Normal people don't need "unlimited free international roaming", and it's easy enough to just get a local SIM card if you are travelling alot or for extended time, so there just is no broad basis for instituting this change which has broader repurcussions.
You underestimate how often people travel in Europe. In some places you can hit four countries on a day out. At one location where I worked, it was so close to a border that inadvertent roaming was an (expensive) problem. Getting a local contract SIM is hard in many countries not your own. You often need to show proof of residence and prepaid can be significantly more expensive.
In any case, there is the issue of managing SIMs with call forwards/whatever. It is possible, but far from convenient.
it is not quite clear to me on what legal basis English Heritage can claim ownership of the photos one takes. IANAL, but to my mind they can't claim copyright:
They can assert their rights as a condition of entry to the property. This does happen also on entry to various museums which may explicitly forbid all photography or just commercial photography. If you photograph Stonehenge from somewhere else (especially from public land), then there can be no objection or claim to copyright.
# even if a building would be a "form of expression", it is not theirs (being listed as world heritage [unesco.org])
The term "world heritage" is only a special designation which may give access to grants. It does not "belong" to UNESCO, it is theoretically under the 'ownership' of English Heritage.
Nothing makes a person more productive than the last minute.