.
Section 3.3 : “We will work with partners globally to protect world heritage”
AND ……
.
.
Setting a new global standard for stewardship. Something like this?
Links
- ARCH
- Artefact Erosion Counter
- avebury-web.co.uk
- Cornish Sites Protection
- Cornwall Archaeology Society
- Council for British Archaeology
- English Heritage
- Ethical Metal Detecting Association
- Heritage Snippets
- heritagetalks.org
- ICOMOS-UK
- Journey to the Past
- Megalithomania
- Orkneyjar
- Rescue
- Tackling Heritage Crime
- The Art of Jane Tomlinson
- The Barford Blog
- The Modern Antiquarian
- The National Trust
- Wiltshire Heritage Museum
Recent Posts
- Bancbryn: an assessment revisited
- Six ways metal detectorists are deliberately misleading landowners
- Stonehenge: after all the talk, the basic question remains: how should “unlucky archaeology” be treated?
- Tintagel and Stonehenge: the visible consequences of appointing heritage milkmaids
- Staffordshire Hoard: less talk, more walk?
Archives
Pages
Follow Us
Twitter Feed
- Bancbryn: an assessment revisited heritageaction.wordpress.com/2019/10/14/ban… https://t.co/XhwYqzW8be 1 day ago
- Our biggest fans this week: AndyPBurton. Thank you! via sumall.com/thankyou?utm_s… https://t.co/gTNTi2cUpU 3 days ago
- Six ways metal detectorists are deliberately misleading landowners heritageaction.wordpress.com/2019/10/12/six… https://t.co/tMlxZf2Gzn 3 days ago
- Stonehenge: after all the talk, the basic question remains: how should “unlucky archaeology” be treated?… twitter.com/i/web/status/1… 5 days ago
- Tintagel and Stonehenge: the visible consequences of appointing heritage milkmaids heritageaction.wordpress.com/2019/10/08/tin… https://t.co/xU0j5uDUAx 1 week ago
2 comments
Comments feed for this article
25/03/2016 at 11:10
solsticepilgrim
The government and EH/NT have got caught up in the idea that a tunnel is the only answer to the traffic issues at Stonehenge. I agree with you that talk of ‘global standards of stewardship’ and ‘sustainable development’ are pretty ridiculous when it involves digging two massive entrance portal holes within the WHS. The other irony is that the proposed tunnel will only have a guaranteed lifespan of 120 years! What’s needed is a clear range of alternatives which can be brought to fruition without causing any further damage to the site i.e. a P&R to the east, a carefully designed Local Access Road (LAR) to the south of the A303 and possibly the Winterbourne Stoke bypass built as a standalone scheme. All these things are achievable, cost effective and can be built with broad agreement.
08/04/2016 at 08:53
Andy Heaton
Eminently sensible reflections by soltsticepilgrim; but sadly, the government seems unwilling/unable to consider anything other than a short-term solution to this issue.
A couple of weeks ago in the Guardian, there was an article outlining how the government intends to set in motion plans for a high-speed railway line from Manchester to Leeds and an 18 mile underground road tunnel beneath the Peak District.
The predicted cost of all this is £6bn . . . . . . . but government projects are never within budget, so it’ll cost at least double that amount.
Oh yes, by comparison with the example above, perhaps the ‘long’ tunnel that has been suggested for Stonehenge, should be renamed as the ‘modest’ tunnel ?. A ‘long’ tunnel of 3 miles under Stonehenge, would still be 15 miles shorter than the ‘long’ tunnel under the Peak District – perhaps they measure things differently in Wiltshire ?
Perhaps Stonehenge should be relocated to the Peak District and placed atop the new 18 mile tunnel ?
Of course, as mentioned in the posting by soltsticepilgrim (above), the problem with a tunnel, is that a couple of miles of brand new, four-lane highway would have to be bulldozed through the World Heritage Site.
Outside the tunnel, the World Heritage Site would be split in two, by a noisy and unsightly dual carriageway (four-lane highway). It would need to be securely fenced and with long cuttings leading down to tunnel entrances. Oh yes, it would need to have a high level of lighting – day and night – these requirements are mandatory and as such, there is no scope to minimise any impacts. The stone circle might not be subjected to physical harm, but its landscape setting would be badly damaged and other important archaeological remains would be destroyed.
A situation exists, in which there is a one-off opportunity, to secure the long-term future of Stonehenge – a heritage asset of unsurpassable importance. There is still time, to ‘get it right’; however, my concerns lie with the fact that the government and HE/NT seem prepared to accept compromises. I’m used to the government acting this way, but I’m massively disappointed with EH – the (so-called) guardians of our heritage.