Should we spend £500 million on preserving the natural landscape of the Thames Estuary or transforming Stonehenge into a visitor attraction worthy of World Heritage Status?
One of the nation's great historic sites is cast against one of the least known parts of Britain.
Germaine Greer advocates that the Thames Estuary should be preserved as a natural habitat, whereas historian Tristram Hunt champions the plan to reunite Stonehenge with its surrounding ruins, putting the A303 into a tunnel.
Which National Treasure deserves £500 million?
Panel
Edwina Currie - Writer, broadcaster and former politician.
Deborah Meaden - successful businesswoman and dragon on BBC2's Dragon's Den.
Robert Hewison - critic, cultural historian and associate of the think tank Demos.
Larry Phillips - Decision analyst.
For more information on Stonehenge and the Thames Estuary, see:
Each week we're taking the temperature of the audience opinion on the issues. Use this page to vote on this week's issue,(vote closes 14th August 5pm) or to send us your comments. As Lawrence Pollard explained on air, cultural funding decisions aren't quite this stark in real life nor is our vote intended to be rigorous.
The final programme in the series on Wednesday 5 September will discuss how, in real life, public opinion is captured and used in public funding decisions about the arts, culture and heritage.
The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites
National Treasures Vote
Which do you think would be the better investment?
Improvements to the road layout and visitor experience at Stonehenge
60 votes
Projects to safeguard and develop the natural environment of the Thames Estuary
51 votes
Total votes: 111
This is not a representative poll and the figures do not purport to represent public opinion as a whole on this issue
Have your say
Which is more deserving of a half billion pound handout and why?
Please state clearly if you wish to remain anonymous as your message may be read out on air or published electronically.
Steve, Northants An excellent programme. My first "gut" reaction was towards Stonehenge but Stonehenge does not need saving. The Thames Estuary could have an immense effect on its surrounding area and inhabitants. It will depend largely how the money is spent. I also can't help thinking that we might end up with half a tunnel for £500m but any improvement on the Thames Estuary would have quite a remarkable effect even if there was some under budgetting and money ran out.
Anonymous On what other radio station would you hear such an intelligent, stimulating, thought provoking, topical, useful exercise in the challenges of decision making? I learned SO much! Thank you!!
Andrew, Suffolk Excellent radio. On the basis of need and impact if the money was spent properly, the Thames Estuary would be a clear winner in my view.
David F M Helliwell London already gets too much money spent on it, it's a money sponge, whereas the west country gets very little. Let's redress the balance a little.
Trevor Norris, London Great new programme. They don't come along very often on R4 but this is a really good format for the discussion of culture. Very engaging.
Helene, Wolverhampton It is about time archives were given the support they deserve.
sarah, london as art prices spiral upwards why not but hirst's diamond encrusted skull and then sell it in 12 months time to whoever is shallow enough to covet it and reinvest the money in the cathederal.
Paul, Oxfordshire Digitize the film archive in the highest definition, then it won't deteriorate and be copied indefinitely!?
Jim Walters, Nottingham Much could be done at stonehenge without, tunneling the 303, Close the junction with the A344 and move it about 1M south to the next intersection, and allow better on-foot access to the surrounding fields at the moment the only way to experience any of the monument is by using the visitor center and paying or by whizzing past in a car, the perimeter fence is tight to the roadside and there is nowhere to stop, £20M would do almost as good a job as 500, I would say
Beerbohm, Scotland English National Heritage have been making a mess of the site for years. Spending a mass of money on a tunnel will just make the place less accessible. Stonehenge has been an important way mark for thousands of years. Build a decent interpretation centre in one of the neighbouring towns so that the local economy can benefit from the tourists beloved ENH.
Andrew, Salisbury The Thames Estuary is a hive of development and developers' contributions should be required towards conservation projects. Stonehenge has no such way of raising money other than by state grant, and the road itself is in desperate need of upgrading to improve traffic flow anyway, although presumably it wouldn't be completed in time for the Olympic sailing events!
Aletta Bonn, research manager, Moors for the Futur I found your National Treasures programme on 8/8 extremely interesting as it discussed the concept of ecosystem services and cultural values heads on with a real example in an informed group (as informed as decision makers usually get). Listening to the development of the discussion it was most fascinating to see how environmental decision making developed and what the real objectives for different stakeholders were. It was very useful how the presenter pushed the politician as well as the scientists towards a decision. I especially valued the contribution by Larry Phillips at the end about benefit improvement, as exactly that crossed my mind, too. The rather dry comments by Edwina Curry taking into account the risk associated with the do-nothing option is obviously quite valuable as well as realistic. It was interesting to see that although the Thames Estuary project was not best promoted in my view (the on-site documentary was very valuable and informative), it still attracted the interest of the voting panel. I'm looking forward listening to your further programmes.In case you have not devided on all your case studies yet, how about saving peat bogs in the Peak District for carbon sequestration, water quality, wildlife and recreation?
c.z.wyse germaine greer is correctly focused with her remark that with reference to the thames estuary what we want is the retention of wilderness not a conversion into a polite park.Could one put together a list of regenerated areas that have benefited and I mean really benefited from their regeneration....the proposals for stonehedge seem totally out of balance with the concentration on the road rather than the stones....maybe we should bury the stones...sorry just a bit of black humour.
Ian Mitchell (on holiday - normally within jogggin For publication - Another option - another criterion: Congratulations on bringing Multi Criteria Decision Analysis to a wider audience! Value based debate often spawns new options to the original ideas considered and new criteria with which to value them. The aim of removing the road from Stonehenge does not demand a tunnel. Moving the route to the South West away from Stonehenge meets this aim. This re-routing also has value from improving local transport by fixing the bottlenecks in and around Salisbury. This impact on local communities is a new criterion to consider - what score should be given for Thames Estuary for this?
Jason Rose I live in southend on the Thames Estuary, I think its safe to say that the thames estuary is beyond help, that money should definately go to preserving the natural surrounding in Wiltshire.
John from Frome The programme started with the false premise that Stonehenge is spoilt by traffic on the A303. This is far from the case. It is spoilt by the tourists who arrive in their fleets of coaches to parade around the stones, complain about the lack of facilities and depart. The A303 provides an ideal viewing platform, discreet and at the ideal distance to see the stones set in the landscape. If only the tourist hordes could be removed from the scene.
Dave Williams Watford I first heard about the construction of a tunnel to re-route the A303, some 10 years ago, when I was studying archaeology. Then I thought it a good idea. That is to create a more intact Stonehenge landscape to enhance a ‘purer’ experience of the monument. There would obviously be less distraction from the modern world in the form of traffic noise etc.Sometime since, I discovered a drawing by Turner and a painting by Constable that record the same view we see today – that moment when Stonehenge first comes into view when travelling west along the A303. What struck me is that they were made in first half of the 19th century and record a view that we easily recognise today. An un-metalled coaching route forks into two, passing Stonehenge on either side. In other words the modern road system (the A303 and the A344), disguises the fact that it preserves a route carved into the landscape by feet, horses and carriages and is probably many hundreds of years old in itself. Fascination, reverence and the fact the monument was a useful landmark, has affected the way peoples of the past, passed through Salisbury Plain. The important point is that we can partake in something men women and children, of many different historic periods, experienced in the past, only a bit faster. I think Stonehenge would look ‘historically anaemic’, less potent, if it were to be removed from everyday experience. To leave the road system as it is, is the real meaning of heritage. All that is needed is to improve the visitor centre and allow more access to move amongst the stones.
Jon Lane, Grays Essex Dear Lawrence and National Treasure. Just finished listening to the programme and it was so heartening to hear Germaine Greer sticking up for the Thames Estuary, the kids on motorbikes at Tilbury, biodiversity and mud. I have lived and worked in this area for thirty years and I am chair of the local Cycle Forum and a fairly active member of our local Biodiversity Group. We so need a champion like Germaine to bang the heads of the (well intended) developers and planners - politicians and indeed some local people - to realize the 'value' of what we have here in our small part of the Estuary called - Thurrock.A big thanks to the programme and more importantly to Germaine.Kind regards. Jon Lane.
Bill, Peterborough What a brilliant programme. Edwina you should be ashamed of yourself for your shallowness. Germaine you're fantastic.
Send us your views
Disclaimer: The BBC will put up as many of your comments as possible but we cannot guarantee that all e-mails will be published. The BBC reserves the right to edit comments that are published.
Please state clearly if you wish to remain anonymous as your message may be read out on air or published electronically.
Steve, Northants
An excellent programme. My first "gut" reaction was towards Stonehenge but Stonehenge does not need saving. The Thames Estuary could have an immense effect on its surrounding area and inhabitants. It will depend largely how the money is spent. I also can't help thinking that we might end up with half a tunnel for £500m but any improvement on the Thames Estuary would have quite a remarkable effect even if there was some under budgetting and money ran out.
Anonymous
On what other radio station would you hear such an intelligent, stimulating, thought provoking, topical, useful exercise in the challenges of decision making? I learned SO much! Thank you!!
Andrew, Suffolk
Excellent radio. On the basis of need and impact if the money was spent properly, the Thames Estuary would be a clear winner in my view.
David F M Helliwell
London already gets too much money spent on it, it's a money sponge, whereas the west country gets very little. Let's redress the balance a little.
Trevor Norris, London
Great new programme. They don't come along very often on R4 but this is a really good format for the discussion of culture. Very engaging.
Helene, Wolverhampton
It is about time archives were given the support they deserve.
sarah, london
as art prices spiral upwards why not but hirst's diamond encrusted skull and then sell it in 12 months time to whoever is shallow enough to covet it and reinvest the money in the cathederal.
Paul, Oxfordshire
Digitize the film archive in the highest definition, then it won't deteriorate and be copied indefinitely!?
Jim Walters, Nottingham
Much could be done at stonehenge without, tunneling the 303, Close the junction with the A344 and move it about 1M south to the next intersection, and allow better on-foot access to the surrounding fields at the moment the only way to experience any of the monument is by using the visitor center and paying or by whizzing past in a car, the perimeter fence is tight to the roadside and there is nowhere to stop, £20M would do almost as good a job as 500, I would say
Beerbohm, Scotland
English National Heritage have been making a mess of the site for years. Spending a mass of money on a tunnel will just make the place less accessible. Stonehenge has been an important way mark for thousands of years. Build a decent interpretation centre in one of the neighbouring towns so that the local economy can benefit from the tourists beloved ENH.
Andrew, Salisbury
The Thames Estuary is a hive of development and developers' contributions should be required towards conservation projects. Stonehenge has no such way of raising money other than by state grant, and the road itself is in desperate need of upgrading to improve traffic flow anyway, although presumably it wouldn't be completed in time for the Olympic sailing events!
Aletta Bonn, research manager, Moors for the Futur
I found your National Treasures programme on 8/8 extremely interesting as it discussed the concept of ecosystem services and cultural values heads on with a real example in an informed group (as informed as decision makers usually get). Listening to the development of the discussion it was most fascinating to see how environmental decision making developed and what the real objectives for different stakeholders were. It was very useful how the presenter pushed the politician as well as the scientists towards a decision. I especially valued the contribution by Larry Phillips at the end about benefit improvement, as exactly that crossed my mind, too. The rather dry comments by Edwina Curry taking into account the risk associated with the do-nothing option is obviously quite valuable as well as realistic. It was interesting to see that although the Thames Estuary project was not best promoted in my view (the on-site documentary was very valuable and informative), it still attracted the interest of the voting panel. I'm looking forward listening to your further programmes.In case you have not devided on all your case studies yet, how about saving peat bogs in the Peak District for carbon sequestration, water quality, wildlife and recreation?
c.z.wyse
germaine greer is correctly focused with her remark that with reference to the thames estuary what we want is the retention of wilderness not a conversion into a polite park.Could one put together a list of regenerated areas that have benefited and I mean really benefited from their regeneration....the proposals for stonehedge seem totally out of balance with the concentration on the road rather than the stones....maybe we should bury the stones...sorry just a bit of black humour.
Ian Mitchell (on holiday - normally within jogggin
For publication - Another option - another criterion: Congratulations on bringing Multi Criteria Decision Analysis to a wider audience! Value based debate often spawns new options to the original ideas considered and new criteria with which to value them. The aim of removing the road from Stonehenge does not demand a tunnel. Moving the route to the South West away from Stonehenge meets this aim. This re-routing also has value from improving local transport by fixing the bottlenecks in and around Salisbury. This impact on local communities is a new criterion to consider - what score should be given for Thames Estuary for this?
Jason Rose
I live in southend on the Thames Estuary, I think its safe to say that the thames estuary is beyond help, that money should definately go to preserving the natural surrounding in Wiltshire.
John from Frome
The programme started with the false premise that Stonehenge is spoilt by traffic on the A303. This is far from the case. It is spoilt by the tourists who arrive in their fleets of coaches to parade around the stones, complain about the lack of facilities and depart. The A303 provides an ideal viewing platform, discreet and at the ideal distance to see the stones set in the landscape. If only the tourist hordes could be removed from the scene.
Dave Williams Watford
I first heard about the construction of a tunnel to re-route the A303, some 10 years ago, when I was studying archaeology. Then I thought it a good idea. That is to create a more intact Stonehenge landscape to enhance a ‘purer’ experience of the monument. There would obviously be less distraction from the modern world in the form of traffic noise etc.Sometime since, I discovered a drawing by Turner and a painting by Constable that record the same view we see today – that moment when Stonehenge first comes into view when travelling west along the A303. What struck me is that they were made in first half of the 19th century and record a view that we easily recognise today. An un-metalled coaching route forks into two, passing Stonehenge on either side. In other words the modern road system (the A303 and the A344), disguises the fact that it preserves a route carved into the landscape by feet, horses and carriages and is probably many hundreds of years old in itself. Fascination, reverence and the fact the monument was a useful landmark, has affected the way peoples of the past, passed through Salisbury Plain. The important point is that we can partake in something men women and children, of many different historic periods, experienced in the past, only a bit faster. I think Stonehenge would look ‘historically anaemic’, less potent, if it were to be removed from everyday experience. To leave the road system as it is, is the real meaning of heritage. All that is needed is to improve the visitor centre and allow more access to move amongst the stones.
Jon Lane, Grays Essex
Dear Lawrence and National Treasure. Just finished listening to the programme and it was so heartening to hear Germaine Greer sticking up for the Thames Estuary, the kids on motorbikes at Tilbury, biodiversity and mud. I have lived and worked in this area for thirty years and I am chair of the local Cycle Forum and a fairly active member of our local Biodiversity Group. We so need a champion like Germaine to bang the heads of the (well intended) developers and planners - politicians and indeed some local people - to realize the 'value' of what we have here in our small part of the Estuary called - Thurrock.A big thanks to the programme and more importantly to Germaine.Kind regards. Jon Lane.
Bill, Peterborough
What a brilliant programme. Edwina you should be ashamed of yourself for your shallowness. Germaine you're fantastic.