The British government gives the green light again to the construction of the controversial tunnel under Stonehenge

2023-07-19 18:26:38

In November 2020, the British government approved a plan for the construction of a 3.2 kilometer tunnel linking Amesbury with Berwick Down in Wiltshire. With a budget of 1.7 billion pounds, the infrastructure is intended to get rid of gigantic traffic jams that occur on journeys to the southwest of England. However, the works will run practically under Stonehenge, which sparked a strong controversy in the country.

The planning inspectors issued a report in which they recommended not to carry out the tunnel, due to the risk of permanent and irreversible damage to the cultural heritage, and to the landscape, as well as to the creation of a negative visual impact around the monument. A movement was also organized to oppose its construction Save Stonehenge World Heritage Site (Save Stonehenge World Heritage Site), which filed a legal appeal before the High Court of Justice.

The judge in charge of the case annulled the decision of the British government in 2021 and declared the order illegal. Now, the Ministry of Transport has reapproved the plans. The works, which have been backed by Wiltshire County Council, involve overhauling more than twelve kilometers of the main road that runs from London to the southwest of England.

Map showing the proximity of the project to the megalithic monument

The lobby group created to stop the project, the Stonehenge Alliance, has said it was “extremely disappointed” by the decision and warned that the project could stripping Stonehenge of its World Heritage status. Unesco, the UN heritage agency, had previously warned that it will place the megalithic monument on its “endangered” list if the tunnel continues and it could lose its status, which would be “a national disgrace,” Kate Fielden, archaeologist and spokesperson for the Stonehenge Alliance, told the BBC.

For his part, the Secretary of Transport, Mark Harper, has released a 64-page letter in which he defends the decision because there are “a series of benefits that weigh significantly in favor of development« and admits that, as a consequence, »there will be damage to cultural heritage and the historical environment«.