It looks very likely that Rishi Sunak has delivered a genuinely historic budget — one that will still be remembered and execrated in a thousand years time. Its infamy will owe nothing to the impact it may have had on preparations for Brexit, or the coronavirus crisis, or Tory electoral prospects, ephemeral concerns that will have been long forgotten by 3020, but on a landscape that has always depended for its proper context on the sweep of millennia.
“Delighted with the news the A303 will finally get its upgrade to ease the traffic at Stonehenge,” the Conservative MP for Devizes, Danny Kruger, tweeted yesterday. “It will restore one of the most important landscapes in England.” So a man who in his maiden speech in the Commons declared that love of country begins with love of neighbourhood greeted the Chancellor’s backing for a scheme that constitutes the most grotesque act of desecration ever contemplated by a British government: the driving of a great gash of concrete and tarmac through our most significant, our most sacred prehistoric landscape.
The Stonehenge Alliance, the campaigning group of which I have the honour to be president, is not blind to the demands of those who use the A303. There are good reasons rooted in issues of accountancy as well as of conservation to oppose the Stonehenge Tunnel.
We believe — as the National Audit Office believes — that the scheme does not offer value for money; we believe — as the TaxPayers’ Alliance believes — that the money could be better spent on transport improvements in the South West “which would be of greater benefit to commuters across the region”. We believe — as Andy Rhind-Tutt, President of the Salisbury Chamber of Commerce believes — that, based on Highways England’s own figures, the Stonehenge Tunnel “will save just 4.8 seconds per mile on an average 100 mile journey”.
Concerns that the scheme will be a massive waste of money are not some capitalism-hating plot. The National Audit Office and the TaxPayers’ Alliance are nobody’s idea of Greta Thunberg. But they agree that 14,000 years after the last mammoth vanished from Britain, a massive white elephant is being allowed to lumber towards Salisbury Plain.
Simultaneously, I very much agree with the point made so eloquently by Danny Kruger in his maiden speech as an MP: money is not everything. Even if the current plan for a tunnel made perfect economic sense, and the balance sheet was not inked over in red, the case against it would still be overwhelming. Time can be measured in seconds, and it can be measured in millennia. Nowhere else in Britain do the demands of the present and the claims of the past rub up against each other more insistently than amidst the Stonehenge landscape.
Join the discussion
Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber
To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.
Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.
SubscribeMy opinion on this project needs a couple qualifiers:
1: I am not British (American)
2: I do not live in the Salisbury area (#1 made that clear, but you never know)
3: in general, one must not necessarily allow a historical precedent to mitigate or cancel the alteration of a historical site if it will provide the greater good.
That being said:
What the ACTUAL *£¥{!.*<£¥%#+€@@&:$@!,’!!
This is not the destruction of an unbelievably ancient site and a bending over to the powers of “development.” It’s much worse than that. It is the willful ignorance of a government to its basic responsibilities, i.e. the preservation of its own history in order to inform the continuation of its society and memory. Stonehenge has survived a number of projects already; in the 19th and early 20th centuries, multiple plans were put forward to essentially demolish the site. The fact that it weathered these attempts, through the selfless efforts of numerous individuals, makes it even more precious.
This is not just a question of preserving British or English history. The age of the monument makes it an element and monument of human history, much like the cave cities of the Anasazi or the temple of Angkor Wat.
I hope this proposal will die in parliament (is that a phrase? Die in congress or litigation or debate are phrases here in the US). If not, please direct me to where I can show support for the effort to keep this site undisturbed.
End of rant.