Unesco wants Stonehenge tunnel plan amended

[king arthur]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-wiltshire-66...

Does anyone know what their beef is with the current plan? The BBC article doesn't explain. Just says it "would have significant and inappropriate adverse impacts on the physical and visual integrity of the property". Surely a tunnel could not have more adverse impact than the existing road that runs past it?

[Mr Tidy]

I saw that and couldn't understand how hiding the road in a tunnel would detract from the site.

I wish they'd just crack on and build it - going past is such a PITA!

[theplayingmantis]

king arthur said:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-wiltshire-66...

Does anyone know what their beef is with the current plan? The BBC article doesn't explain. Just says it "would have significant and inappropriate adverse impacts on the physical and visual integrity of the property". Surely a tunnel could not have more adverse impact than the existing road that runs past it?

Ask your dad!

[Alex Z]

Depends whether they are concerned about the construction phase or end result.

https://news.sky.com/story/a303-stonehenge-tunnel-...

That suggests that the western portal is too close to the site, so archaeological evidence will be damaged or destroyed and they want the tunnel lengthened so that it starts further away.

[Riley Blue]

Is there any evidence that archaeological evidence exists there?

[ATG]

Riley Blue said:

Is there any evidence that archaeological evidence exists there?

The entire area is one big archaeological site. If you stick a trowel in the soil, you find something. If the plan is to build a cut and cover tunnel anywhere near the main site, i.e. within a few miles of it, you'll inevitably be digging a big trench through a lot of archaeology. You could make a partial virtue out of that if the excavation is done carefully as you'd be making the biggest single archaeological trench in history ... but that's going to be an immensely time-consuming activity, so I expect it would have to be a bit more industrial and a fair amount of material world just get mashed.

[Zetec-S]

ATG said:

The entire areacountry is one big archaeological site. If you stick a trowel in the soil, you find something. If the plan is to build a cut and cover tunnel anywhere near the main site, i.e. within a few miles of it, you'll inevitably be digging a big trench through a lot of archaeology. You could make a partial virtue out of that if the excavation is done carefully as you'd be making the biggest single archaeological trench in history ... but that's going to be an immensely time-consuming activity, so I expect it would have to be a bit more industrial and a fair amount of material world just get mashed.

EFA

Just build the fking tunnel. We have plenty of broken pots in museums around the country, just because these are near some big stones doesn't make them any more special.

[Hammersia]

Zetec-S said:

EFA

Just build the fking tunnel. We have plenty of broken pots in museums around the country, just because these are near some big stones doesn't make them any more special.

Blimey, thank goodness they didn't think like that at Mildenhall or Sutton Hoo.

[ATG]

Zetec-S said:

ATG said:

The entire areacountry is one big archaeological site. If you stick a trowel in the soil, you find something. If the plan is to build a cut and cover tunnel anywhere near the main site, i.e. within a few miles of it, you'll inevitably be digging a big trench through a lot of archaeology. You could make a partial virtue out of that if the excavation is done carefully as you'd be making the biggest single archaeological trench in history ... but that's going to be an immensely time-consuming activity, so I expect it would have to be a bit more industrial and a fair amount of material world just get mashed.

EFA

Just build the fking tunnel. We have plenty of broken pots in museums around the country, just because these are near some big stones doesn't make them any more special.

It makes them significantly more special. The only reason anyone's considering building a tunnel in the first place is because of the wider site's importance. If wasn't important, we'd just stick a dual carriageway through it like we'd do anywhere else in the country. There's no point spaffing a fortune on a tunnel if it doesn't adequately protect the site, because that is the tunnel's sole purpose.

[Riley Blue]

ATG said:

Riley Blue said:

Is there any evidence that archaeological evidence exists there?

The entire area is one big archaeological site. If you stick a trowel in the soil, you find something. If the plan is to build a cut and cover tunnel anywhere near the main site, i.e. within a few miles of it, you'll inevitably be digging a big trench through a lot of archaeology. You could make a partial virtue out of that if the excavation is done carefully as you'd be making the biggest single archaeological trench in history ... but that's going to be an immensely time-consuming activity, so I expect it would have to be a bit more industrial and a fair amount of material world just get mashed.

But if it's never investigated what value does it have?

[DickyC]

Won't the tunnel just shunt the bottleneck further west?



Sorry. Off Topic. I should have mentioned it at the enquiry stage.

[Zetec-S]

Hammersia said:

Zetec-S said:

EFA

Just build the fking tunnel. We have plenty of broken pots in museums around the country, just because these are near some big stones doesn't make them any more special.

Blimey, thank goodness they didn't think like that at Mildenhall or Sutton Hoo.

Yes, I was being facetious. But how many other archaeological sites have been missed or lost in the past? I'm not saying just bulldoze over history, but what value does stuff which may or may not be buried there have if we're never going to investigate. You could argue by digging a tunnel anything significant could actually be unearthed?

And lets face it, the amount of money wasted faffing about with this over the past 2 decades could have probably paid for a full archaeological excavation.

[ATG]

Not sure where the view is coming from that we aren't ever going to investigate a given area. There are digs going on all the time. Sites get revisited. How on earth could we determine that a given site is never going to get dug between now and the end of history?

The challenge is to strike a balance between investigating and preserving the archaeology and allowing people to get on with building stuff. There's no right or wrong answer.

[theplayingmantis]

Riley Blue said:

ATG said:

Riley Blue said:

Is there any evidence that archaeological evidence exists there?

The entire area is one big archaeological site. If you stick a trowel in the soil, you find something. If the plan is to build a cut and cover tunnel anywhere near the main site, i.e. within a few miles of it, you'll inevitably be digging a big trench through a lot of archaeology. You could make a partial virtue out of that if the excavation is done carefully as you'd be making the biggest single archaeological trench in history ... but that's going to be an immensely time-consuming activity, so I expect it would have to be a bit more industrial and a fair amount of material world just get mashed.

But if it's never investigated what value does it have?

if a tree fall in the woods...

[king arthur]

Sounds like the tunnel is going ahead as planned.

[Zetec-S]

king arthur said:

Sounds like the tunnel is going ahead as planned.

I'll believe it when I see it