The views expressed in this page do not represent those of the Planning Inspectorate. This page consists of content submitted to the Planning Inspectorate by the public and other interested parties, giving their views of this proposal.
Received 08 December 2018
From Nik Marvin
From Nik Marvin
“I strongly object to the proposed tunnel project at Stonehenge, on the basis that it will negatively impact - and possibly affect - the sites' World Heritage status, and also due to the fact that the proposed site and it's environs are one of the most archaeologically sensitive sites in the United Kingdom, namely due to the fact that it has been consistently identified as a [largely unexplored] funerary complex and burial ground, among other things. Also the ongoing archaeological work at Blick Mead - a highly archaeologically sensitive and as yet not fully explored site - would be adversely affected and heavily impacted, and possibly even damaged beyond repair, as already appears to have been the case according to [Redacted], the leading archaeologist at the site, following the drilling of a borehole by Highways England at the site, who apparently did not consult [Redacted] or his team before commencing drilling. [Redacted] said "...this is a travesty...If the tunnel goes ahead the water table will drop and all the organic remains will be destroyed. If the remains aren't preserved we may never be able to understand why Stonehenge was built." My objection is also based on observations and submissions made by [Redacted]relating to the project, and also what appears to be a general lack of proper and adequate public consultation or the relaying of accurate and up to date information relating to the project. I wish to see greater transparency, and proper and adequate consultation with the relevant parties (i.e [Redacted] et al) and indeed the general public, prior to any further potential work relating to the project being carried out. I am deeply concerned that the wishes of the public are not being listened to or respected, nor are the professional opinions and factual comments relating to the proposed project made by eminent and distinguished experts in their field, namely [Redacted] et al. This is my written representation as an interested party.”