Thread by @SaveStonehenge

We’re at #A303Stonehenge Issue Specific Hearing, Cultral Heritage. Intros include Prof Mike Parker Pearson, other archaeologists, CBA, Stonehenge Alliance, National Trust, Historic England, DCMS (Keith Nichol), English Heritage & Wilts Council, ICOMOS-UK …structure.planninginspectorate.gov.uk/wp-content/ipc…

Blick Mead /archaeology team opens with a strong objection to permanent damage to the integrity of the Outstanding Universal Value would breach the Convention on World Heritage. There’s no trade off. Protections “apply to whole area”.

This is the scene where a vital discussion is taking place with high level players discussing the "balance" of benefits v harm to the WHS. @ICOMOSUK suggest not quoting @HistoricEngland's past statements of principle. The precautionary principle invoked by a speaker.

Arguments focus on articles 4 & 5 of World Heritage Convention. Weighing up “very carefully” benefits & disbenefits responds proposer’s QC. A “balanced approach has been adopted” & added “every reasonable effort” should be taken to “minimise impacts of the attributes.”

CBA restated his request urging that the precautionary approach is adopted.
Short break announced!

Discussion revolving around Blick Mead/Mesolithic as the inscription related to Neolithic & Bronze Age (see attached). @ICOMOSUK points out that attributes evolve, knowledge develops. Birmingham Uni emphasises WHS is not collection of assets. Damage any, part damage all.

Highways England maintained that their Heritage Impact Assessment was the lengthiest anywhere in the world.

Below is link to @UNESCO ‘s full description of the WHS
whc.unesco.org/en/list/373

To explain the very long pause in this tweet report: the contributions from erudite Interested Parties need digesting. This author digested lunch in Salusbury’s Matlings testing their new Stonehenge chair! More to follow.

Oops. #Salisbury!

The chemistry between participants put protagonists on the back foot: @ICOMOSUK : “unavoidable harm is not in ICOMOS guidance” Nat Trust: “we took a balanced view ... avoided even moderate impact” Highways Eng: “every reasonable effort to minimise impacts on the attributes”.../

.../The @DCMS official: “a lot of detail to be nailed down, especially around the design of the portals” then added “OUV is important but not the only one. We need to deliver value for money to the UK taxpayer.” Erm... the @NAOorguk wd agree and questioned the poor value.

Lack of buffer zone questioned by Examiners. Deemed covered by “setting” in Management Plan.
5mins lecture by Richard Bartosz on Astro Geometry confirmed the Midsummer solstice sunrise alignment and concluded with Jacquetta Hawkes’ gem of quote (diagram and quote attached)

Examiner asks whether Blick Mead is a candidate for scheduling. @HistoricEngland: “We should come back to that in writing for clarification.”
Avebury Society worried that a Stonehenge bypass set a precedent and Avebury, a village burdened by too many visitors, could follow suit.

Several complaints about poor visual material. A demand for a 3D digital model of the whole proposal was not available to bc it “had not been verified” and yet the available photo montages were derived from it. That meant “Interested Parties are not able to make own assessment.”

Archaeologists wanted greater information from geo physical research. Much uncertainty. The results not comprehensive & could miss small flat graves from Beaker Period. Prof Mike Parker Pearson: “we could be expecting 50 to 100 Bronze Age burials in Western approach.”.../

...HighwaysEngland were satisfied that advice had been assiduously followed. “Critics haven’t carried out the Heritage Impact Assessment” CBA was indignant “Grossly unfair we should have produced one ourselves.” MPP compared std methods of recording/preservation with.../

.../this scheme. “This is a once only opportunity. No back filling. Nothing to leave for the future. Total destruction.” MPP reminded us: this is the densest concentration of Neolithic barrows in Britain. Seem to form a circle around the dry valley. Strong case for 100% sampling.

Dr Garwood (Birmingham Uni) “It’s essential to understand the landscape.” Gave 10 presentation about the best preserved funerary barrow group in Europe. “Exceptional” “A super site”. Slides and valuable notes contained in this link. …structure.planninginspectorate.gov.uk/wp-content/ipc…

There’s more: Intrusion of dumping chalk on Parsonage Down, alteration of dry valley with bridges, slurry compound during construction higher than trees, changes to topography. CBA concluded: This is “Permanent avoidable damage”. Dr Garwood “However you cut it you can’t hide it.”

Throughout Highways England responded, referencing their documents, defended the excellence of their methods, and quoted “neutral impact” whenever they could. Tomorrow morning we will be treated to a lecture by Prof Mike Parker Pearson to #SaveStonehenge

Referring to the Tower of London WHS in 2018, @ICOMOSUK quoted Historic England: development should avoid harming the OUV unless the “proposed development is essential and cannot occur without harm”. Examiner: “Do you accept the principle?”

@threadreaderapp please can you unroll?

@Clonehenge seen Salisbury’s latest park bench.