Many of the campaigners aren't actually arguing against the idea of a tunnel. They're arguing that the tunnel should be longer. The current 2-mile design has it's portals being constructed within the world heritage site, which will involve huge cuttings and excavation which will obviously be disruptive to the archaeology.
Okay. So the campaigners sort of say this in the article but then also say nah actually we're against roads because climate change (not how climate change works). The quote is in my comment.
On the subject of a 'longer tunnel' - there are basically two main problems
1. The stone henge 'site' is massive and gets bigger or smaller depending on who you're talking to. Like, kilometers big and tunnel costs basically scale with each km dug.
2. The main issue with tunnelling is the risk of disturbing archaeological sites. More tunnelling = more disturbance.
I actually don't have a good solution to this very difficult, multi-actor, ill-defined problem set. But it's so dumb for a JR to come in and be like 'haha they didn't consider the alternatives to the ill defined common law definition'.
Like, no one even bloody knows what the common law standard is. Judges make it up on the fly (they have no other option since its common law and JDs have only taken off in the last ten years) and newspapers gulp it down, then regurgitate it back into the screaming chick's open mouth.
Many of the campaigners aren't actually arguing against the idea of a tunnel. They're arguing that the tunnel should be longer. The current 2-mile design has it's portals being constructed within the world heritage site, which will involve huge cuttings and excavation which will obviously be disruptive to the archaeology.