|
The Modern Antiquarian Forum » Stonehenge and its Environs » Stonehenge Tunnel Decision |
Log In to post a reply
|
|
|
|
| Topic View: Flat | Threaded | |
tjj 3606 posts |
Edited Nov 12, 2020, 18:05
Nov 12, 2020, 18:04
|
||
|
And it is not good news. Planning Act 2008 (PA2008) – Sections 116 and 117 and The Infrastructure Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2017 – Regulation 31 Application by Highways England for an Order Granting Development Consent for the A303 Amesbury to Berwick Down Notice of the decision by the Secretary of State I write to notify you of the publication of the Secretary of State’s decision and statement of reasons and the Order granting development consent in relation to the above application. The Secretary of State as the decision maker under s103 and s104 of the PA2008 has decided that development consent should be granted and therefore has made an Order under s114(1)(a) of PA2008. More in link below https://infrastructure.planninginspectorate.gov.uk/wp-content/ipc/uploads/projects/TR010025/TR010025-001935-Notice%20of%20the%20Decision%20by%20the%20SoS%20(Reg%2023%20or%2031)%20GRANTED.pdf The Stonehenge Alliance have issued this statement: The Stonehenge Alliance deeply regrets a decision that will send shock messages around the world. It will breach: • the UK’s international treaty obligation (World Heritage Convention 1972) not to damage the WHS; and • the UK’s legal commitment to address Climate Change. We shall study carefully the detail of the Transport Secretary’s Decision Letter and the formal Report and recommendations of the Examiners of the road scheme, before meeting with colleagues to discuss any next steps. With your fantastic support we shall continue with our campaign and petition in the hope that there may still be time in which to change that decision.
|
|||
thesweetcheat 6210 posts |
Nov 13, 2020, 09:25
|
||
|
I found this a well-balanced read on the subject, avoiding a lot of the emotive and hyperbolic language used elsewhere. It sets out the conflicting views well without resorting to sensationalism. https://wildhunt.org/2020/11/pagans-react-as-stonehenge-a303-tunnel-project-set-to-move-ahead.html
|
|||
|
nigelswift 8112 posts |
Nov 13, 2020, 09:59
|
||
|
There is much in the article I could take issue with but I'd like to point out that the picture and the quote "if you look to the right children, you won't see Stonehenge" is mine. It doesn't "imply" that will happen it IS fecking going to happen, and as we've said today: "In the next century alone, hundreds of millions of people will be deprived of seeing the stones as the Romans, the Anglo-Saxons, the Elizabethans, John Aubrey, William Stukeley, Samuel Pepys, Darwin, Turner, Constable, and Obama saw them and as every archaeologist in English Heritage, Historic England and the National Trust has seen them. No traveller will ever again see a rainbow over the stones. This is not “helping future generations to appreciate the stones”, it is stealing the future’s heritage for a road scheme, and painting it as educational. The future will not be fooled, it will be contemptuous." If an old codger like me can be utterly scandalised by what's happening I'd hope a lot of non-codgers will be too.
|
|||
|
tjj 3606 posts |
Nov 13, 2020, 11:30
|
||
|
thesweetcheat wrote: I found this a well-balanced read on the subject, avoiding a lot of the emotive and hyperbolic language used elsewhere. It sets out the conflicting views well without resorting to sensationalism. https://wildhunt.org/2020/11/pagans-react-as-stonehenge-a303-tunnel-project-set-to-move-ahead.html Thank you tsc (and hello, feels like a long time). Yes, that is a good article, was very pleased to see Caroline Wise quoted as she is someone I have a great deal of respect for, albeit she doesn't come solely from the archaeological perspective on this. It would not be correct to say I am ambivalent though I can see both sides of the debate. My personal view is ... if in doubt, DON'T. There has to be a way in the near future of reducing all traffic on roads otherwise any thoughts of slowing done climate change will come to nothing. Anyone who has ever seen a new road or tunnel being constructed will know the heavy toll it takes on the surrounding land. However much tree planting or grass laying is done afterwards the Stonehenge landscape is one that cannot be put back.
|
|||
|
thesweetcheat 6210 posts |
Nov 13, 2020, 11:39
|
||
|
FWIW, I agree with tjj's summary: "if in doubt, don't". For my money, there is a potential to cause irreversible harm (beyond the actual loss of archaeology itself) and it also seems like a lot of money that could be better spent on something else. But if they are going to do it, the current plans do seem less appalling than some of the earlier versions. My main reason for posting the link is because it doesn't get caught up in the emotional, loaded language used in other articles I've read, nor is tabloid-ese particularly. As for people being excluded from seeing the stones from A303 road-distance, I'm guessing you will still be able to see them from there, just not from a car window. It will be interesting to know what they plan do with the stopped-up route, as it would be great if it was kept as a right of way or included in the open access land. This is probably set out somewhere in the plans but it hasn't jumped out at me. I won't be sorry to see the road disappear from the landscape anyway.
|
|||
|
thesweetcheat 6210 posts |
Nov 13, 2020, 11:41
|
||
Hello! Hope all is well with you. I imagine you're like me and quite restricted in getting anywhere at the moment - here's hoping for better times ahead and that the drive to encourage public transport use isn't going to be sunk by the current situation (sorry, very OT!).
|
|||
|
nigelswift 8112 posts |
Nov 13, 2020, 14:10
|
||
|
"It will be interesting to know what they plan do with the stopped-up route, as it would be great if it was kept as a right of way or included in the open access land." Yes, retaining it as a sort of tourist/viewing road was talked about but reference to that was mysteriously removed from the submitted papers.
|
|||
|
GLADMAN 950 posts |
Nov 15, 2020, 00:16
|
||
|
New Order Nov 2020: "I feel the need for harmony And I look around, but it's not what I see I see angry faces looking at me And I want to know what makes them so For this world can be a dangerous place But it's all we got, and it's quite a lot Take a look at yourself......" Don't take sides. Just do the right thing. Compromise, make it work.
|
|||
|
nigelswift 8112 posts |
Nov 15, 2020, 05:21
|
||
|
"Don't take sides. Just do the right thing. Compromise, make it work." So does doing the right thing and compromising mean break the World Heritage Convention we signed up to and refuse to spend money on a longer tunnel?
|
|||
|
tjj 3606 posts |
Edited Nov 15, 2020, 14:24
Nov 15, 2020, 14:22
|
||
I don't want to get into a forum argument about this but ... compromise is not possible in this situation. The case 'against' the tunnel is evidence based and should have been the only criteria considered. There is something else going on here and it smells like the dead rat of corruption.
|
| Pages: 4 – [ 1 2 3 4 | Next ] | Add a reply to this topic |
|
|
|
| The Modern Antiquarian Forum Index | |
