The Stonehenge tunnel project faces yet another delay as campaigners secure a Court of Appeal hearing.
- Campaigners from Save Stonehenge World Heritage Site challenge a recent High Court decision supporting the £2.5bn project.
- National Highways will need to revise its plans due to legal uncertainties impacting the development timeline.
- The appeal highlights significant public interest and the need for lawful decision-making in heritage conservation.
- Project advocates express disappointment, yet commit to participating in future legal proceedings.
Legal controversy continues to surround the Stonehenge tunnel project, as recent developments have granted campaigners an opportunity to appeal the High Court’s decision to uphold the National Highways’ development consent order. This appeal, driven by Save Stonehenge World Heritage Site (SSWHS), marks a critical juncture in the ongoing battle against the £2.5bn scheme, which aims to upgrade the A303 around Stonehenge.
The project’s history has been fraught with legal challenges; the initial consent order was quashed in 2021. Although a new order was successfully obtained last year, campaigners successfully argued for the right to appeal the subsequent legal affirmation by Mr Justice Holgate in February. This decision has now been set for scrutiny by the Court of Appeal, reflecting ongoing tensions between heritage conservationists and infrastructure development advocates.
Acknowledging the uncertain future, National Highways has admitted that adjustments to the project’s main works programme are inevitable due to the legal proceedings. While the exact nature of these changes remains unspecified, the interplay of legal processes suggests potential delays that are beyond their immediate control. In preparing for this eventuality, National Highways plans to work closely with the Department for Transport (DfT) and legal advisors to delineate future steps.
John Adams, chair of the Stonehenge Alliance and director of SSWHS, has expressed elation at the prospect of a thorough examination of the government’s decision-making regarding the project’s impacts on the World Heritage Site. Adams accuses the government of sidelining cultural heritage in favour of expediting the road scheme, which he claims could severely damage Stonehenge’s historical integrity.
On the legal front, solicitor Rowan Smith, representing SSWHS, finds the appeal hearing an affirmation of public interest in maintaining lawful governance over culturally sensitive developments. Smith is poised to argue on the fairness and legality of the decision process, especially in compliance with international statutes on protecting world heritage sites.
From the perspective of National Highways, project director David Bullock conveyed disappointment over the delays the appeal introduces. However, he emphasised the organisation’s commitment to defending their plans in forthcoming legal confrontations, illustrating the project’s supporters’ resilience amid continuing opposition.
The Stonehenge tunnel saga underscores the ongoing conflict between infrastructure development and heritage preservation, with legal proceedings set to persist.
