Thanks ttj. Without understanding the strengths and weaknesses of alternative arguments, it seems to me unlikely that a contribution to the consultation would have much impact.

Julian emphasises the importance of the site: The site may be important to archaeologists and the WHS is logged as having outstanding universal value by UNESCO. However, this is not quite the same as proving importance. To show importance, one would need to show that the value is high and that the value will be adversely affected by change. In order to do that, one would need to show what the value is (to humanity): UNESCO's structure singles out sites with a high relative value (to humanity), but it does not put a value (valuation) to those sites.

A question that archaeologists seem to me to be reluctant to tackle is why archaeological remains have value to humanity. Once the potential(s) for value are known, they can usually be defined using quantifiable methods. If value is not defined using a quantifiable method, you will have a lot of difficulty countering the additional capital, user and environmental costs of doing something else.

I hope that the above is not too cryptic. I've possible spent too much time looking at methods of assessing environmental value and writing about it for engineering audiences. If the language is a bit obtuse, let me know. Though it may not appear to be so, the above is intended to be helpful.