Stonehenge A303 tunnel challenge hits High Court for round two

Campaigners opposed to controversial plans to build a tunnel through the Stonehenge World Heritage Site took their battle to the High Court today (12 December). The Department for Transport intends to widen part of the notoriously congested A303, putting it into a 3.3km-long tunnel where it crosses the world heritage site. The project is costed at around £2.5bn. Campaign group Stonehenge Alliance has been campaigning against the plans and opposing them in the courts. It argues that the road scheme will damage archaeology at the site and desecrate the landscape, and won’t significantly improve congestion on the road. A judicial review quashed the plans in 2021, but the government approved the scheme for the second time in July. Stonehenge Alliance’s second judicial review began at the High Court in London this morning. Opening the hearing today, Stonehenge Alliance’s lawyer, David Wolfe KC, said his first point was that it was procedurally unfair for the Department for Transport not to have a public re-examination of the plans after the first decision was quashed by the High Court. “The request for re-examination is not a request for a fresh examination, but a re-examination based on new information,” Wolfe said. The judge, Mr Justice Holgate, said this point could have implications for the procedure that ministers must follow every time they reconsider a decision that has been quashed by a court. “We need to have a discussion about what legal burden you wish to put on decision-makers,” the judge said. “We need to pin down what is necessary to make sure a decision is lawful,” he said. Wolfe is also arguing that the secretary of state for transport did not properly consider whether the scheme would lead to Stonehenge losing its world heritage status, and that a number of material and environmental considerations were ignored. Separately, the campaign group points out that the scheme has been pushed though by ministers against the advice of planning officials. A planing inspector’s report advised against the plans, saying they would lead to “a greater physical change to the Stonehenge landscape than has occurred in its 6,000 years as a place of widely acknowledged human significance.” The hearing is scheduled to last three days, with a judgment to be handed down at a later date. Save Stonehenge World Heritage Site Ltd and another v Secretary of State for Transport Administrative Court (Holgate J) To send feedback, e-mail newsdesk@eg.co.uk or tweet @EGPropertyNews Photo © National Highways