Now it’s not just the 21 independent experts, it’s ICOMOS-UK! (See its response to the public consultation):
“On the basis of evidence set out below, ICOMOS-UK firmly objects to the current option for a 2.9km tunnel for the substantial negative and irreversible impact if would have on the attributes of Outstanding Universal Value (OUV) of the World Heritage site (WHS) of Stonehenge, Avebury and Associated sites.”
Best of all, it goes to the very crux of the matter by explicitly rejecting the claim by Historic England, English Heritage and The National Trust that the “benefits” of a short tunnel would justify the new damage. Indeed, it says any such suggestion fundamentally misunderstands Britain’s commitment to sustain the Outstanding Universal Value of the site:
“To suggest that this damage can be mitigated by benefits brought by the tunnel to the centre of the WHS, is to fundamentally misunderstand the commitments made to sustain OUV at the time of inscription of the property on the World Heritage List”.
“Fundamentally misunderstands” – you can’t get a clearer condemnation than that! So much for telling people being able to hear skylarks at the stones is worth imposing light pollution on the winter solstice spectacle! Let Historic England, English Heritage and The National Trust tell the Government they are utterly tired of putting lipstick on a pig and it must think again.
2 comments
Comments feed for this article
07/03/2017 at 08:56
georgenash
OUV can never maintained as long as you have government majorly tinkering with the WHS. Surely the WHS inscription criteria was and is made clear to the various stakeholders, and clearly some of these stakeholders find it difficult to understand this.
07/03/2017 at 10:03
heritageaction
“Surely the WHS inscription criteria was and is made clear to the various stakeholders”
Crystal clear. We can hardly insult them by saying they don’t understand. So that suggests there has been an intention from the start to bully/misrepresent or in extremis to ignore UNESCO, else why go ahead with the proposal?
Early on there was an attempt to spin ICOMOS’s statements, but this one is too clear to do that. Next, behind the scenes pressure on UNESCO to ignore ICOMOS? It’s a dirty process.