High Court battle over decision to approve controversial Stonehenge Tunnel Scheme
Campaigners claim decision was unlawful and want it reviewed
Campaigners are challenging the Transport Secretary's decision to give the green light for the A303 road scheme.
A High Court judge will hear legal arguments concerning Grant Shapps approval for the controversial projec which will see 8 miles of extended dual carriage way and a two mile long tunnel built.
The Save Stonehenge World Heritage Site Ltd (SSWHS) believes the scheme will have a detrimental impact and wants permission for a judicial review.
When the Transport Secretary approved the ÂŁ1.7bn project in November it was against the advice of planning officials who recommended consent was withheld.
Mr Shapps said the need for development "outweighed any harm" to the World Heritage Site.
'UNLAWFUL DECISION'
Lawyers for SSWHS will argue the decision was unlawful on five grounds and breaches the World Heritage Convention.
- Harm to each heritage asset within the project should have been assessed individually rather than by way of considering the “historic environment” as a whole.
- None of the advice provided by Historic England provided the evidential basis for the Secretary of State’s conclusion of “less than substantial harm” to any of the assets impacted by the project.
- He allowed purported “heritage benefits” to be weighed against heritage harm before deciding whether that overall harm was “substantial” or “less than substantial”, which was unlawful under the National Policy Statement
- He wrongly interpreted the World Heritage Convention in deciding whether the development would amount to a breach
- He left out of account mandatory material considerations, specifically: the breach of various local policies; the impact of his finding of heritage harm which undermined the business case for the proposal; and the existence of a less damaging alternative.
The hearing in London will take place over three days ( 23rd-25th June) with the judgement expected to be given at a later date..
Rowan Smith from solicitors Leigh Day said:
"Our client believes that there is a clear legal case to be made that the Secretary of State unlawfully assessed the harm that is going to be inflicted on an ancient and much-cherished World Heritage Site, deciding instead that such destruction is a price worth paying for purported economic benefits and faster road travel times. Our client maintains that such an approach placed the Secretary of State in breach of both national planning policy and the World Heritage Convention."
PUBLIC SUPPORT:
More than 200,000 people signed a petition set up by the Stonehenge Alliance against the scheme with many others donating towards legal costs, now set to reach ÂŁ80,000
Katie Fielden Company Secretary for SSWHS Ltd is grateful for the support;
"Hundreds of thousands of supporters around the world who have signed the Stonehenge Alliance petition and the many who have generously donated to our legal costs anxiously await the Judicial Review outcome. It is a sad day when legal action is our only option to prevent irreparable damage to the surroundings of Stonehenge, that crowning symbol of our heritage. The fact that we've had to take this step, shows how little Britain's heritage is valued by the present Government. If Stonehenge World Heritage Site isn't safe, an iconic site of international significance, then what hope is there for other sites of cultural importance?"
WARNING FROM UNESCO
Meanwhile if the scheme is not modified Stonehenge could be placed on UNESCO's list of World Heritage sites in danger.
A committe is recommending the move sressing the proposed tunnel length is 'anadequate' and a longer tunnel is needed.
The report also says if the scheme goes ahead without changes the famous monument could even lose heritage status altogether.
The list will be discussed at a conference next month.