By a correspondent
“It reminds me of all the times going down to Devon and Cornwall on holiday … I’ve been many times before, the times when I did pester my mother to stop on the way.”
The Prime Minister David Cameron was reminiscing on Monday about engaging with Stonehenge from the A303. This is how countless people have engaged with Stonehenge since it was built, and continue to do so. So why would anyone want to remove that opportunity by introducing a tunnel?
The Prime Minister’s childhood visits were in the early 1970s, when as he rightly stated: “You could clamber all over the stones and thankfully you can’t do that anymore.” Access to the stones was restricted in 1978 to protect what by 1986 was recognised as an important part of a World Heritage Site (WHS). It can similarly be argued that a tunnel is for the greater good of the WHS, providing it is long enough. The 1.8 mile (2.9 km) tunnel the Prime Minister favours falls short of protecting the WHS, and instead threatens two large areas of it with tunnel entrances and infrastructure. We need a longer tunnel Prime Minister – one we can all give the Green Light to!
If you oppose the “short” tunnel please sign the petition https://you.38degrees.org.uk/petitions/save-stonehenge-world-heritage-site
The Heritage Journal 
5 comments
Comments feed for this article
04/12/2014 at 13:58
Mark Bailey
If only the petition would accept my California postal code I would sign also. Just because my ancestors left the UK a couple of centuries ago doesn’t mean I shouldn’t have a say in the matter! THEIR ancestors walked among the stones for millennia before that. Those megaliths are mine just as much as anyone’s and I hate to see them ruined like so many of the other megalith sites out of expedience and stupidity.
04/12/2014 at 14:16
heritageaction
Couldn’t agree more Mark. The British are merely the latest (and by no means the last) guardians of something that belongs to everyone.
Maybe an American petition?
04/12/2014 at 15:37
Brian
Mark, You are not alone, this is being looked at I am told. I’ll as k the question again and report back.
04/12/2014 at 17:15
Tawny
The ‘By a correspondent’ articles do seem to be written in the style of your normal articles, also, why no name of the correspondent? Are you writing these articles yourselves as the evidence would seem to indicate so.
04/12/2014 at 18:01
heritageaction
Charming.
No.