Here from my quick reading is a summary of some key points from the #Stonehenge tunnel consent (long thread coming up!). Whatever your views it's a momentous decision
…https://infrastructure.planninginspectorate.gov.uk/projects/south-west/a303-stonehenge/

Examining Authority recommended in Jan 2020 that Secretary of State for Transport withhold consent. If SoS decided otherwise, ExA recommended a form of consent

SoS sees clear need with benefits that weigh significantly in their favour

Can be challenged only by judicial review

• over 30 years of acute congestion problems on part of Strategic Road Network

• existing traffic problem has not been exaggerated

• would help reduce collisions & casualties

• important benefits for communities suffering from rat running

• accords with Government vision & strategic objectives

• support from local authorities & other parties, partly for economic benefits

• presumption in favour of consent for Nationally Significant Infrastructure Projects

• present road limits enjoyment of surrounding area & setting of nationally designated heritage

• proposal would allow visitors to see Stonehenge without visual & aural traffic distraction, unify areas divided by A303, reconnect Avenue route to Avon, improve access across WHS

• it would also bring improved pollution control

• & significant benefit of 186ha new semi-natural habitats

BUT

• The ExA disagrees with assessment of heritage benefits & impacts on historic environment, landscape & visual amenity

• loss of productive farmland during construction & reduced productivity of restored chalk grassland, but modest impact on best land
• impacts of construction compounds & tunnel works areas can be adequately mitigated
• no substantive effects on livestock welfare during works

• the proposal benefits WHS Outstanding Universal Value, especially to the present generation. But permanent irreversible harm critical to OUV would also occur, affecting present & future generations. Overall effect on the WHS OUV would be significantly adverse. This is...

... inconsistent with WHS Management Plan Policy 1d. “This is a factor to which substantial weight can be attributed”

• poor consideration of effects at Longbarrow Junction on OUV; inadequate attention paid to less tangible aspects of setting; ...

concerns about interaction & overall summation of effects.

“The ExA is content overall with the mitigation strategy, apart from the proposed approach to artefact sampling & various other points identified" These should be resolved

• substantial harm would arise to spatial relations, visual relations & settings (contra Historic England)

• ICOMOS reports relevant & important, but not of such weight as to be determinative in themselves

• ExA accepts that cultural heritage, landscape, visual impact ...

... & other harms are matters of planning judgment on which there have been differing & informed opinions

• SoS notes ExA’s view on substantial harm is not supported by Wilts Council, NT, EH, DCMS & Historic England, who place greater weight on WHS benefits of road removal...

The SoS considers it appropriate to give weight to Historic Englan's judgment as his statutory advisor

• sufficient safeguards for historic environment protection

The new-found Durrington pits

• The SoS asked “in the interests of good administration & fairness” that late evidence be treated as “further information” under 2017 Regs

• SoS places great importance on views of Historic England, who see no substantial harm

• SoS accepts HE’s views that proposed mitigation measures, including artefact sampling, are acceptable & will help minimise harm

Landscape

• The ExA considers landscape character would be significantly harmed around Longbarrow Junction, west cutting & portal, & there would be adverse effects to landscape & visual amenity from the carriage embankment & River Till crossing to west

• SoS satisfied reasonable mitigation will minimise landscape harm; “beneficial impacts throughout most of the WHS outweigh the harm caused at specific locations”

• only adverse health & wellbeing impact is loss of Stonehenge views from road, of modest weight

• no material adverse impacts upon users of rights of way etc

• SoS does not accept that finding of harm to OUV inevitably means consent would result in the UK being in breach of its international WHC obligations

• representations outside formal consultations include Stonehenge Alliance petition with over 125,000 signatures

SoS considers no new issues were raised