thesweetcheat
|
Judicial review decision
Jul 30, 2021, 16:51
|
Campaigners have succeeded in their judicial review of the decision to proceed with the tunnel.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-wiltshire-58024139.amp
|
nigelswift
|
Re: Judicial review decision
Jul 30, 2021, 16:59
|
:) :) :)
https://heritageaction.wordpress.com/2021/07/30/breaking-stonehenge-landscape-archaeology-and-free-view-saved-short-tunnel-unlawful/
|
thesweetcheat
|
Re: Judicial review decision
Jul 30, 2021, 17:07
|
|
nigelswift wrote:
I haven't read the judgment yet (it's 77 pages of technical argument) - it appears that they succeeded on two grounds only out of a lot more. It might be premature to suggest this is the end of it, but it is still a remarkable victory.
I also wonder whether anything in the judgment might have wider application to other heritage sites, but won't know that until I've read it properly.
Good news anyway :)
|
nigelswift
|
Re: Judicial review decision
Jul 30, 2021, 17:20
|
|
It's hard to see how, if it is ruled the Government "made an error of law by failing to consider alternatives to the scheme, such as a longer tunnel" there is the least scope for an appeal.
|
thesweetcheat
|
Re: Judicial review decision
Jul 30, 2021, 17:40
|
|
I agree. But there is scope to start the process again. We may not have seen the last of tunnel proposals, just *this* tunnel proposal.
|
nigelswift
|
Re: Judicial review decision
Jul 30, 2021, 17:54
|
|
I guess so, but having been on the receiving end of a lot of snotty-nosed nonsense from certain pro-tunnel archaeologists for many years over this issue, it's nice to see them utterly beaten, for now at least! You can't damage a wonder of the world AND hide a wonder of the world and tell the public your actions have improved a wonder of the world.
|
tjj
|
Edited Jul 31, 2021, 00:28
Re: Judicial review decision
Jul 30, 2021, 17:56
|
|
Thank you for posting this very good news.
|
thesweetcheat
|
Edited Jul 30, 2021, 18:43
Re: Judicial review decision
Jul 30, 2021, 18:42
|
|
Not to mention yet another of the courts finding that this government has acted "unlawfully". They really are piling up the court cases that they have lost due to their own actions. (And before anyone suggests otherwise, the judiciary isn't anti-government, it's necessarily impartial.)
|
costaexpress
|
Re: Could Stonehenge be stripped of its World Heritage Status
Jul 31, 2021, 10:51
|
|
I know there is a risk of reigniting old arguments, however, just wondered if there is a generally preferred option now being put forward by the majority of MA contributors, is it do nothing and encourage traffic to avoid the area using public transport, is it to put the problem in someone else back yard and build the road elsewhere or is it for a longer tunnel, trying to form a view as to where I stand on this as there are so many lobby groups out there with hidden or competing agenda's its difficult to know what's best, certainly would like to see the whole of the Stonehenge landscape united but not at the expense of the water table being drained and the land shifting and moving and undiscovered sites being decimated.
|
nigelswift
|
Edited Jul 31, 2021, 12:07
Re: Could Stonehenge be stripped of its World Heritage Status
Jul 31, 2021, 12:05
|
|
Personally, I'd settle for either a longer tunnel, which would be more expensive or a southern bypass which would be cheaper. Either way, the free "Turner view" would be lost but that's probably a price worth paying to avoid having a short tunnel Mark 2.
|
