As I understand it, EH have been fully aware of this monument for some time. Ergo, we can assume they’ve decided not to schedule it (since if they had the road couldn’t still be being built).

Scheduling is for monuments of national importance.
“Decisions on national importance are guided by criteria laid down by the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, covering the basic characteristics of monuments. They are:
• extent of survival
• current condition
• rarity
• representivity, either through diversity or because of one important attribute
• importance of the period to which the monument dates
• fragility
• connection to other monuments, or group value
• potential to contribute to our information, understanding and appreciation
• extent of documentation enhancing the monument's significance

HOWEVER, in EH’s words – “Even nationally important sites are scheduled only if this is the best means of protecting them. Sometimes, for example in town and city centres, the best way to protect sites - from building development and road schemes - is to use the system of local authority control over planning applications. The planners can make sure that development proposals take archaeology fully into account”

So it looks like the alternative has been chosen by EH. So how did they decide?

I dunno, but it doesn’t seem to fit with something else they say – There is “a compelling need to ensure that the amenity value and the setting of monuments are safeguarded - particularly by robust policies and appropriate decision-making within the context of the planning process”.

So, will burying it under a road safeguard its amenity value and setting? Or would scheduling it so that no road was allowed over it do that better? Is there a case for arguing here?