Re: Highways England Consultation - A303/Stonehenge | Forum

Stonehenge and its Environs 134

Image by RiotGibbon

Highways England Consultation — A303/Stonehenge

more_vert

nigelswift Mar 7, 2017 10:54:51

Replying to jonmor

"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....@

Not so outlandish - as yes, the Govt is bound to argue the World Heritage Convention allows them to go ahead. We'll hear that shortly no doubt. The powers that be have already made the British side of the equation short-tunnel friendly - https://heritageaction.wordpress.com/2016/03/30/are-they-preparing-a-preposterous-gap-to-squeeze-the-short-tunnel-through/

In additionI expect there'll also be high level phone calls to UNESCO which we won't hear about! It's a dirty game.

jonmor Mar 7, 2017 20:51:47

Replying to nigelswift

nigelswift wrote:

... We'll hear that shortly no doubt.....

My guess is that you will. Not sure it's quite as dirty a game as you imagine, especially for the consultant teams.

There's a set of rules that have been established and everyone will be working to those rules. Personally, I think that Stonehenge will prove to be have far more value than can be proven to the satisfaction of archaeologists at this point in time, so what we do now may be thought to be a mistake by people in the future.

However, as the "archaeo 21" note, nothing much happens very fast in archaeology and we're dealing with a highways system that, whilst very slow compared to ordinary business, is very fast in an archaeological sense.

My guess is that the "archaeo 21" are the best hope objection: Their submission alludes to new knowledge which was not accounted for in the consultation. If the archaeos can prove that their new knowledge materially affects the value of the monument/WHS (value as measured by the consultants), then they will have a compelling argument.