Stonehenge Tunnel legally blocked

Discussions about serious topics, for serious people
User avatar
Fishnut
After Pie
Posts: 2447
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 1:15 pm
Location: UK

Stonehenge Tunnel legally blocked

Post by Fishnut » Fri Jul 30, 2021 3:58 pm

A case brought by campaigners to prevent the building of a tunnel near Stonehenge has been successful and the Development Consent Order for the tunnel has been quashed. The judgement can be found here.
it's okay to say "I don't know"

User avatar
El Pollo Diablo
Stummy Beige
Posts: 3323
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2019 4:41 pm
Location: FBPE

Re: Stonehenge Tunnel legally blocked

Post by El Pollo Diablo » Fri Jul 30, 2021 4:21 pm

I'm curious as to what the right solution is, then. That road is a nightmare, and it needs some sort of dual carriageway. Bypassing more to the south? A longer tunnel?
If truth is many-sided, mendacity is many-tongued

User avatar
Fishnut
After Pie
Posts: 2447
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 1:15 pm
Location: UK

Re: Stonehenge Tunnel legally blocked

Post by Fishnut » Fri Jul 30, 2021 4:38 pm

I really don't know. But I'm viscerally against a tunnel. I know that roads require destruction of landscape but at least there's the potential for some archaeological investigation to take place beforehand and there isn't significant depth that's required to be excavated, whereas a tunnel would just destroy without any real chance for investigation or recovery of artefacts. I appreciate that pretty much everywhere in the UK can be seen as a potential archaeological site and there's a limit to what can be feasibly done before infrastructure projects are begun, but the area around Stonehenge is special and deserves to be protected for future generations.
it's okay to say "I don't know"

User avatar
lpm
Junior Mod
Posts: 5944
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 1:05 pm

Re: Stonehenge Tunnel legally blocked

Post by lpm » Fri Jul 30, 2021 5:12 pm

The place is not a nightmare. I've been through the jam loads. It's just 20 minutes of queuing.

At peak times it's the rest of the road that's slow - the 70 miles from Stonehenge to Honiton can have several places with 5 minute queues, a few more places where the traffic rolls along at 20 mph. A fast tunnel would just move the traffic to the back of the next queue quicker. Every driver notices the 20 minutes hold up and starts screaming for a tunnel or bypass, but doesn't register four 5 minute jams in the same way.

Per google maps, the journey from Amesbury to Honiton takes 1 hour 24 minutes without traffic via the A303 past Stonehenge.

West, right now there are 5 red sections of traffic and google gives 1 hour 53 minutes. Of that extra 29 minutes, 12 minutes is caused by the Stonehenge jam.

Heading east there are 11 red sections and 5 yellow sections. 2 hours 7 minutes. Of the extra 43 minutes, 22 minutes is due to the Stonehenge queue.

There's a reason why everyone sticks with the A303 past Stonehenge despite almost certain jams - it's nonetheless the quickest route despite budgeting 20 minutes. It's a classic case of putting in a fast bit of tunnel to remove one queue only to see the traffic grind to a halt elsewhere.
⭐ Awarded gold star 4 November 2021

User avatar
Cardinal Fang
Snowbonk
Posts: 421
Joined: Tue Nov 12, 2019 7:42 pm

Re: Stonehenge Tunnel legally blocked

Post by Cardinal Fang » Fri Jul 30, 2021 6:01 pm

I always reckoned if they put a screen of trees up along that road so it blocks the view of Stonehenge from the A303, everything would go faster - a suspect a chunk of the problems on that stretch of road is to do with people slowing down to gawp at the henge on the way through. Only takes a handful to slow everything down for a chunk longer than they're actually on the road

Plant them on the road side of the fence, where any archeology has already been destroyed when the road was built then there's nowt to object to

CF
Image

IvanV
Stummy Beige
Posts: 2663
Joined: Mon May 17, 2021 11:12 am

Re: Stonehenge Tunnel legally blocked

Post by IvanV » Fri Jul 30, 2021 9:27 pm

People are writing as if the main purpose of the scheme is to increase capacity/speed of the road. But this is not the case. The Stonehenge tunnel is not justifiable as government spending as a transport scheme alone. The time savings to travellers (govt has standard values determined from consensus of many experiments DfT TAG databook), and the amenity benefit for by-passing the hamlet of Winterbourne Stoke, is not worth the cost of the road scheme. This has been known for decades. Most road schemes have transport and amenity benefits in considerable excess of the construction/maintenance costs. Road schemes that fail the value-for-money test for government spending go ahead only in exceptional cases, since there are so many potential road schemes available that provide large transport benefit. This is potentially such an exceptional case.

Surface dualling that section of the A303, with just sufficient relocation to by-pass Winterbourne Stoke, if that were a feasible scheme, costing a small fraction of the tunnel scheme, would probably pass standard transport value-for-money tests. But it is of course unimaginable to carry out in that landscape. As is planting a shelter belt of trees.

The Stonehenge tunnel has therefore been promoted by government in large part because it removes much of the on-going heritage detriment of having a busy trunk road passing a short distance from a world heritage site causing visual, noise and other damages to that site. It has judged that such a benefit is worthwhile, when added to the transport benefit. No monetary value has been placed on that heritage benefit is difficult, but implicitly it is being valued very highly, and rightly so in the view of many. The line of route of the tunnel scheme is only slightly displaced from the present road.

The tunnel scheme has been compared against several other schemes. The tunnel scheme unfortunately has some heritage detriments because it damages some parts of the heritage landscape in the vicinity of the tunnel portals.

There are potential schemes which avoid that specific heritage damage, generally by relocating the road a much larger distance away from its present alignment. But there are many other significant landscapes in the area, and every potential scheme has some horrible damage of some kind, (short of some very extensive tunnelling.) And these alternative schemes are all considerably more expensive than the tunnel scheme.

So, you can end up doing nothing, and living with the horrible heritage detriment of the A303 as is. From a purely archaeological perspective, you can say that at least that does no further archaelogical damage. But that is a narrow view of the heritage detriment of the present A303. The government was putting up a lot of money to remove the heritage detriment of the present A303, but at that archaeological cost. Alternatives all have their own detriments, landscape and archaeological. There is a compromise to be made, and here was a government willing to put in a lot of money into removing a large heritage detriment, it seems a bit ungrateful to refuse it, when the alternaves cost hundreds of millions more and have their own problems. But maybe other people have different views.

We are not the richest of nations, and compromises have to be made. There is no perfect solution, aside from one that costs far beyond what anyone would pay. The present situation is, in the mind of many, intolerable, not from a transport perspective but from a heritage landscape perspective. If you want a really, really, expensive solution to that, then it's not going to happen. The lesser road that went along the north side of the stones - close enough to get a good view of them through the fence without paying - has been removed and that is good. You can still get a good view of the stones through the fence without paying by standing on the line of the old road, which lies on access land, and is easily accessible by footpath from Larkhill about 2km away.

This is a judicial review that has said the government did not take the decision properly. That does surprise me. The scheme has been in assessment for a couple of decades and the issues, both in relation to the road and avoiding judicial review, are known very well by the relevant parties. Such a judgment does not say that the same decision cannot be taken, only that proper process was not followed. Sometimes the omitted factors are such that the same decision can't be made. And sometimes it just creates delay and a negotiating situation. And of course, there is appeal. In the recent Heathrow case which has some similarities, and was a much less attractive government decision, the judicial review was eventually thrown out by the supreme court.

I will have a read of the judgment in due course. My suspicion is that this is not the end of the affair. The failure of the scheme to go ahead annoys far more people than not going ahead.

User avatar
lpm
Junior Mod
Posts: 5944
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 1:05 pm

Re: Stonehenge Tunnel legally blocked

Post by lpm » Fri Jul 30, 2021 10:41 pm

The traffic jam has zero impact on the stones. The only impact is on tourist who can see cars.

The tunnel would have seriously damaged unknown remains by changing the water table, as well as the direct damage along the route. Supporters of the site and its archaeology have led the fight against it. The heritage industry wanted this scheme, heritage fans were against it.
⭐ Awarded gold star 4 November 2021

User avatar
Grumble
Light of Blast
Posts: 4747
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 1:03 pm

Re: Stonehenge Tunnel legally blocked

Post by Grumble » Fri Jul 30, 2021 11:24 pm

The experts I trust in this are the archaeologists working in the area. Mike Parker Pearson thinks the tunnel would cause an unacceptable level of damage. Feel free to bring out archaeologists who are in favour of the tunnel.
where once I used to scintillate
now I sin till ten past three

plodder
Stummy Beige
Posts: 2981
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 1:50 pm

Re: Stonehenge Tunnel legally blocked

Post by plodder » Sat Jul 31, 2021 10:28 am

Grumble wrote:
Fri Jul 30, 2021 11:24 pm
The experts I trust in this are the archaeologists working in the area. Mike Parker Pearson thinks the tunnel would cause an unacceptable level of damage. Feel free to bring out archaeologists who are in favour of the tunnel.
Can you provide a link to their objection?

Also interested to know what impact would a tunnel have on the water table, and why future archaeology out-trumps current heritage status. I’m with Ivan on this one, in that a tunnel feels like the least worst option, especially compared to the status quo.

User avatar
Grumble
Light of Blast
Posts: 4747
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 1:03 pm

Re: Stonehenge Tunnel legally blocked

Post by Grumble » Sat Jul 31, 2021 1:08 pm

plodder wrote:
Sat Jul 31, 2021 10:28 am
Grumble wrote:
Fri Jul 30, 2021 11:24 pm
The experts I trust in this are the archaeologists working in the area. Mike Parker Pearson thinks the tunnel would cause an unacceptable level of damage. Feel free to bring out archaeologists who are in favour of the tunnel.
Can you provide a link to their objection?

Also interested to know what impact would a tunnel have on the water table, and why future archaeology out-trumps current heritage status. I’m with Ivan on this one, in that a tunnel feels like the least worst option, especially compared to the status quo.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/202 ... SApp_Other
where once I used to scintillate
now I sin till ten past three

User avatar
Bird on a Fire
Princess POW
Posts: 10137
Joined: Fri Oct 11, 2019 5:05 pm
Location: Portugal

Re: Stonehenge Tunnel legally blocked

Post by Bird on a Fire » Sat Jul 31, 2021 1:21 pm

Is the current 303 actually damaging the heritage status, or is it just ugly and annoying for visitors?

It's such a fascinating landscape that I really think it would be unjustifiable to potentially damage future opportunities for discovery about our ancient past.

As for shelter belts etc, couldn't they hide it behind an earthwork rampart, like a ha-ha, to give the impression of rolling views? Tourists only need one decent angle for their selfies.
We have the right to a clean, healthy, sustainable environment.

User avatar
Fishnut
After Pie
Posts: 2447
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 1:15 pm
Location: UK

Re: Stonehenge Tunnel legally blocked

Post by Fishnut » Sat Jul 31, 2021 1:46 pm

Bird on a Fire wrote:
Sat Jul 31, 2021 1:21 pm
It's such a fascinating landscape that I really think it would be unjustifiable to potentially damage future opportunities for discovery about our ancient past.
That's my view too. So much of the archaeology is underground where it's been preserved for thousands of years, and I just don't know how we can justify destroying it all so we can get between A and B a little bit faster.
it's okay to say "I don't know"

User avatar
Bird on a Fire
Princess POW
Posts: 10137
Joined: Fri Oct 11, 2019 5:05 pm
Location: Portugal

Re: Stonehenge Tunnel legally blocked

Post by Bird on a Fire » Sat Jul 31, 2021 3:07 pm

Plus, if people actually want to restore a neolithic-looking landscape around Stonehenge, they'll need to reduce grazing density and get the arable farming out.

While current thinking among archaeologists is that the landscape would have already been cleared of large trees (nice article from Pearson here), the Avon floodplain would've been swampy and full of tall sedges, and it's highly unlikely grazing could've been at high enough densities to keep the downland as devoid of flowers and scrub as you see today. The stones may even have been surrounded by hedges.

So returning the landscape to historically-accurate land-use would help hide the road and look nicer, along with the biodiversity and carbon benefits that wetlands and grasslands provide. Should be doable with with public subsidies, and be a shiteload cheaper than tunneling.

(Anyone calling such a scheme "rewilding" gets sacrificed at the next solstice)
We have the right to a clean, healthy, sustainable environment.

plodder
Stummy Beige
Posts: 2981
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 1:50 pm

Re: Stonehenge Tunnel legally blocked

Post by plodder » Sat Jul 31, 2021 6:17 pm

Grumble wrote:
Sat Jul 31, 2021 1:08 pm
plodder wrote:
Sat Jul 31, 2021 10:28 am
Grumble wrote:
Fri Jul 30, 2021 11:24 pm
The experts I trust in this are the archaeologists working in the area. Mike Parker Pearson thinks the tunnel would cause an unacceptable level of damage. Feel free to bring out archaeologists who are in favour of the tunnel.
Can you provide a link to their objection?

Also interested to know what impact would a tunnel have on the water table, and why future archaeology out-trumps current heritage status. I’m with Ivan on this one, in that a tunnel feels like the least worst option, especially compared to the status quo.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/202 ... SApp_Other
So the fairly recent finds (which are outside the area of interest), using technology the project team have utilised within the area of interest (and have found nothing) show what, please?

IvanV
Stummy Beige
Posts: 2663
Joined: Mon May 17, 2021 11:12 am

Re: Stonehenge Tunnel legally blocked

Post by IvanV » Sat Jul 31, 2021 6:40 pm

Bird on a Fire wrote:
Sat Jul 31, 2021 1:21 pm
Is the current 303 actually damaging the heritage status, or is it just ugly and annoying for visitors?

It's such a fascinating landscape that I really think it would be unjustifiable to potentially damage future opportunities for discovery about our ancient past.

As for shelter belts etc, couldn't they hide it behind an earthwork rampart, like a ha-ha, to give the impression of rolling views? Tourists only need one decent angle for their selfies.
UNESCO are not currently threatening to take it off their list of world heritage sites. Though if we built some large earthwork to conceal the road, they might well do.

I would have thought that many people would think that having an ugly busy noisy road within close proximity of the country's iconic prehistoric cultural monument is a larger detriment than just annoying the tourists. But doubtless there are people who put a low value on such things and think that the detriment is only annoying the tourists.

What confuses me is whether the people campaigning against the tunnel think the present road is OK. I would have thought they would think it is terrible, given what they are campaigning against. But perhaps or many of them are archaelogical fundamentalists who care mainly about damage to the ground, and little about the noise/visual detriment to the main site.

User avatar
lpm
Junior Mod
Posts: 5944
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 1:05 pm

Re: Stonehenge Tunnel legally blocked

Post by lpm » Sat Jul 31, 2021 7:06 pm

Meh. A bunch of electric vehicles trundling quietly past isn't as terrible as all that.
⭐ Awarded gold star 4 November 2021

User avatar
Sciolus
Dorkwood
Posts: 1314
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 6:42 pm

Re: Stonehenge Tunnel legally blocked

Post by Sciolus » Sat Jul 31, 2021 7:23 pm

"First do no harm" seems a reasonable policy here. The status quo is not causing irreversible harm, it's just detracting from the experience currently.

But there is a significant likelihood of a substantial change in personal mobility over the next couple of decades. At least, ICE cars will be replaced by electric cars, which will be less intrusive if not silent. Self-driving cars are likely to reduce congestion. New thinking about mobility may reduce personal travel. Who knows? But by the time any tunnel would open in umpteen years time, our understanding of the situation is very likely to be different.

To cause permanent, irreversible damage to solve what may well be a temporary problem for just a few years seems exceedingly foolish.

User avatar
Grumble
Light of Blast
Posts: 4747
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 1:03 pm

Re: Stonehenge Tunnel legally blocked

Post by Grumble » Sat Jul 31, 2021 7:26 pm

plodder wrote:
Sat Jul 31, 2021 6:17 pm
Grumble wrote:
Sat Jul 31, 2021 1:08 pm
plodder wrote:
Sat Jul 31, 2021 10:28 am


Can you provide a link to their objection?

Also interested to know what impact would a tunnel have on the water table, and why future archaeology out-trumps current heritage status. I’m with Ivan on this one, in that a tunnel feels like the least worst option, especially compared to the status quo.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/202 ... SApp_Other
So the fairly recent finds (which are outside the area of interest), using technology the project team have utilised within the area of interest (and have found nothing) show what, please?
They show that there’s a lot we don’t know in the area.
where once I used to scintillate
now I sin till ten past three

User avatar
Gfamily
Light of Blast
Posts: 5180
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 1:00 pm
Location: NW England

Re: Stonehenge Tunnel legally blocked

Post by Gfamily » Sat Jul 31, 2021 8:00 pm

What's the suggestion for digging the tunnel?

Clearly, a cut and cover approach will be massively destructive of any remains in the landscape, but is there any suggestion that there will be any Neolithic traces below about 10 metres down?

I knew that at Grimes Graves there are flint workings at that sort of depth, but is that the case in Salisbury Plain?
I'd have thought that if it's a bored tunnel there could be a real in depth archaeo-assessment of the areas where the road enters the tunnel, and at least we'll/they'll find stuff out before it gets destroyed.

Though, how bad is the status quo? I guess it comes down to whatever you want for the site.
My avatar was a scientific result that was later found to be 'mistaken' - I rarely claim to be 100% correct
ETA 5/8/20: I've been advised that the result was correct, it was the initial interpretation that needed to be withdrawn
Meta? I'd say so!

IvanV
Stummy Beige
Posts: 2663
Joined: Mon May 17, 2021 11:12 am

Re: Stonehenge Tunnel legally blocked

Post by IvanV » Sat Jul 31, 2021 8:44 pm

Gfamily wrote:
Sat Jul 31, 2021 8:00 pm
What's the suggestion for digging the tunnel?
Bored.

User avatar
Martin_B
After Pie
Posts: 1614
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 1:20 pm
Location: Perth, WA

Re: Stonehenge Tunnel legally blocked

Post by Martin_B » Sun Aug 01, 2021 12:49 am

Sciolus wrote:
Sat Jul 31, 2021 7:23 pm
"First do no harm" seems a reasonable policy here. The status quo is not causing irreversible harm, it's just detracting from the experience currently.

But there is a significant likelihood of a substantial change in personal mobility over the next couple of decades. At least, ICE cars will be replaced by electric cars, which will be less intrusive if not silent. Self-driving cars are likely to reduce congestion. New thinking about mobility may reduce personal travel. Who knows? But by the time any tunnel would open in umpteen years time, our understanding of the situation is very likely to be different.

To cause permanent, irreversible damage to solve what may well be a temporary problem for just a few years seems exceedingly foolish.
The trouble with that argument is that no new infrastructure would ever be built (including housing, hospitals, schools, etc)
"My interest is in the future, because I'm going to spend the rest of my life there"

User avatar
Sciolus
Dorkwood
Posts: 1314
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 6:42 pm

Re: Stonehenge Tunnel legally blocked

Post by Sciolus » Sun Aug 01, 2021 9:12 am

I'm not saying that should be a general rule -- the concept of planning balance and the principle that beneficial effects should outweigh adverse effects is largely fine. But Stonehenge is a special case -- there aren't many World Heritage Sites.

IvanV
Stummy Beige
Posts: 2663
Joined: Mon May 17, 2021 11:12 am

Re: Stonehenge Tunnel legally blocked

Post by IvanV » Sun Aug 01, 2021 11:04 am

lpm wrote:
Sat Jul 31, 2021 7:06 pm
Meh. A bunch of electric vehicles trundling quietly past isn't as terrible as all that.
You are proposing a 30mph speed limit? At 60mph, removing the engine noise makes little difference. There's tyre noise, wind noise and road surface noise, and at that speed taking the engine noise out makes little difference to the noise experienced.

Speed limits for environmental reasons have already arrived. I drove a long way on unfamiliar roads the last week, and went through several 50mph speed limits on major dual carriageways this past week which said they were imposed for the purpose of improving air quality in the locality. They were typically on by-passes, and presumably there was a pollution exceedance in the nearby urban area. One was on the A483 Wrexham by-pass.

User avatar
lpm
Junior Mod
Posts: 5944
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 1:05 pm

Re: Stonehenge Tunnel legally blocked

Post by lpm » Sun Aug 01, 2021 11:56 am

Mate, the speed is currently 5 to 10 mph during daylight hours, put in a limit at 30 or 60, whatever you like.
⭐ Awarded gold star 4 November 2021

plodder
Stummy Beige
Posts: 2981
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 1:50 pm

Re: Stonehenge Tunnel legally blocked

Post by plodder » Fri Aug 06, 2021 9:28 am

lpm wrote:
Sun Aug 01, 2021 11:56 am
Mate, the speed is currently 5 to 10 mph during daylight hours, put in a limit at 30 or 60, whatever you like.
get the f.cking train then

Post Reply