“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”
Another possible, perhaps outlandish, interpretation is that the study team might respond that ICOMOS may not have understood that the CVS takes account of the perception of OUV within the WHL and that to bring in additional assessment criteria would be double counting: Forbidden under TGB principles.
If they did say something like that, it would instead provide evidence that Britain's commitment to sustain the OUV of the WHS using the interpretation put forward by ICOMOS might not be based on proper valuation methods. This might set a precedent that ICOMOS would not hope for.
