Save Stonehenge World Heritage Site (SSWHS) will be at the High Court in London seeking a judicial review of the Government’s decision to approve a £2.5bn road scheme that would build a tunnel through the Stonehenge World Heritage Site.

SSWHS plans to hold a protest in addition to the proceedings which will be taking place inside the Royal Courts of Justice on Tuesday, December 12.

The hearing is set to last three days and will consider a number of grounds, with UNESCO and five planning inspectors reportedly opposed to National Highways’ plans. Additionally, 230,000 people from across the world have signed two petitions against the tunnel.

SEE ALSO: Greggs confirms it will be moving to a larger shop in the Old George Mall

John Adams, chair of the Stonehenge Alliance and one of the three directors of SSWHS, said: “In the face of Government indifference to the harm this road will cause the World Heritage Site, we had no choice but to bring this legal action. As before we hope we are successful in overturning this proposed vandalism. We hope justice will be served over the next three days.”

Dan Snow, British historian and television presenter, said: “It’s astonishing that the Government is persisting with such a damaging scheme when there’s so much opposition.  Even UNESCO opposes it.  They’ve got to come up with something better. Simply cutting right through one of the most important archaeological sites on planet Earth shows little respect for humanity or our heritage.  There are plenty of other solutions that could reduce traffic past Stonehenge.”

Leigh Day solicitor Rowan Smith said: “Despite this road development being so controversial, and despite important new matters which required proper scrutiny, the Secretary of State ignored calls for a fresh public examination. Our clients consider that was unfair and potentially a breach of human rights. Also, no regard whatsoever was given to the risk that Stonehenge would lose its world heritage status if plans were approved, which our clients say was plainly irrational. We look forward to presenting these arguments to the Court.”