This isn’t the place to attempt a survey of the controversies surrounding Stonehenge. It would take several pages. Getting everything agreed and the place redeveloped is probably impossible.
There is the issue of access to the stones themselves. Many people demand to be able to walk round them, touch them, make real contact. Some of them have religious philosophies as the basis of their wishes – contact with such ancient objects is essential to them in order to complete their feelings of experiencing mystic truths. Others want to examine the stones close up for more prosaic historic or scientific reasons. Between these ends of a spectrum come people who want to be amongst the stones on midsummer’s day so they can see the sun rise above the horizon. And those who want to find inspiration for their music-making, painting, sculpting or dramatic productions.
Against these are those who fear direct access would lead to vandalism or theft or people making political statements using banners attached to the monument or even chaining themselves to it in order to demand someone be freed from jail, or prosecuted, or allowed to do things presently decreed illegal. The anti-access people worry about sit-ins, love-ins, demonstrations and publicity-grabbing musical or theatrical performances. Others have a simpler concern, and that is that the monument would lose its air of drama and mystery once crowds of tourists were allowed all over it.
The next, and biggest problem, is that of the surroundings of Stonehenge. Should the adjacent road be diverted away so that a major twenty-first century intrusion – traffic – is removed from disturbing that ambience of mystery? If so, how could that be done at acceptable cost and without damaging still-uninvestigated archaeologies nearby? Should a tunnel be built – at enormous expense? The present government has rejected this proposal on grounds of cost. What about the visitor centre? You might ask, what visitor centre, since only service functions are on hand at the moment. There is no interpretive centre. If one is built, should it be close by or far away? Above ground or out of sight somehow?
You could add questions of foot access for visitor with mobility problems. Should a road-train be used to move folk around, as has been proposed? Ought commercial services be allowed close by? Should the King Arthur Pendragons of this world be allowed to advertise their concerns and beliefs?
No wonder that famous statement in Parliament twenty years ago about Stonehenge being a disgrace is still relevant today.
