Re: Highways England Consultation - A303/Stonehenge | Forum

Stonehenge and its Environs 134

Image by Chance

Highways England Consultation — A303/Stonehenge

more_vert

jonmor Mar 2, 2017 20:05:34

Replying to moss

moss wrote:

Well this - 'A303 Stonehenge feedback from a consortium of Stonehenge experts - spells out from a very eminent group of archaelogists how they feel......

The archaeo's response is encouraging. I took a better look at the consultation documents to see if there is any way that their position statement could open the door.

The authors of the consultation have been very thorough in developing the documents: But overall, there may be a method of opening a door to change. Unfortunately, the work that the archaeos have done probably isn't enough by itself. Here's the author's (somewhat buried away) note saying which set of financial rules will be used to provide the final argument, and also provide an opportunity for the counter-arguments against, any given application:

"4.3.7 When considering an application for development consent, the Secretary of State will consider its benefits including for economic growth, job creation, and environmental improvement. This will be considered against adverse impacts of the scheme including long-term cumulative impacts. Such applications are required to be supported by a business case prepared in accordance with Treasury Green Book principles."

Out of interest, the Green Book is the basis of assessment of policy change and was used by the likes of Stern. This forum is hostile to the idea that archaeology may have value that can be quantified, so it would be a waste of everyone's time to discuss it here. However, I'll put a bit more about it (and what else happened in the consultation using this sort of argument) on the Megalithic Portal.

tiompan Mar 2, 2017 23:07:32

Replying to jonmor

" This forum is hostile to the idea that archaeology may have value that can be quantified, "

Is a misrepresentation and misunderstanding of what has been said .

What was pointed out to you was :
1)Archaeologists are not reluctant to tackle why archaeological remains have value to humanity. .Contrary to your contention that they were . e.g. in "A question that archaeologists seem to me to be reluctant to tackle is why archaeological remains have value to humanity. "
You also failed to provide any examples where they had been asked the question and were reluctant to answer .

2) The most important values to people are cultural and they cannot be quantified , contrary to your comment " Anything that has value can be quantified using the definitions and methods described in documents such as Stern. "
You failed to provide any method where Stern or anyone could actually do this . Further the value attributed to the WHS by UNESCO , is centred on cultural values which ,by their nature , cannot be quantified and no attempt was made to do the impossible .

moss Mar 3, 2017 06:06:03

Replying to jonmor

Not given to arguments ;) so I shall upload another interesting article on how the archaeologists are percieved...

http://thepipeline.info/blog/2017/03/02/expert-submission-poses-stonehenge-dilemma-for-historic-england-english-heritage-and-national-trust/

Blackmail by the government? That should not come as a surprise of course.

"Former Chancellor of the Exchequer George Osborne changed Historic England’s mission from that of being primarily a conservation body and the Government’s arms length technical and legal advisor as guardian of England’s heritage, to one of supporting explicitly what the Government defines in the National Planning Policy Framework as “sustainable development”. If the Government is determined eventually to force through the short tunnel option on the basis that it represents such a sustainable solution to a national infrastructure issue, the archaeologists at Historic England could find themselves forced to defend, support, and even promote, a solution which the rest of the archaeological and heritage world views as utterly unacceptable, possibly because the senior management of the body might fear being further sidelined and starved of resources by a vengeful Whitehall and Downing Street."

nigelswift Mar 3, 2017 06:12:02

Replying to jonmor

jonmor wrote:

the Secretary of State will consider its benefits including for economic growth, job creation, and environmental improvement.

Jon, you seem to be confusing political platitudes with a genuine Government capacity to quantify cultural value. "Unique" and "beyond measure" and "irreplaceable" are much used words that show it CAN'T. If the tunnel goes ahead it will be because the Government wills it, not because they've applied a meaningful measure to the cultural loss.