Today UNESCO’s absolute opposition to the short tunnel has been fully expressed, no ifs or buts. Yet sadly it can be confidently predicted that the Government and it’s agencies will react by reiterating their simple mantra that whatever the downside, the tunnel is “worth it”.
.
But that has now become doubly difficult, given UNECO’s clarity and the National Audit Office’s recent criticism of the Government’s figures and methodology (people were asked how much they’d be willing to pay to enjoy the advantages of the scheme but weren’t properly informed of the heritage downside – the tactics, frankly, of a dodgy saleman).
.
Paul Gossage (whose submission to the Examining Authority we featured recently) illustrated how incompetent and dishonest that approach is rather neatly: “If a survey was done on a group of children then most would say “Yes” to an offer of an ice cream, but “No” if they were told they would be smacked whilst eating it.”

.

Three Government controlled conservation bodies and a Government road agency are telling the public the tunnel will “enhance and protect” the site. UNESCO and proper analysis suggest that’s far less than half true.

.