<< Sites under Threat >> Please sign the petitions against the short tunnel at Stonehenge

Submitted by Andy B on Monday, 23 February 2015  Page Views: 8484

StonehengeCountry: England County: Wiltshire Type: Henge

Internal Links:

Stonehenge Landscape-study area.
Stonehenge Landscape-study area. submitted by Orpbit : Spent a few days at beginning of July to study the wider Stonehenge landscape. This is a plan of the wish list of areas to be covered. Fell far short of the objectives so will have to come back another day. But I did catch a great sunset over Amesbury 15 (one of the Normanton "cemetery" group). Prior to this shot the sunset sky was so full of character that I used it to simulate a winter solstice ... (Vote or comment on this photo)
Save Stonehenge World Heritage Site, no further damage should be done to the archaeological landscape of Stonehenge. Future generations would be appalled at those who decided that road widening should be at the expense of England’s most iconic World Heritage Site.

If A303 widening at Stonehenge is felt to be essential it should be done by means of a deep bored tunnel at least 4.5km long. Anything shorter would cause irreparable damage to this landscape, and is in breach of the World Heritage Convention.

Why is this important?

The Government proposes to widen the A303 trunk road to the south west. This road crosses the iconic Stonehenge World Heritage Site (WHS), which has been called “the most archaeologically significant land surface in Europe”. The whole site, extending to beyond the horizons around the famous stones themselves, is c. 5.4 km across. All of it makes up a “huge ancient complex” that holds many secrets yet to be discovered.

The proposal is to put the road into a tunnel where it passes the stones, but the tunnel would be at most only 2.9 km long. This would result in at least 1.6 km of above-ground 21st-century road engineering within the WHS, consisting of new dual carriageway descending in massive trenches to the tunnel portals and possibly a new underpass with slip roads on the western WHS boundary.

All archaeology in the construction zones would be destroyed and the A303 would become the largest ever human intervention in an area fashioned and revered by over a hundred generations of our ancestors.

The whole Stonehenge landscape has an outstanding universal value that is of immense significance for all people for all time, and this transcends any consideration of sorting out a 21st century part-time traffic jam.

Click here for the petition for those living in the UK and here for everyone else.

National Trust members (and others) may like to contact the National Trust to ask why they have changed long-held beliefs about protecting the landscape around Stonehenge to allow the irreparable damage that a short tunnel would cause to the World Heritage Site.

Note: the campaign is not connected with Richard 'Orpbit', whose illustration of the wider area around Stonehenge we used to illustrate the article (see comment below).

<< Shadikanni

Our Defenceless Monuments - The Threat to Cornwall’s Heritage >>

Please add your thoughts on this site

Stonehenge Landscapes Book and CD-ROM

Stonehenge Landscapes Book and CD-ROM

Sponsors

Auto-Translation (Google)

Translate from English into:

"Please sign the petitions against the short tunnel at Stonehenge" | Login/Create an Account | 47 News and Comments
  
Go back to top of page    Comments are owned by the poster. We aren't responsible for their content.
Re: Please sign the petitions against the short tunnel at Stonehenge by STOCKDALE on Wednesday, 17 February 2021
(User Info | Send a Message)
https://www.leighday.co.uk/latest-updates/news/2021-news/judicial-review-hearing-into-stonehenge-road-project-ordered/

Article about the new legal challenge to the Stonehenge tunnel decision.
[ Reply to This ]

Re: Please sign the petitions against the short tunnel at Stonehenge by Anonymous on Sunday, 05 March 2017
I sincerely hope that the consultation will be truely transparent. Who in the National Trust has advised that the short tunnel is the correct way to protect what is in fact their duty to protect? Driving a tunnel through part of an already designated World Heritage Site can hardly be reconciled with the work of the Trust. This site and much else is in fact in Trust for the World. There is no possible reson why the National Trust shoud have favoured this scheme and worse than this, have been keen to point out the benefits of the tunnel without reference to the truely terrible irreperable damage to a World Heritage Site. How can the Trust live with such deception?
Exactly the same points are to be raised with English Heritage.

Highways England must look again and if any tunnel is to be built it can only be outside the designated area.
Thank you

Simon Howell
[ Reply to This ]

Re: Please sign the petitions against the short tunnel at Stonehenge by Anonymous on Tuesday, 17 January 2017
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HaTYviSTSfk
[ Reply to This ]
    Re: Please sign the petitions against the short tunnel at Stonehenge by Anonymous on Tuesday, 17 January 2017
    Nice video.

    Here's what She said:

    Stonehenge has roughly 1,000,000 visitors per year.
    Earth's population is roughly 7,000,000,000 people.
    Stonehenge Alliance has roughly 24,000 signatures.

    24,000 against?

    It's over.
    [ Reply to This ]
      Re: Please sign the petitions against the short tunnel at Stonehenge by Anonymous on Tuesday, 17 January 2017
      The Megalithic Portal has 19,059 registered members.
      Only ten (10) have Posted here. What's that tell you?

      It's over.
      [ Reply to This ]
      Mishkan 1.2m (4ft) below Heel Stone, UK (we can see...) by GarryDenke on Wednesday, 18 January 2017
      (User Info | Send a Message)
      Mishkan 1.2m (4ft) below Heel Stone, UK (we can see...)
      [ Reply to This ]
        Are you enjoying your conversation with yourself Garry? (we can see...) by Andy B on Wednesday, 18 January 2017
        (User Info | Send a Message)
        Are you enjoying your conversation with yourself Garry? (we can see...)
        [ Reply to This ]
          Re: Are you enjoying your conversation with yourself Garry? (we can see...) by Anonymous on Friday, 20 January 2017
          Absolutely :-)
          [ Reply to This ]

Re: Please sign the petitions against the short tunnel at Stonehenge by Orpbit on Saturday, 14 January 2017
(User Info | Send a Message)
I didn't know that the Megalithic Portal is a "billboard" for freemasonry.

[Admin note. It's most certainly not, offensive content has been removed]

The links provided don't relate to any information or publication regarding the tunnel proposal that I could find either directly or within a reasonable time of searching. In short a bloody waste of time.

As regards my image at the start of this subject, Andy would you please put an asterisk against my name so that it clearly links to the disclaimer at the end, which might also be emphasised by emboldening.

I know it's a prickly issue, but behaving like *****s is hardly good advertising for the Portal.

Cheers [Admin note. Requested emboldening done R.]
[ Reply to This ]
    Re: Please sign the petitions against the short tunnel at Stonehenge by Anonymous on Saturday, 14 January 2017
    We got your Deal Done and you Complain?

    IT IS DONE, 5.5 km (3.42 mi)
    [ Reply to This ]
      Re: Please sign the petitions against the short tunnel at Stonehenge by Orpbit on Sunday, 15 January 2017
      (User Info | Send a Message)
      i) I didn't ask you to speak on my behalf!

      ii) Where's the plan showing the exact position of the tunnel and the two portals!

      iii) and showing which of Options 1 or 2 has been agreed!

      3.4 miles - Big Deal! Obviously there's an assessment to go with it including the trade offs with the official proposals, or just a Freemasonic whim because it's 5.5 km!

      At this moment in time the evidence suggests that I've been involved in more EIA's and LVIA's, including major road schemes in consultation with the Highways Agency, than you've had hot dinners.

      So to add to my previous comments all I've seen is a load of aurochs.

      Bye bye.
      [ Reply to This ]
    Re: Please sign the petitions against the short tunnel at Stonehenge by Runemage on Sunday, 15 January 2017
    (User Info | Send a Message)
    Could I please ask that no-one responds to inflammatory posts, both by named individuals and anonymous contributors.
    Many Thanks, Rune.
    [ Reply to This ]
      Re: Please sign the petitions against the short tunnel at Stonehenge by Orpbit on Sunday, 15 January 2017
      (User Info | Send a Message)
      Thank you Rune for the emboldening. Mind - wouldn't it be better just to close this item. I had already pulled out of this nonsense having started with a perfectly serious post requesting explanation. Obviously the misinterpretation of my stating "Agency" had to be corrected.

      BTW, the original ***** was "Friar" as in Mendicant Friar. I think Gollum would have guessed instantly that it was meant as a riddle. These days people don't take the word of preachers, but seek educated argument. That opportunity wasn't taken. No more to be said.

      Cheers.
      [ Reply to This ]

Re: Please sign the petitions against the short tunnel at Stonehenge by Anonymous on Thursday, 12 January 2017
I did not Hear from you,
So plans Now final.

Stonehenge tunnel plans finalised by government
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-wiltshire-38589118
Chris Grayling gives go-ahead to road tunnel under Stonehenge
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/jan/12/stonehenge-a303-tunnel-chris-grayling-world-heritage-site
Stonehenge tunnel given green light after nearly 30 years of delays
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/01/12/stonehenge-tunnel-given-green-light-nearly-30-years-delays/

[Offensive content removed. Admin]
[ Reply to This ]
    Re: Please sign the petitions against the short tunnel at Stonehenge by Orpbit on Thursday, 12 January 2017
    (User Info | Send a Message)
    Would it be possible to expand a bit on these comments:
    i) "My next action will be a surprise to all concerned." (Anonymous-14 November 2016) and

    ii) your latest post, "I did not Hear from you, So plans Now final."

    All very cryptic to me - in keeping with the "Anonymous" poster!

    Also:
    http://www.sarsen.org/
    [ Reply to This ]

Short video by Tom Holland boosts Stonehenge tunnel campaign by Andy B on Tuesday, 15 November 2016
(User Info | Send a Message)
The Stonehenge Alliance write: Our campaign to stop further damage to the landscape of Stonehenge with a short tunnel has been given a fantastic boost by our supporter Tom Holland, historian, author and broadcaster. He urges viewers to support the Stonehenge Alliance, saying

"Moving the A303 into a tunnel would be a catastrophe. An act of vandalism that would shame our country and our generation.”

The UK Government’s road building plans are at a pre-consultation stage but Highways England has written to Stonehenge Alliance saying that their working assumption is to build a 2.9 km (1.8 mile) tunnel.

The location of tunnel portals is not yet confirmed but the tunnel would lie within the World Heritage Site. This is the time to influence Government. Watch the video here http://stonehengealliance.org.uk/short-video-created-for-campaign/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6u4grV5VlH8&feature=youtu.be

Can you encourage others to take action?
http://stonehengealliance.org.uk/our-campaign/petition/

Best wishes and many thanks for your support,

The Stonehenge Alliance
[ Reply to This ]

Viable alternative to a tunnel by Anonymous on Monday, 14 November 2016
I sent Highways England a much cheaper alternative to a tunnel. They turned it down flat. My next action will be a surprise to all concerned.
[ Reply to This ]
    Re: Viable alternative to a tunnel by Andy B on Tuesday, 15 November 2016
    (User Info | Send a Message)
    Pray do tell - preferably this time not with your phone number...
    [ Reply to This ]

Questions in Parliament about the proposed short tunnel at Stonehenge by Andy B on Monday, 28 September 2015
(User Info | Send a Message)
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb

Does the Government plan “to implement a tunnel for the A303 in order to avoid the entire surface area of the Stonehenge part of the World Heritage Site?”

Have they “sought, or been given, the advice of the National Committee of the International Council on Monuments and Sites concerning proposals for dualling the A303 through the Stonehenge part of the World Heritage Site; and if so, what advice have they received?”

Do they intend “fully to honour Article 4 of the 1972 Convention Concerning the Protection of the World’s Heritage in respect of any future A303 dualling scheme at Stonehenge; and if not, whether they intend to withdraw as a signatory to the World Heritage Convention?”

Not answered yet.
With thanks to
https://heritageaction.wordpress.com/2015/09/28/stonehenge-three-incisive-questions-in-parliament/?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter
[ Reply to This ]

Re: Please sign the petitions against the short tunnel at Stonehenge by Anonymous on Friday, 28 August 2015
We need to protect our Ancient Monuments and the area surrounding them. They bare too important.
[ Reply to This ]

Re: Please sign the petitions against the short tunnel at Stonehenge by Anonymous on Monday, 16 March 2015
Ancient sites should be left untouched!
[ Reply to This ]

Re: Please sign the petitions against the short tunnel at Stonehenge by Orpbit on Sunday, 08 March 2015
(User Info | Send a Message)
Hi Andy,

Thanks for posting my image of the landscape study area. My immediate reaction was that it perhaps gives the impression of my being involved in the campaign - "submitted by Orpbit" followed immediately by "Save Stonehenge World Heritage Site..."! I know that was not the intention but, nonetheless it remains a possibility should people not read in greater depth.
I was aware of a campaign building up, but took my eye off this particular "ball" until your post. As a result I have been rethinking my intentions as regards the placement, in terms of the sequence of publishing my researches, of my studies in identifying a defined "sacred space" in the landscape around the Stonehenge monument.
The results of those studies are directly pertinent to the increasingly polarised views about the tunnel. To clarify, the area I encircled in the image is actually part of a wider area of diameter 6.1 kilometers (3.8 miles), measured through the centre of the monument. Although a rough figure, anyone using Google Earth can speculate as to what the line of the bigger circle actually passes through. I'm not going to elaborate here, rather I should make it clear that the "sacred space" which I defined was entirely CALCULATED out of various aspects of my studies, rather than just a guess using the disposition of known features.
In short I have scientifically defined a space, which is the material expression, as I see it, of the state of scientific knowledge and/or its translation into a "sacred space" within which there would have been rigid rules for the creation of other features such as the many burial mounds and their groupings, not to mention a rationalle behind the creation of the Greater Cursus.
The important issue here is that there is only one published precedence, that I'm aware of, which comes anywhere close to the method that I employed, and this was published after I had already identified the main principle. Contact with the author of that publication, who is a well known archaeologist, has not materialised into any exchange of dialogue at present.
As a result, and bearing in mind that the extent of the area I defined is even greater, at 6.1 km diameter, than even the longer preferred stated length of tunnel by some campaigners, raises the issue of the "precautionary principle"(http://www.precautionaryprinciple.eu/). I have therefore put my publishing strategy on temporary hold while I am considering as to whether, when, how, and to what depth I should publish out of the original sequence to cover this more urgent issue.
I do have a personal view. As a landscape professional much of my work revolved around advising the planning function on the environmental impact of development proposals, which included representing the local authorities that I worked for, and included major roadwork proposals. I have no fears, therefore, as regards the seriousness of consideration and appropriate actions resulting therefrom, as to safeguarding whatever features were likely to be affected by such proposals. Nevertheless, this proposal is clearly unique in many significant ways. As such I had come to the conclusion that there should be no disturbance either above ground or below ground, within the extent of the "sacred space" that I have identified.

I am not inclined to join any campaigning group. I believe that I should put my views of potential impact of future studies/discoveries which might be irreversibly damaged by premature development by way of the current tunnel proposal. The question of how long one should wait before building a tunnel, whatever its length, arises. The answer, I suppose, depends on whether one is convinced that this is the only option available.
I have decided now that I will publish out of my original sequence, but not yet the other parameters. Whether or not the method I employed is received with any scientific credibility and which might influence the detail of the proposal, remains to be seen.

Richard



[ Reply to This ]
    Re: Please sign the petitions against the short tunnel at Stonehenge by Andy B on Sunday, 08 March 2015
    (User Info | Send a Message)
    Thanks Richard, good point, the attribution isn't always clear on images vs text. I have added a note to the effect that the campaign is not connected with yourself. We'll look forward to seeing what you have to publish.
    [ Reply to This ]

Re: Please sign the petitions against the short tunnel at Stonehenge by jonm on Thursday, 26 February 2015
(User Info | Send a Message)
"All archaeology in the construction zones would be destroyed and the A303 would become the largest ever human intervention in an area fashioned and revered by over a hundred generations of our ancestors."

Almost all areas in Britain have been fashioned, to some extent or other, by over a hundred generations.

Other than to a minority of people in recent generations, the 'reverence' angle is not known to be true: Starting about four centuries back, wealthy people took an interest in this particular monument's purpose. This past-time became very popular.

No significant discoveries have been made about this 'start-up' monument's purpose and many professional archaeologists have gone into print declaring that no discovery of this type is likely. So the claim that there is anything left worth protecting appears to be dismissed by the experts.

There may be a few problems with the key selling points of this petition.


[ Reply to This ]

Re: Please sign the petitions against the short tunnel at Stonehenge by tripleransom on Thursday, 26 February 2015
(User Info | Send a Message)
i see we Americans are not the only ones to destroy our heritage in the name of "progress".
I have visited Stonehenge twice and each time it was one of the highlights of my trip to England. The first time was in the late 1960's when the site was still relatively undisturbed. I took a train from London, then a coach and finally walked from the nearest town. I eventually arrived late in the afternoon. At that time, I was able to walk in among the great stones and look down over the Salisbury Plain. I was quite alone there and it was an incredible experience which still gives me goosebumps even after all these years.
By my second visit 10 years later, the roadway and carpark were already intrusive enough to lessen the experience. I shudder to think what this new roadway "improvement" will do to the ambience of this incredibly impressive site.
[ Reply to This ]

Re: Please sign the petitions against the short tunnel at Stonehenge by Anonymous on Wednesday, 25 February 2015
Please don''t spoil this neolithic wonder!
[ Reply to This ]

Re: Please sign the petitions against the short tunnel at Stonehenge by Anonymous on Wednesday, 25 February 2015
Please leave Stonehenge alone. If there has to be road widening do it sensitively with a tunnel long enough to protect the stones.
If it all about cost that is simply ridiculous.
[ Reply to This ]

Re: Please sign the petitions against the short tunnel at Stonehenge by Anonymous on Tuesday, 24 February 2015
Please do not damage Stonehenge any more. It is one of the most important sites in the world. It's a house hold name and should not be turned into an eye sore. The noise from the cars is already a huge problem. It looks like you are trying to destroy one of the world’s most sacred sites. Would you do this to a church?!
[ Reply to This ]

Re: Please sign the petitions against the short tunnel at Stonehenge by arthurthegnome on Tuesday, 24 February 2015
(User Info | Send a Message)
I'm going to make myself unpopular by saying that, there's probably enough grass verge to widen the road and that I'm against a tunnel because I believe the best view of the stones is from the A303 and all the redevelopment is just to increase English Heritage's profits. Heritage have already ruined the ambience of the stones by restricting access and charging admission (under the excuse that they would get worn away by people touching them, even though there was free access 1000s of years and far worse was done by local farmers and the MOD). Best compromise, leave the road as it is and let the rest of us enjoy something for free, there isn't much in these monetarist era.
[ Reply to This ]

Re: Please sign the petitions against the short tunnel at Stonehenge by Anonymous on Tuesday, 24 February 2015
I'm furious about this, put your tunnel elsewhere other than where you are planning. Earth Geometrix.
[ Reply to This ]

Re: Let Stonehege be by Anonymous on Tuesday, 24 February 2015
I've not had the opportunity to visit this famous site and will be greatly saddened if it's harmed in any way during the construction of a road.
[ Reply to This ]

Re: Please sign the petitions against the short tunnel at Stonehenge by Goedog on Tuesday, 24 February 2015
(User Info | Send a Message)
I was appalled about the proposal for a tunnel at Stonehenge from the time I first heard of the idea, because of the immense destruction the engineering works would cause.

If there has to be a tunnel, then it needs to be deep bored for a much longer distance to keep well clear of Stonehenge and the surrounding countrysite.

Martin Hughes
[ Reply to This ]

Re: Please sign the petitions against the short tunnel at Stonehenge by Anonymous on Tuesday, 24 February 2015
Hi Mike here,

Author of Stonehenge, Stone Circles and Stone Age Numbers

I feel Stonehenge deserves the best of solutions and new lights and noise are not what is required

Mike Green
[ Reply to This ]

Re: Please sign the petitions against the short tunnel at Stonehenge by Britishfootpaths on Tuesday, 24 February 2015
(User Info | Send a Message)
We write walking guide books for Americans to explore the English countryside on your world renown path and B&B system.

Please reconsider any plans for construction of a short tunnel at Stonehenge.

Our thousands of followers will thank you for retaining the good views of this ancient sight.

Thank you.
FrednDonna Austin
British Footpaths
Britishfootpaths.org
9521 45th Ave NE Seattle, WA 98115 USA
[ Reply to This ]
    Re: Please sign the petitions against the short tunnel at Stonehenge by golux on Tuesday, 24 February 2015
    (User Info | Send a Message)
    This plan to build a tunnel is intended to improve and protect the appearance of Stonehenge and its surroundings. I don't think your "thousands of followers" will prefer to see a busy trunk road running past the stones, as is the case at present. Why on earth are you objecting to a tunnel which will only improve the "good views of this ancent sight" (sic)?
    [ Reply to This ]

Re: Please sign the petitions against the short tunnel at Stonehenge by golux on Monday, 23 February 2015
(User Info | Send a Message)
It is my understanding that ground-breaking (in the literal sense) construction work is usually preceded by an archaeological survey and access is allowed for archaeologists to examine anything of interest before the ground is disturbed. Anything of interest that turns up during construction is similarly offered for archaeological examination and in this way roadworks or house-building actually encourage archaeology. This is certainly the normal practice in the northeast of Scotland (in fact it is mandatory, at least in some circumstances) so why do you say "All archaeology in the construction zones would be destroyed"?
[ Reply to This ]
    Re: Please sign the petitions against the short tunnel at Stonehenge by Andy B on Monday, 23 February 2015
    (User Info | Send a Message)
    Well OK, by that argument you may as well excavate out the whole WHS, build houses on it and have the stones as a nice garden feature in the middle.
    [ Reply to This ]
      Re: Please sign the petitions against the short tunnel at Stonehenge by golux on Tuesday, 24 February 2015
      (User Info | Send a Message)
      I am not arguing, I am asking the question: why you say "All archaeology in the construction zones would be destroyed"? As I explained, I would expect this kind of construction work to discover and recover the archaeology, not destroy it. I have seen instances of valuable archaeology being recovered by this process with my own eyes. If you have reasons to believe that the normal procedures to safeguard archaeology would not be followed then let's have them.
      [ Reply to This ]
        Re: Please sign the petitions against the short tunnel at Stonehenge by Andy B on Tuesday, 24 February 2015
        (User Info | Send a Message)
        I'm sure all the usual pre-development archaeology stuff would be done but that's not exactly the point, I'll rephrase: by that logic you may as well excavate out the whole WHS...
        [ Reply to This ]
          Re: Please sign the petitions against the short tunnel at Stonehenge by golux on Tuesday, 24 February 2015
          (User Info | Send a Message)
          I am simply pointing out that the statement above ("All archaeology in the construction zones would be destroyed") is not true. Some of the objections to the tunnel seem to me quite unfounded; now it seems that one of them is at best a silly exaggeration, this makes the whole case look even weaker. Why you would think that my questioning one obvious flaw in the case is equivalent to advocating the wholesale destruction of the WHS, I don't know, - is this more wild hyperbole?

          The argument over how to stop the A303 intruding on Stonehenge has been going on for as long as I can remember. Finally a solution is proposed which will hide the offending road and which seems to answer most of the objections. If the remaining objectors are now reduced to such flimsy arguments as this then they are going to lose, and rightly so.
          [ Reply to This ]
    Re: Please sign the petitions against the short tunnel at Stonehenge by Anonymous on Wednesday, 25 February 2015
    The objectors' arguments are not flimsy, nor are they ignorant of visual concerns. Indeed they need to be resolved.
    To remind you, the petition ends by stating: "If A303 widening at Stonehenge is felt to be essential it should be done by means of a deep bored tunnel at least 4.5km long. Anything shorter would cause irreparable damage to this landscape, in breach of the World Heritage Convention." This is consistent with the National Trust's former position, which very sadly they have abandoned.
    The World Heritage Site is upheld by the World Heritage Convention principally article 4 http://whc.unesco.org/en/conventiontext/ which asks for financial measures to be taken sufficient to undertake the necessary improvements for the WHS even if it means an international appeal. If this Convention is breached due to permanent damage inflicted, then there will be a risk to the WHS status.
    We also need to be aware that the recent Blick Mead discoveries are on the WHS boundary and might be vulnerable to more than just the tunnel. So the 4.5km reference might no longer be appropriate to properly safeguard the WHS.
    True, archaeologists frequently rely on the opportunity afforded by development to piece together our past. But this is not the reason to build a short bored tunnel! It is short bored in order to save money and to restore only a portion of the Stonehenge landscape, ignoring the Outstanding Universal Value of the whole.
    No doubt you will be aware that ICOMOS-UK, advisor to UNESCO, has written to the Secretary of State for Transport, warning him of the risks to the WHS.
    Ultimately you, NT, EH and government, need to decide whether it is worth risking the outstanding universal value of the WHS.
    Speaking for myself, I share the frustrations about the reluctance to do the best for Stonehenge WHS. The delays have not been caused by the objectors. If only Government had done the right thing in the first place and built a long bored tunnel as promised in 1994 instead of the distracting proposal in 2004 of a cut and cover that wasted huge resources, political energy and time, this conversation would not have been so prolonged and the costs would not have escalated to the extent that they have.
    [ Reply to This ]

Your Name: Anonymous [ Register Now ]
Subject:


Add your comment or contribution to this page. Spam or offensive posts are deleted immediately, don't even bother

<<< What is five plus one as a number? (Please type the answer to this question in the little box on the left)
You can also embed videos and other things. For Youtube please copy and paste the 'embed code'.
For Google Street View please include Street View in the text.
Create a web link like this: <a href="https://www.megalithic.co.uk">This is a link</a>  

Allowed HTML is:
<p> <b> <i> <a> <img> <em> <br> <strong> <blockquote> <tt> <li> <ol> <ul> <object> <param> <embed> <iframe>
We would like to know more about this location. Please feel free to add a brief description and any relevant information in your own language.
Wir möchten mehr über diese Stätte erfahren. Bitte zögern Sie nicht, eine kurze Beschreibung und relevante Informationen in Deutsch hinzuzufügen.
Nous aimerions en savoir encore un peu sur les lieux. S'il vous plaît n'hesitez pas à ajouter une courte description et tous les renseignements pertinents dans votre propre langue.
Quisieramos informarnos un poco más de las lugares. No dude en añadir una breve descripción y otros datos relevantes en su propio idioma.