Another big story, which certainly frequently grabs the attention off the world's media and, indeed, people across the globe.

For better or worse, is the story off stone henge way have seen?

Have we not, in recent days, Stonehenge coming to the attention off of UNESCO Or rather so UNESCO, starting to comment on the the unfolding problems surrounding the proposed roamed network solution for Stonehenge, which will be I just It's a sort of filling in on that.

The story so far, it's long been acknowledged by transport people and heritage people.

That theory 303 running past Stonehenge in Wiltshire in southern England, is not fit for purpose.

It's the main trunk road to the west of England, but it called cope with modern levels of traffic.

So for the last 30 years, 40 years it's been suggested that one solution would be to tunnel under the Stonehenge landscape, Um, on DDE, reunite the surface landscape while burying the roads in modern dual carriageway.

Now the latest proposal was put to consultation by highways England in January this year, at the same time as the government allocated a very large amount of money to the A three a three improvements as part of their infrastructure plan.

The problem.

Waas that the proposal that was put out to consultation by highways England was what's cooled the short tunnel proposal, which would entail digging portals and lane dual carriageway within the bounds off the UNESCO recognize Stonehenge World Heritage site.

Mmm.

What the consultation admitted were other proposals which would have less impact on the World Heritage site.

The latest news is that as a result, off a report that joint UNESCO and International Council Monuments Team wrote earlier on this year, there's no resolution in front of the World Heritage Committee at UNESCO, which is due to be debated next month, which implicitly and explicitly actually criticizes highways.

England, with British government for its approach to eternal it talks about that problem's with short tunnel on.

Particularly, uh, it suggests that the short tunnel option would fundamentally damage the World Heritage site.

And that's the kind of language which is used a za preamble to a campaign to remove world heritage status.

They talk about universal vouch for you, and if the universal value is compromised, the very thing that makes the site so unique in a in a World Heritage site, rather just the national Heritage site, the validates, that kind of recognition, if not that unique value, is compromised by something like a development like any road, Then what hurt status can be taken?

It's interesting in Britain on when we talked about planning a lot in these podcasts, and it's the basis of a lot of British archaeology, and that's something come on, perhaps in this segment but the city of Liverpool as well.

Live waterfront is a World Heritage site, but that status is also under threat because of the developments have been authorized by Little City Council.

So it potentially the UK government and the Department of Culture Heritage in sport.

Andi, the UK heritage bodies like historic England could find themselves facing at least one and possibly two World heritage sites, with their status under threat because of permitted developments.

It is interesting, but ah yeah, that UNESCO, it seems to be, seems to be setting up a really sort of a really, really firm line in the sand because you think that this line of the same, but becoming from given that this monument is the most visited historical sites outside of London.

I imagine I'm guessing there, but I'm pretty sure it would be.

It's certainly English Heritage is top site in terms of visits and others.

You think that actually, there be a very much stronger lobbying voice for this from English heritage pulls from from the government itself.

This really highlights that in recent years we've seen a degradation off those roles that actually that the government, in chopping up English heritage and also compromising it budgetarily asthma.

Matty English heritage has to be primarily focused on actually getting footfall on and eventually, self self survival himself.

Preservation Heritage, England How will that stuff sort of Inter relates as well?

The conversation is much more complicated, but in this country, and that's what I'm saying.

The first straight feed with the first drink, two people with the agendas on what we have here.

Is UNESCO really laying down the law and and saying, Well, actually, if he compromises monument, which it looks like you might do, it won't be able no longer be an important site that is very, very interesting.

Actually, Looking at the the proposed solution, I mean that the long tunnel in short tunnel, the long tunnel.

There's no exact figures given on this particular source.

I confined.

It looks about two and 1/2 times length of the short tunnel.

The short tunnel being approximately maybe two, um, two kilometers long.

Perhaps it's just think about two kilometers.

That long tunnel would be about five, maybe six kilometers.

These are both gonna be substantial engineering projects on, uh, I suppose this brings me to something which I think is a fascinating 3rd 3rd angle here.

Okay, You got the problem of off the infrastructure.

The fact that it needs to be fixed a three a three is not fit for purpose.

In that sense, it is a bit and slightly possibly.

But that's secondary issue really has also gotten that is also having an effect on the historical landscape.

And you also got this issue of the archaeology that will be affected by underground, especially boring.

Or I think, as you were saying, dig and cover was another possibility Original.

The original tunnel proposals carton cover, which would have been very destructive.

It would have been cutting huge trenches through the landscape in the back filling it.

That went on time ago.

But it was that was the original proposal.

Yeah, but unless both of those would be would be potentially destructive for archaeology and the one would hope one would hope, if they went ahead, there would be preceded by a substantial our political watching briefs, which would then have openly mitts toe from excavations when required.

So there's that disaster, but this extra angle them talking about it.

This idea, actually, arguably what we have here is is a ritualized landscape off the 21st century.

There is a ritual that exists in that landscape that everyone experiences when they're driving along in a 3 to 3, the ritual is Can you see it yet?

Can you see it yet?

Can you see it yet?

You know, I can see.

I can see There is.

There is Stonehenge.

Oh, it's a bit small, isn't it?

Oh, yes, it is.

And then it's gone.

That there is.

There is an argument to be made, actually, just like that.

The m, the curses, monuments just like other other ritualized pathways through the landscape, they throw 303 in the same way that the that the the the current driven population have appropriated the money.

The 833 is part of that landscape, and I think it's interesting how no one seems to be addressing that I was actually talking about this about that experience of the landscape.

What, to be fair?

I think so.

Some archaeologists have taken the view that the status quo is better than doing something too quickly and getting it wrong.

On dhe, there are others who favorite yes, and it's interesting that there was, ah letter on one of the reasons that the government is in on his striking them down.

The other regulate the regulatory bodies and nationalism in potential trouble.

Over this is there was a on open letter to the consultation published by 21 expert pretty historians, independent expert priests led by my park person, um, which basically demolished the short tunnel a zone option, uh, on not just heritage grounds, actually.

But they also put into play yet another proposal, which is one that again, UNESCO says should have been part of the consultation but wasn't which is a southern bypass around the southern edge of the World Heritage site, which would solve the road problem.

But but but keep clear of the World Heritage site at the same time, Historic England have argued that wherever you put a tunnel in that area or destroy archaeology, or whether it wherever you put a road in the area or destroy archaeology and it's question of least worst, it was very interesting this week.

Of course, a CZ one is everything else is going on.

We've had the summer solstice, and you mentioned the Drew.

It's one about a modern Drew is I should say, um, but, um, that's it.

The BBC ran a piece on their Radio four program called Making History About Stonehenge.

On It was very interesting.

I think that a CZ well as Dr Rachel Pope speaking up for the seven heads, landscapes and independent archaeology she's aligned herself, broadly speaking, with the opposition to the tunnel option.

They had an archaeologist in the National Trust who read the actual landowner for a large part of the World Heritage Site who was talking again quite appropriate times about reuniting the landscape, allowing people to walk from Stonehenge down through the rest of the fascinating prehistory of the of the World Heritage site and 2/3 of the World Heritage sites the wrong side of the A three on three, Um, but very significantly, I think historic England put up not just one of their archeologists, but their chief executive no less to say basically that they felt that they seem to be arguing that there wasn't that much of the tunnel option was a perfectly valid option.

And they, the impression give them was that they weren't going to go into the ditch is to defend um T to argue for other options on.

That's the fact they put up The chief executive suggested to me that they see that they've got a significant PR problem of this.

They want to try and get own ship of the argument.

Well, I think they do that have been interesting, though, as you say, causing a charity essentially in the site.

National Trust owns lots of land around the side.

National Trust in certain areas have been quoted as saying.

They believe that this deserves a world class solution supposed to something which is, interestingly enough, something which is driven as it were also by local politics.

Because John Glenn's is the MP for the area.

You know Jesus and John Glenn is also since last week, First Week is intimately involved with the decision, decision making process.

That's how he is now.

The undersecretary of state with responsible teeth.

Heritage at the bomb with culture, media and sport.

Yeah, he's a politician with direct responsibility.

Flora.

Yeah, which I if if if I may be a misunderstanding, the term But that feels like a certain element of them, uh, vested interests like it's a much is that said those Well, there is the he and this actually brings me back to this idea of the modern landscape.

His interest will be The voters will be the local, the local voting public, because that's his seat when he wants to keep it on.

In that sense, he'll also probably have a very pragmatic sense of the landscape.

The businesses that needed live nearby, the people that live nearby.

On also the fact that frankly and this is something we're talking about a couple of days ago, I think that this issue at the horse has bolted.

You know that the road is there.

There is a road there.

People's rights without landscape, all the time.

It is not pristine, and it cannot know it can never be returned to being pristine.

And people seem to be sort of pretending that somehow, in some respect some of these solutions are as good as undoing the road.

And that's simply not possible.

And so maybe actually having people, especially people like like like when he's involved, it might actually bring a certain pragmatism to this argument.

Mitch, which combined with the UNESCO line in the sand, could result in something else.

Maybe there's another way of solving this problem.

I I think at the moment I mean what we'll see in July, whether UNESCO adopts the resolution unamended.

If it does, then the government will be will be requested, which is a polite way diplomatic language that UNESCO use it.

They'll be requested to account for the the conservation of the monument by the end of January 2018 so that only have about six months to respond to the criticisms.

One of the criticisms is that the consultation was too narrow and UNESCO was effectively asking for the consultation to be rerun with the other two options on the table, which, if that happens it would further delay the government's program.

Historic England is the regulator there, in there, in the stock, in the proverbial between the proverbial rock and hard place on the sauce and the whole place.

Because although there the regulator of the English historic in there also a government arm's length body on dhe evident on the government for funding on dhe, their remit was changed by the Cameron government, too, basically support sustainable development.

So they although there are hints in some of their particular with joint resolution of historic ing, the National Trust charity, came out of the time the consultation that, um, they would accept the short tunnel with amendments to the positioning of the Western portable.

They don't None of those bodies appear to be prepared to oppose the short summer, whereas all the independent, that's all the significant independent opinion plus the pressure group of Stonehenge Alliance on Dhe number and now UNESCO are saying basically first of the scheme, as published insulted isn't appropriate on.

Secondly, if it if it's followed through, there will be consequences.

Implicitly, there will be consequences.

It feels that this is very much the theme off the theme of our of our month this month is the fact that there are consequences floating around the world, sort of watching to see if and when these consequences will land.