Representation by Simon Larn
- Date submitted
- 10 January 2019
- Submitted by
- Members of the public/businesses
I have monitored this proposal since it was first suggested, and from my point of view as an amateur archaeologist (but with some hands on professional experience), I am firmly opposed to this plan for several reasons.
The damage to this World Heritage site as currently understood (which is important), that would be caused by the excavation of both the lead-in ramps, and also the tunnel itself would prevent the possibility of further contextual study of these areas in the future.
Fundamentally, I start from the position that as it stands no one can say with any certainty why Stonehenge is where it is, why it was built at all, or precisely what the pre-historical context of the monument is within a landscape that has clearly been of significance to people since at least the Mesolithic period. So, given such an indisputable lack of understanding, it seems absurdly short sighted to cause this amount of damage without even knowing what it is that might be missed in the course of the destruction of areas of previously untouched landscape.
I can see no possible justification for this scheme on the basis of relieving a temporary traffic congestion issue that has existed for maybe 30 years, and might persist for perhaps another 40 years (depending on how you view the future of personal transport by car), when requiring the destruction of potential archaeological data that has been undisturbed for anything up to 10,000 years. I don't think this is anything other than a very logical position to take, and I trust that common sense will ultimately prevail.
My suggestion would certainly be that if road improvements are deemed a national strategic necessity, then this is done in such a way as to cause no significant damage to the land surface. That surface is not replaceable, and until anyone can argue that no further information is required in order to understand this unique area, or indeed that the necessity for this tunnel is known to be long term, which I know is not the case, then this scheme in it's current form should not go ahead.
Many thanks for listening, and please do take the obvious decision on this.