While the article talks about the legal proceedings it doesn't mention why anyone supports or opposes this tunnel. Like there isn't even one sentence about justifications. Shame on you BBC
this post was submitted on 12 Jul 2024
23 points (100.0% liked)
Fuck Cars
9803 readers
84 users here now
This community exists as a sister community/copycat community to the r/fuckcars subreddit.
This community exists for the following reasons:
- to raise awareness around the dangers, inefficiencies and injustice that can come from car dependence.
- to allow a place to discuss and promote more healthy transport methods and ways of living.
You can find the Matrix chat room for this community here.
Rules
-
Be nice to each other. Being aggressive or inflammatory towards other users will get you banned. Name calling or obvious trolling falls under that. Hate cars, hate the system, but not people. While some drivers definitely deserve some hate, most of them didn't choose car-centric life out of free will.
-
No bigotry or hate. Racism, transphobia, misogyny, ableism, homophobia, chauvinism, fat-shaming, body-shaming, stigmatization of people experiencing homeless or substance users, etc. are not tolerated. Don't use slurs. You can laugh at someone's fragile masculinity without associating it with their body. The correlation between car-culture and body weight is not an excuse for fat-shaming.
-
Stay on-topic. Submissions should be on-topic to the externalities of car culture in urban development and communities globally. Posting about alternatives to cars and car culture is fine. Don't post literal car fucking.
-
No traffic violence. Do not post depictions of traffic violence. NSFW or NSFL posts are not allowed. Gawking at crashes is not allowed. Be respectful to people who are a victim of traffic violence or otherwise traumatized by it. News articles about crashes and statistics about traffic violence are allowed. Glorifying traffic violence will get you banned.
-
No reposts. Before sharing, check if your post isn't a repost. Reposts that add something new are fine. Reposts that are sharing content from somewhere else are fine too.
-
No misinformation. Masks and vaccines save lives during a pandemic, climate change is real and anthropogenic - and denial of these and other established facts will get you banned. False or highly speculative titles will get your post deleted.
-
No harassment. Posts that (may) cause harassment, dogpiling or brigading, intentionally or not, will be removed. Please do not post screenshots containing uncensored usernames. Actual harassment, dogpiling or brigading is a bannable offence.
Please report posts and comments that violate our rules.
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
This is the best summary I could come up with:
A two-mile road tunnel past Stonehenge could cost £250,000 per metre of road - as it is revealed costs so far amount to £166m.The scheme, which was approved by the previous Conservative government, has been met with a number of legal challenges from Save Stonehenge World Heritage Site (SSWHS).A Freedom of Information request showed the total planning spend up to the end of May was £166,230,578.The BBC has been told that £287,605 of public money has so far been spent on legal fees.
John Adams, chair of Stonehenge Alliance, said it would "make it arguably one of the most expensive roads in the world".
National Highways, who said the tunnel will remove the sight and sound of traffic passing the historic site, contracted Wessex Archaeology to search the proposed route, focused largely on the two tunnel portals within the World Heritage Site.It hired more than 100 archaeologists, in a contract costing £4.6m to date, to start a year of digging from last spring but the work was halted because of the latest legal challenge.SSWHS argues that cancelling the tunnel scheme would save "at least £2.5bn", having already cost £160m in the planning phase.Mr Adams said he had worked out the cost of the scheme based on the total budget.
"During the election campaign, the new Prime Minister, Sir Keir Starmer, failed to commit to the scheme and told the BBC that his government would wait for the legal process to end before making a decision about the future of the tunnel.
Planning permission for the scheme, which is backed by the National Trust and Wiltshire Council and involves overhauling eight miles of major road from London to South West England, was first approved in November 2020, despite Planning Inspectorate officials saying it would cause "permanent, irreversible harm" to the area.The decision was later quashed by the High Court in 2021 after a campaign.However, the project, which Highways England said will reduce and cut journey times, was again given the green light by the DfT in July 2023.The scheme was later put on hold after another High Court challenge in December, with campaigners arguing the legal process by the then Conservative government was wrong.A judicial review dismissed their challenge in February and said the Department for Transport had followed the correct process.The outcome of the judicial review was believed to be incorrect by campaigners, and after appealing the decision, were granted approval to challenge it in May.The next stage of the legal campaign begins on Monday at the Court of Appeal, with campaigners arguing the approval was wrong in law and are challenging a dismissal of their application to overturn it in a judicial review.Mr Adams said: "This is not a hearing about the design or the merits of the road itself, but about whether the Minister was properly briefed.
Send your story ideas to us on email or via WhatsApp on 0800 313 4630.
The original article contains 538 words, the summary contains 484 words. Saved 10%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!