Stonehenge - The bored tunnel option

[GillsPeter]

Was there ever a Motorway proposed in this corridor? They were pretty optimistic in the 60s after all...

[KeithW]

Was there ever a Motorway proposed in this corridor? They were pretty optimistic in the 60s after all...

It seems to have been on the list of possible motorways proposed by Peter Walker in 1958. The road in its current form traces its origins back to a "New Direct Road" by William Hanning, chief engineer of the Ilminster Turnpike Trust. His plan was well ahead of his time as he wanted to build steam powered coaches but that idea was abandoned and it initially opened using horse drawn coaches on the turnpike road I believe. The possible motorway list was heavily culled during the cuts in spending in the 1970's.

https://www.turnpikes.org.uk/Somerset%2 ... inster.htm

[RichardEvans67]

I would also add that building a D2 tunnel runs the risk of creating a pinch point in the future, much like the Brynglas Tunnels, So again, do it right or don't do it.

In theory, that might be true, but unlike Brynglas, most of the traffic passing Stonehenge is long-distance. Alternative routes nclude the M4/M5, A30 via Salisbury, M27/A35 etc, all of which are feasible for traffic originating in London and going on the Devon or Cornwall. If the tunnel were to be built now, I doubt that it will become a pinch point for years to come.

I had similar thoughts. If in the distant future a Stonehenge tunnel gets congested. I think it would just encourage some of the traffic to use the M4/M5 instead.

[Herned]

The maximum capacity of a D2 road is something like three times the existing traffic levels. I would assume that if it is ever built, the tunnel will cope for the lifetime of anyone on this forum

[A320Driver]

According to those who have instigated the JR, date for hearing is set for 12-14th December:

“We’ve now been told that our court hearing will begin on Tuesday, 12th December at the Royal Courts of Justice in London. It’s scheduled to run for three days and will be a rolled up hearing, where the permission to be heard and the full case are held at the same time. The last day will be Thursday, 14th. We will then have to wait, probably until the new year, for a judgement to be handed down. At this point in time we don’t know who the judge will be, although it could well be Mr Justice Holgate who heard our previous judicial review.

This will be our chance to make the case as to why the decision should be thrown out again. This will probably be harder this time as the Government has at least made a pretence of considering alternative options. Nonetheless, there are a number of grounds, including the consideration of alternatives, where we feel it has erred in law. These should give the judge strong reasons to quash the decision again.”

Source - https://www.crowdjustice.com/case/save- ... ite-again/

Sounds like they have pretty much admitted they are clutching at straws…we shall see I guess.

[Micro The Maniac]

If I was the judge, my first question would be:

From a World Heritage Site perspective, is the current proposal better or worse than the status quo?

If better, then case dismissed.

[RichardEvans67]

If I was the judge, my first question would be:

From a World Heritage Site perspective, is the current proposal better or worse than the status quo?

If better, then case dismissed.

I'm pretty sure it doesn't work like that. The court doesn't decide whether the scheme will improve things, but whether the DCO is legal. I think that would depend on whether they think the government did everything they are meant to, before deciding to grant DCO. (I hope the DCO stands.)

[Kinitawowi]

If I was the judge, my first question would be:

From a World Heritage Site perspective, is the current proposal better or worse than the status quo?

If better, then case dismissed.

And if I were the barrister, my answer would be "Please define 'better'". (Then their barrister would object because argumentative. Then we'd end up nowhere, again.)

[RichardA35]

If I was the judge, my first question would be:

From a World Heritage Site perspective, is the current proposal better or worse than the status quo?

If better, then case dismissed.

And if I were the barrister, my answer would be "Please define 'better'". (Then their barrister would object because argumentative. Then we'd end up nowhere, again.)

On "WHS" grounds, UNESCO would point to the 22 recommendations in their 2022 report here that proposed modifications to the DCO for the scheme and ask whether they have been complied with....

[Herned]

I'm pretty sure it doesn't work like that. The court doesn't decide whether the scheme will improve things, but whether the DCO is legal. I think that would depend on whether they think the government did everything they are meant to, before deciding to grant DCO. (I hope the DCO stands.)

Yes, exactly right. It's nothing to do with the merits or otherwise of the scheme, it's purely if the process has been correctly followed and all relevant legislation taken into account

[Jim606]

The current Judicial Review is a three day hearing between 12th -15th Dec. '23 with the result sometime in early 2024
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/202 ... oad-tunnel

[Helvellyn]

If I was the judge, my first question would be:

From a World Heritage Site perspective, is the current proposal better or worse than the status quo?

If better, then case dismissed.

And if I were the barrister, my answer would be "Please define 'better'". (Then their barrister would object because argumentative. Then we'd end up nowhere, again.)

I'd argue that you also need a degree of better, for a couple of reasons. One is lots of expense for a marginal improvement simply isn't worth it. Another is that it can be rather too easy to use that to justify what should be unacceptable damage elsewhere - the sort of thing where someone tries to force something through with "I'm only going to give you two options, both pretty dreadful, you must pick one." Yes, better is an obvious requirement for doing something. But it needs to be good enough in its own right and not used to shove through the cheapest, nastiest "improvement."

[Micro The Maniac]

The Outrage bus is firing up

Stonehenge could be DROPPED from the list of UNESCO World Heritage Sites if controversial plans to build a £1.7 billion road tunnel near the monument go ahead

[BF2142]

They can go ahead and delist - Stonehenge will still be there.

[KeithW]

They can go ahead and delist - Stonehenge will still be there.

And equally to the point people would still visit and archaeologists excavating it just as they did before it was a 'World Heritage Site'

[tom66]

The Outrage bus is firing up

Stonehenge could be DROPPED from the list of UNESCO World Heritage Sites if controversial plans to build a £1.7 billion road tunnel near the monument go ahead

So the solution from UNESCO's perspective is if the tunnel is built they will declassify the whole site and therefore risk more damage in the future as it would not be conferred specific protection under international agreement?

Am I getting that right because it sounds more spiteful than helpful to me.

[KeithW]

So the solution from UNESCO's perspective is if the tunnel is built they will declassify the whole site and therefore risk more damage in the future as it would not be conferred specific protection under international agreement?

Am I getting that right because it sounds more spiteful than helpful to me.

I have yet to see any explanation why putting the road in a tunnel which reduces the visual impact, noise levels etc would be a a reason for delisting given that Bamiyan in Iraq remains on the list despite the statues having been blown up by the Taliban.

Before and after destruction of smaller Buddha


After destruction larger Buddah

[trickstat]

The Outrage bus is firing up

Stonehenge could be DROPPED from the list of UNESCO World Heritage Sites if controversial plans to build a £1.7 billion road tunnel near the monument go ahead

So the solution from UNESCO's perspective is if the tunnel is built they will declassify the whole site and therefore risk more damage in the future as it would not be conferred specific protection under international agreement?

Am I getting that right because it sounds more spiteful than helpful to me.

I'm not sure that a site having World Heritage status necessarily confers any actual legal protection within the country where the site lies. However, that status may be used, as is clearly happening here, as an argument as to why a development should not take place. If Stonehenge did lose its status it doesn't mean there wouldn't still be considerable domestic legal obstacles to protect the site from future development.

[domcoop]

If I was the judge, my first question would be:



If better, then case dismissed.

And if I were the barrister, my answer would be "Please define 'better'". (Then their barrister would object because argumentative. Then we'd end up nowhere, again.)

I'd argue that you also need a degree of better, for a couple of reasons. One is lots of expense for a marginal improvement simply isn't worth it. Another is that it can be rather too easy to use that to justify what should be unacceptable damage elsewhere - the sort of thing where someone tries to force something through with "I'm only going to give you two options, both pretty dreadful, you must pick one." Yes, better is an obvious requirement for doing something. But it needs to be good enough in its own right and not used to shove through the cheapest, nastiest "improvement."

Judicial review involves a conflict between the judiciary and the executive (the Government, via the DfT and Highways England) and legislature (Parliament who pass the laws). It is very, very important that judges don't usurp the role of the other bodies and take it upon themselves to pass law, or make decisions implementing things.

For that reason a judge on a judicial review is absolutely prohibited from determining whether something is "better" or not. The law - passed by Parliament - says the Planning Inspector has to make that decision. And the judge can not decide what proposals should or should not be taken forward. The law - passed by Parliament - says that Highways England have to do that.

What the judge can decide is effectively one of two things. Firstly, have the relevant bodies complied with the law? Secondly, have they made their decision properly?

On the first thing, if the law, for example, says you have to do three bat assessments, six months apart, but they only did two then the thing can be ruled unlawful.

On the second thing, if the law was followed but the decision making process was defective, usually because the decision maker took into account something they weren't supposed to consider, or failed to take into account something they should have considered, or (something called "Wednesbury Unreasonableness") the decision was so unreasonable that no reasonable decision make would have ever made it, then the decision can be quashed and the decision maker asked to reconsider.

It looks like they are using the second route, saying the process failed to consider sufficient alternatives. But of course the judge won't consider those alternatives, just check that they were considered. Which even the campaign group seem to recognise is unlikely to succeed!

[Vierwielen]

And if I were the barrister, my answer would be "Please define 'better'". (Then their barrister would object because argumentative. Then we'd end up nowhere, again.)

I'd argue that you also need a degree of better, for a couple of reasons. One is lots of expense for a marginal improvement simply isn't worth it. Another is that it can be rather too easy to use that to justify what should be unacceptable damage elsewhere - the sort of thing where someone tries to force something through with "I'm only going to give you two options, both pretty dreadful, you must pick one." Yes, better is an obvious requirement for doing something. But it needs to be good enough in its own right and not used to shove through the cheapest, nastiest "improvement."

Judicial review involves a conflict between the judiciary and the executive (the Government, via the DfT and Highways England) and legislature (Parliament who pass the laws). It is very, very important that judges don't usurp the role of the other bodies and take it upon themselves to pass law, or make decisions implementing things.

For that reason a judge on a judicial review is absolutely prohibited from determining whether something is "better" or not. The law - passed by Parliament - says the Planning Inspector has to make that decision. And the judge can not decide what proposals should or should not be taken forward. The law - passed by Parliament - says that Highways England have to do that.

What the judge can decide is effectively one of two things. Firstly, have the relevant bodies complied with the law? Secondly, have they made their decision properly?

On the first thing, if the law, for example, says you have to do three bat assessments, six months apart, but they only did two then the thing can be ruled unlawful.

On the second thing, if the law was followed but the decision making process was defective, usually because the decision maker took into account something they weren't supposed to consider, or failed to take into account something they should have considered, or (something called "Wednesbury Unreasonableness") the decision was so unreasonable that no reasonable decision make would have ever made it, then the decision can be quashed and the decision maker asked to reconsider.

It looks like they are using the second route, saying the process failed to consider sufficient alternatives. But of course the judge won't consider those alternatives, just check that they were considered. Which even the campaign group seem to recognise is unlikely to succeed!

AN interesting case nearly happened in the US 125 years ago. The lower house of the state legislature in Indiana passed a bill which had the effect of declaring that π was 3.2! Before the Indiana Senate debated the issue, the local professor of mathematics managed to explain to some of the senators that π was really 3.1415... and the issue was kicked into the long grass. Now suppose that the professor concerned was not there and the Indiana Senate did pass the bill and the case was referred to court. Would the judges have upheld the "law" (as they are supposed to do). The Wikipedia article has a link to the text of the bill.