{"id":31010,"date":"2021-08-28T17:28:31","date_gmt":"2021-08-28T16:28:31","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/newsblogsnew.ihbc.org.uk\/?p=31010"},"modified":"2021-08-28T17:28:31","modified_gmt":"2021-08-28T16:28:31","slug":"ihbc-features-heritage-from-the-museums-doorstep-stonehenge-ruling-prompts-debate-among-heritage-community","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/newsblogs.ihbc.org.uk\/?p=31010","title":{"rendered":"IHBC features \u2018Heritage from the Museum\u2019s doorstep\u2019: Stonehenge ruling prompts debate among heritage community"},"content":{"rendered":"

\"\"Opinion is divided among the heritage community on the next steps after the high court quashes planning permission for a tunnel near Stonehenge, reports The Museums Association (MA).<\/h3>\n

image: By Sumit Surai \u2013 Own work, CC BY-SA 4.0, https:\/\/commons.wikimedia.org\/w\/index.php?curid=82300627<\/em><\/h6>\n

<\/p>\n

\u2026Stonehenge ruling, which follows Liverpool\u2019s loss of world heritage status\u2026. reignited a debate in the sector on the tension between development and heritage\u2026<\/span><\/em><\/h2>\n

The MA writes:<\/p>\n

A high court ruling that quashed planning permission for a two-mile road tunnel through the Stonehenge World Heritage Site has divided opinion in the heritage community.<\/p>\n

The 30 July judgment found that transport minister Grant Schapps\u2019 decision to give the \u00a31.7bn road project the green light had been unlawful.<\/p>\n

The judge agreed that, in breach of planning rules, Schapps had not properly assessed the risk of harm to each heritage asset within the World Heritage Site, and did not have the evidence to conclude that the project would cause \u201cless than substantial harm\u201d to the heritage assets. The judge also concluded that the transport secretary had made an error of law by failing to consider alternatives to the scheme, such as a longer tunnel.<\/p>\n

Days before the ruling, Unesco\u00a0warned that the neolithic site could be placed on its Heritage in Danger list<\/a>\u00a0if the tunnel went ahead.<\/p>\n

The campaign group that brought the challenge \u2013 made up of historians, environmentalists, archaeologists and others with an interest in the site, including farmers and pagans \u2013 welcomed the ruling.<\/p>\n

\u201cWe could not be more pleased about the outcome of the legal challenge,\u201d said John Adams, director of the Save Stonehenge World Heritage Site campaign and chair of the Stonehenge Alliance. He said the alliance would support a longer tunnel that began and ended outside the World Heritage Site \u201cif a tunnel should be considered necessary\u201d.<\/p>\n

But Adams called on the government to reconsider its roads programme in light of the climate emergency and focus instead on reducing car use and eliminating the need to build new roads.<\/p>\n

Leigh Day solicitor Rowan Smith, who took the case, said: \u201cThis is a huge victory, which means, for now, Stonehenge is safe. The judgment is a clear vindication of our client\u2019s tremendous efforts in campaigning to protect the World Heritage Site. The development consent for this damaging tunnel has been declared unlawful and is now quashed, and the government will have to go back to the drawing board before a new decision can be made.\u201d<\/p>\n

A spokeswoman for the Department for Transport said the government was \u201cdisappointed\u201d in the ruling and was \u201cconsidering it carefully before deciding how to proceed\u201d.<\/p>\n

The National Trust and Historic England, both of which backed the proposed tunnel, also expressed their disappointment in the decision.<\/p>\n

A spokesman for Historic England said: \u201cThis is a missed opportunity to remove the intrusive sight and sound of traffic past the iconic monument and to reunite the remarkable Stonehenge landscape, which has been severed in two by the busy A303 trunk road for decades.<\/p>\n

\u201cWe believe that the scheme had the potential to deliver a lasting positive legacy for the World Heritage Site and we advised on a rigorous programme of archaeological investigation to ensure the impact on sensitive archaeological remains was minimised.\u201d<\/p>\n

A National Trust spokeswoman said: \u201cThe National Trust has been calling for decades for a solution to the problems caused by the A303?as it passes Stonehenge.?The existing road?blights?the landscape, damages?the setting and sightlines between burial mounds and monuments, and restricts access to the southern two-thirds of the World Heritage Site.<\/p>\n

\u201cWe continue to believe in the benefits of a tunnel scheme to reunite the Stonehenge landscape. We note?the decision in the high court, which relates to the process of how the secretary of state made his decision to consent the scheme, not the merits of the scheme itself. We await the government\u2019s response to the court\u2019s decision.\u201d….<\/p>\n

Read more….<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Opinion is divided among the heritage community on the next steps after the high court quashes planning permission for a tunnel near Stonehenge, reports The Museums Association (MA). image: By Sumit Surai \u2013 Own work, CC BY-SA 4.0, https:\/\/commons.wikimedia.org\/w\/index.php?curid=82300627<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-31010","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-ihbc-newsblog"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/newsblogs.ihbc.org.uk\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/31010","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/newsblogs.ihbc.org.uk\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/newsblogs.ihbc.org.uk\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/newsblogs.ihbc.org.uk\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/newsblogs.ihbc.org.uk\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=31010"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/newsblogs.ihbc.org.uk\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/31010\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":31011,"href":"https:\/\/newsblogs.ihbc.org.uk\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/31010\/revisions\/31011"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/newsblogs.ihbc.org.uk\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=31010"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/newsblogs.ihbc.org.uk\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=31010"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/newsblogs.ihbc.org.uk\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=31010"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}