Letter: Tunnel vision
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.From Lord Howie of Troon
Sir: In his excellent article ("The Great Bore in its time - a forgotten gem in ours", 22 March) on Marc Brunel's Thames tunnel, Dan Cruickshank says that a request was made to Stephen Dorrell's Department of National Heritage for the tunnel to be listed as a building of architectural or historic interest.
The request was turned down as the tunnel seems not to meet the department's requirements under these categories, though it is hard to see how the world's first underwater tunnel could fail to be of some historic interest.
Since then, however, the Government has accepted an amendment to the Environment Bill, which has just passed through the Lords on its way to the Commons and which added "engineering interest" to these criteria. The tunnel is obviously of both engineering and historic interest.
Can the department be persuaded to think again before it is too late?
Yours sincerely,
WILL HOWIE
London, NW11
22 March
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments