Your browser is no longer supported

For the best possible experience using our website we recommend you upgrade to a newer version or another browser.

Your browser appears to have cookies disabled. For the best experience of this website, please enable cookies in your browser

We'll assume we have your consent to use cookies, for example so you won't need to log in each time you visit our site.
Learn more

World Heritage adviser objects to ‘flawed’ Stonehenge tunnel

Stonehenge Closeup 3to2

The International Council on Monuments and Sites UK (ICOMOS-UK) has “strongly objected” Highways England’s Stonehenge tunnel plans.

The conservation body has supported claims by the Stonehenge Alliance that the proposed £1.6bn works would damage important archaeological remains at the site.

In a letter to Highways England, ICOMOS-UK World Heritage Committee chair Peter Marsden said that the organisation is “alarmed” by the “flawed” proposals and he has urged Highways England to consider a “wider range” of solutions to its A303 project.

“ICOMOS-UK wishes to register a strong objection to these proposals in view of the substantial negative and irreversible impact we believe that the dual carriageways at both ends of the tunnel would have,” the letter read.

“In our view, the overall preferred route project is severely flawed and its impacts cannot be readily mitigated; it is essential that the whole project be re-assessed and a wider range of routes and construction options explored before a public consultation by the Government is recommended.”

ICOMOS-UK has concluded that the proposed 2.9km twin-bored tunnel would be “too short” to protect the World Heritage Site “as its leaves some 2.2 km of the dual carriageways in cuttings at either end”.

The letter continued: “The whole project appears to have been retro-fitted to an initial budget, driven by road/tunnel making and not by an assumption that one of the world’s most significant and iconic WHSs has to be protected;

“We are alarmed that insufficient attention has been given to the long-term technical issues associated with tunnelling and tunnelling management/maintenance given the life expectancy of the project is only a hundred years.”

Earlier this week, Highways England labelled archaeologists’ claims that building a road tunnel close to Stonehenge will cause irreparable damage as “alarmist” and “untrue”.

Responding to the ICOMOS-UK Highways England project manager for the A303 Stonehenge scheme David Bullock said: “With the Government committed to investing £1.6 billion to improve the A303 near Stonehenge , this provides us with a once-in-a-generation opportunity to deliver a scheme to cut congestion on this vital route, improve journey times, help address rat-running on local roads and provide a huge boost to the economy in the South West, linking people with jobs and businesses with customers.

“At the same time, the scheme will enhance and protect the 10,000-acre World Heritage Site by reuniting the landscape and sustaining its Outstanding Universal Value.

“Consultation on the A303 Stonehenge scheme closed on Monday (23 April), which gave everyone the chance to have their say on the scheme proposals, and Highways England will carefully read and consider every piece of feedback from all interested parties.

 “In the meantime, we are continuing to work closely with Historic England, English Heritage and the National Trust to ensure our plans significantly benefit and protect the Stonehenge WHS, and we will continue to actively engage and listen to everyone who has an interest in this scheme.”

A lack of alternatives and consultation sessions for the works has previously been raised by local groups campaigner for Campaign for Better Transport Chris Todd. 


Readers' comments (1)

  • I simply repeat what I gave said previously. Why should travellers on the A303 be denied a view of Stonehenge? The tunnel scheme is a gross waste of public money, the new road should be at or near ground level and the money saved used to maintain local roads which are falling apart.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

Have your say

You must sign in to make a comment

Please remember that the submission of any material is governed by our Terms and Conditions and by submitting material you confirm your agreement to these Terms and Conditions. Please note comments made online may also be published in the print edition of New Civil Engineer. Links may be included in your comments but HTML is not permitted.