You're dead right, VBB.
Clarity is all.
Would that "conservation principles" could provide all the necessary safeguards, but I'm not sure they can fully - there are conflicting issues of conservation principle emerging at Silbury so the project is still open to individual interpretation.
In big issues involving big judgements there's only one appropriate arbiter: the public. Coincidentally, they're the very people who have been excluded from the project for five long years! For the implications of that, see my schoolfriend's words.
Accordingly, if we want clarity and focus and something that it would require a contortionist to criticize, I'd suggest something like this:
____________________
A tunnel would be emotionally, spiritually, historically and aesthetically repellent.
Accordingly, it must be shown beyond reasonable argument that it is the least worst option for the good of the monument and the decision must be on the basis of the public's full comprehension and wholehearted assent.
____________________
