passengers and drivers alike.
CONCLUSION
(12) We, The Council of British Druid Orders, and our entire membership of Orders and associates are therefore against any such imposition
King Arthur Pendragon,
Battlechieftain
Council of British Druid Orders
by Arthur Pendragon on Friday, 27 May 2011
KING ARTHUR PENDRAGON
BATTLECHIEFTAIN
COUNCIL OF BRITISH DRUID ORDERS
OPPOSITION TO Traffic Regulatory Order’s
HUMAN RIGHTS
SOLSTICE AND EQUINOX
(1) The Solstice and Equinox are a Three day celebration, occurring at and around the Longest-Shortest and Equal days of the year. Widely held by the Druid and Pagan community to mark what is generally believed in our communities, as the turning of the wheel, the natural progression of the seasons.
(2) The Council of British Druid Orders complains that the imposition of a TRO on By-way12 (The Neveravon coach road Amesbury) would violate our rights under article 9, 10 and 11 of the Convention,
(3) In that we would be prevented from being present and/or carrying out a Druid ceremony at Stonehenge at the sunrises for Equinox’s and Solstice’s.
(4) We complain that the imposition of a Traffic Regulatory Order would fail to protect our rights sufficiently under Articles 9, 10, and 11 of the Convention.
(5) A Further violation of Article 14 of the Convention would occur because by prohibiting all people from celebrating at Stonehenge , Druids and Pagans would be disproportionately discriminated against, since the Solstices and Equinox’s have particular significance for our beliefs.
(6) These points were ‘held’ by the European Court of Human Rights when the ‘so called’ Exclusion Zone in and around Stonehenge was challenged by Arthur Pendragon in November 1998 when The European court ruled that any Exclusion was only permitted in a free and democratic society if it could be shown to be in the interests of National Security.
Which this proposed TRO application clearly is not.
OTHER TIMES OF THE YEAR
(7) The same considerations should be given to other times of the year when Druids and Pagans wish to Worship at Stonehenge , such as Full and New Moons and rare Astronomical events, such as Eclipse. Other Pagan Festivals include the cross quarter days, known as the Fire Festivals Imbolc, Beltaine, Lughnasadh, and Samhain. Or (May Day, Lammas, Candle mass and Halloween as they are known to the Christian Calendar)
CIVIL RIGHTS
(8) The imposition of a TRO on the Droves in question would not only be disproportionate to the Druid and Pagan community who use them as a ‘pull in’ for Worship but also to the ‘Tourist’ who does likewise and the many other groups who use the Droves for recreational reasons.
(10) It would give, (coupled with the proposed new visitors centre and car park) English Heritage an unfair Monopoly on Stonehenge and the surrounding Landscape.
HEALTH AND SAFETY
(11) It is our belief that any such imposition of Traffic Regulatory Orders on the by-ways surrounding Stonehenge will inevitably result in an increase in traffic ‘Pulling over’ on the verges of the A303, and an increase in pedestrian traffic passing and re-passing across what is a major arterial route. Constituting a very real risk to the Health and Safety of pedestrians and motor vehicle passengers and drivers alike.
CONCLUSION
(12) We, The Council of British Druid Orders, and our entire membership of Orders and associates are therefore against any such imposition
King Arthur Pendragon,
Battlechieftain
Council of British Druid Orders
