State of Conservation of World Heritage Properties in Europe SECTION II
thus defined on the basis of criteria I and III and UNITED KINGDOM ultimately criterion II. In this connection ICOMOS would like to recall that already in the 12th century Stonehenge, Avebury and Stonehenge was considered as one of the wonders of the world by the chroniclers Henry de Huntington Associated Sites and Geoffrey de Monmouth and that in the 17th century, Stonehenge was the focus of a study by Brief description the great architect Inigo Jones. Stonehenge and Avebury, in Wiltshire, are among The early and unwavering interest for this the most famous groups of megaliths in the world. megalithic ensemble which serves as a benchmark, The two sanctuaries consist of circles of menhirs has left its mark upon historiography, the evolution arranged in a pattern whose astronomical of architectural theories and the progress of significance is still being explored. These holy prehistoric sciences. places and the nearby Neolithic sites are an incomparable testimony to prehistoric times. Committee Decision Bureau (1986): The Bureau requested the United 1. Introduction Kingdom authorities to study possible solution to the problem of the A 344 main road crossing the Year(s) of Inscription 1986 avenue at Stonehenge (detour, digging of a tunnel, Agency responsible for site management etc.). It would be desirable for the Committee to be informed of the progress of these studies at its next • Mailing Address(es) meeting. English Heritage - Stonehenge The Close 65 Committee (1986): The Committee noted with SP1 2EN Salisbury satisfaction the assurances provided by the Wiltshire authorities of the United Kingdom that the closure United Kingdom of the road which crosses the avenue at e-mail: [email protected] Stonehenge was receiving serious consideration as part of the overall plans for the future management website: www.english-heritage.org.uk/stonehenge of the site.
2. Statement of Significance • A joint Statement of Significance for Stonehenge and Avebury will be produced in Inscription Criteria C (i) (ii) (iii) 2006 on the basis of the World Heritage values identified in the management plans. The State Justification as provided by the State Party Party will discuss and agree a revised Stonehenge and Avebury are the two most Statement of outstanding universal value which important and characteristic prehistoric monuments will be submitted to the World Heritage in Britain. They represent the henge monument par Committee in due course excellence, as the largest, most evolved and best • No change required to UNESCO's official preserved pre-historic temples of a type unique to description of the site Britain. Together with the associated sites and monuments they provide a landscape without Boundaries and Buffer Zone parallel in Britain or elsewhere and provide an • Status of boundaries of the site: inadequate unrivalled demonstration of human achievement in • Buffer zone: no buffer zone has been defined prehistoric times. • State Party says that further work is needed to define the buffer zone As provided in ICOMOS evaluation Status of Authenticity/Integrity This nomination for the inclusion of the Wiltshire • World Heritage site values have been megalithic sites, which has been expected for maintained several years now, concerns one of the most • A grass restoration scheme has started since obvious potential choices for inclusion on the World 2002 in Stonehenge and Avebury to stop Heritage List and cannot help but meet with the plough damage to prehistoric monuments and enthusiastic approval of ICOMOS, which enhance their setting recommends the inclusion of the cultural property State of Conservation of World Heritage Properties in Europe SECTION II
• The Stonehenge Project seeks to restore the contractual agreement between the State Party integrity of the site by removing the roads and and a third party; consensual management moving current visitor facilities • Dept.for Food, Environment and Rural Affairs (defra) grants to farmers for grass restoration; National Trust looks after Avebury on behalf of 3. Protection State Party; ownership by the National Trust of Legislative and Administrative Arrangements large parts of the WHS, including some • Specific local planning policies to protect inalienable land against adverse development: (Salisbury Local • Levels of public authority who are primarily Plan, Kennet Local Plan 2004, HH3). The involved with the management of the site: Stonehenge WHS management plan was national; local adopted as supplementary planning guidance. • Other levels: English Heritage, National Trust, Statutory designations for conservation of the Highways Agency, Department for Culture, historic environment, nature conservation and Media and Sport, Department for Environment, landscape: scheduled monuments, listed Food and Rural Affairs, English Nature, RSPB, buildings and other designations Ministry of Defence • The protection arrangements are considered Wiltshire County Council, Salisbury District sufficiently effective Council and Kennet District Council (planning authorities) and the parish councils Actions taken/proposed: • The current management system is sufficiently • Implementation of actions set out in the effective management plans: recommendations in the management plans e.g. more funding, regular Actions proposed: monitoring of monument condition. On a • Long-term funding for WHS management is national level, PPG15 does not give statutory needed protection to cultural World Heritage sites, A more hands-on approach to management of which seem less well protected than ecological the monuments is needed. Timeframe: not sites. A review of heritage protection (HPR) is known also being undertaken • National, regional and local levels of action. 5. Management Plan Timeframe: various • Management plan is being implemented 4. Management • There are two management plans for this World Heritage site. Use of site/property Implementation date: Stonehenge April 2000. • Visitor attraction, religious use, rural landscape Avebury August 2005. • Military camp residential quarters in Revised: Stonehenge none yet, planned in Stonehenge WHS. Access to Avebury is free, 2005-06; Avebury- first revision completed charge for the museum only. Religious use is August 2005. new age and pagan When was current version completed - Stonehenge 2005; Avebury August 2005. Management/Administrative Body • Effective • Steering group formally set up: There are two • Responsibility for over-seeing the steering groups, one for the Stonehenge part of implementation of the management plan and the World Heritage site and one for the Avebury monitoring its effectiveness: Stonehenge: WHS part. Stonehenge and Avebury are 40 km apart steering committee and coordinator. Avebury: and have different stakeholders. WHS steering committee and coordinator Steering Groups set up as follows: STONEHENGE - November 1998 AVEBURY – 1989 6. Financial Resources Their role is to oversee the preparation, Financial situation implementation and review of the WHS • English Heritage, National Trust, DEFRA grants management plan to farmers for grass restoration, UK government • Site manager on full-time basis funds A303 road scheme, Heritage Lottery • Management by the State Party; management Fund, fundraising campaigns, local authorities under protective legislation; management under (English Heritage (curators, visitor operations, State of Conservation of World Heritage Properties in Europe SECTION II
grass management, security), National Trust National Trust estate: paths and information staff (including property manager, museum boards. curator in Avebury), Salisbury District Council AVEBURY: museum and interpretation centre, (planners), Wiltshire County Council tourist shops, restaurant, toilets, car parks, pub, (archaeologists), Kennet District Council site interpretation boards, website. • Funding drawn in through World Heritage Fund • Visitor facilities are inadequate • National and/or regional projects of UNDP, the World Bank or other agencies; Bi-lateral • Visitor needs: cooperation; Other assistance: DEFRA's grants STONEHENGE: larger car and coach park, are part funded by EU information/exhibition space, more information • Insufficient on monuments in the landscape, room for • Need for long-term funding for the WHS school groups, larger ticketing area, larger coordinators posts. shop, more toilets, indoor café with comfortable seating. 7. Staffing Levels AVEBURY: more toilet facilities, public transport links and car parking. • Number of staff: 2 • There is a tourism/visitor management plan for • Access to other staff: Grass management and the site (covered in the WHS management plan) paint removal experts at English Heritage
Rate of access to adequate professional staff 10. Scientific Studies across the following disciplines: • There is an agreed research • Good: conservation, management, promotion, framework/strategy for the site visitor management • Monitoring exercises, condition surveys, • Average: interpretation, education archaeological surveys, visitor management, • Staff resources are adequate transportation studies, interpretation • Volunteers: STONEHENGE - 2 NT • STONEHENGE & AVEBURY: Monument archaeological wardens monitoring the Condition Survey (Avebury 1999, Stonehenge prehistoric monuments and 3 long term 2002), aerial and field walking surveys of areas volunteers helping with access, media, local to be reverted to pasture since 2002, WHS community monitoring indicators 2003 AVEBURY - Seasonal NT volunteers STONEHENGE: Visitor survey – every year Stonehenge in its landscape, 20th century 8. Sources of Expertise and Training in excavations, 1995; landscape and planning Conservation and Management study 1995; traffic survey for A303 road Techniques scheme 2002; research strategy 2005 • Archaeological advice from EH, NT and EH AVEBURY: visitor & traffic study 1997, training programmes, GIS training, attendance landscape assessment 1997, interpretation at conferences by WHS coordinators plan 2000 • Training on site management for stakeholders • Studies used for management of site: these surveys were used to identify priorities for action and funding. They also provided a better 9. Visitor Management understanding of the site, its significance and • Visitor statistics: 1,100,000 visitors in 2004 key problems. The publication of all 20th • Visitor facilities: century excavations at Stonehenge led to a reinterpretation of the phases of the monument. STONEHENGE: Stonehenge: car park, ticket kiosk, membership office, shop, takeaway, picnic tables, underground pedestrian access, 11. Education, Information and Awareness toilets, audio tour, mural with reconstruction, Building staff answering questions, guided tours on request, free leaflet, guidebook and books in • An adequate number of signs referring to World shop. Information panels at Woodhenge and on Heritage site National Trust estate. WHS leaflet and website. • World Heritage Convention Emblem not used on publications State of Conservation of World Heritage Properties in Europe SECTION II
• Adequate awareness of World Heritage among: STONEHENGE businesses, local authorities. Inadequate: New grass management regime around the visitors, local communities Stones since 1990 to stop erosion and allow • There is no education strategy for the site 800,000 visitors a year to walk on grass rather • WHS Exhibition giving information on WHS than extend the tarmac path. status and significance of Stonehenge & Free access to Stone circle for Summer solstice Avebury, touring local libraries, museums and since 2000, carefully managed to avoid any universities in Wiltshire since July 2003. A pilot damage. WHS education project was put in place in Archaeological investigations for the A303 and 2004 at Stonehenge and extended to Avebury the visitor centre since 1990. in 2005. The aim is to raise awareness of the Proactive management by the NT following prehistoric monuments and involve the local publication of land use plan for the Stonehenge community Estate in 2001 and appointment of property • Website available manager in 2002. • Local participation: local people sit on the WHS AVEBURY steering groups Archaeological excavation and fieldwork 1999- 2004 on various monuments leading to 12. Factors affecting the Property (State of confirmation of Beckampton Avenue and Conservation) Falkner’s Circle, and discovery of many more monuments. Reactive monitoring reports Collapse and repair of vertical shaft at Silbury • World Heritage Bureau sessions: 18th (1994); Hill. 22nd (1998); 24th (2000); 26th (2002) Excavation and adjust angle of Cove stones. • World Heritage Committee sessions: 25th Repair and re-use of historic buildings by (2001); 27th (2003); 28th (2004); 29th (2005) National Trust e.g. Barn Gallery exhibition, Avebury Manor. Action(s) taken to implement the Committee's • Present state of conservation: Needs more decision(s) resources • STONEHENGE The Stonehenge WHS management plan was Threats and Risks to site produced and published in 2000 • Development pressure, environmental pressure, The Stonehenge project plans to close the road natural disaster(s), visitor/tourism pressure, passing close to the monument and to improve agricultural/forestry regimes presentation • Specific issues: A full assessment of impacts has been prepared both for the road scheme and the STONEHENGE & AVEBURY visitor centre. Options for the A303 Road Impact of roads and traffic; inappropriate scheme are currently being reviewed while development (buildings, roads, telephone English Heritage continues to seek planning masts). consent for the visitor centre. Pressure for new visitor facilities; high visitor numbers leading to visitor erosion and • AVEBURY overcrowding unless carefully managed; English Heritage has outlined its preferred vandalism and grafitti; inappropriate behaviour option for remedial work to Silbury Hill and at Solstice. planning its implementation. Plough damage to earthwork monuments; burrowing animals; tree planning; lack of Conservation interventions woodland management and scrub control; gale • STONEHENGE & AVEBURY blown trees Countryside Stewardship Scheme to protect STONEHENGE: Inadequate visitor facilities. archaeological monuments. Special grants to farmers to revert their fields back to pasture Emergency measures: since 2002. At Stonehenge, 25% of the arable STONEHENGE & AVEBURY land will be back to grass (500 ha) and 60 Specific policies in the local plans to protect the prehistoric monuments will be protected. At Stonehenge and Avebury WHS Avebury, reversion of 5% of arable areas to Regular monitoring of the site by EH and NT grass and 50 monuments protected. staff State of Conservation of World Heritage Properties in Europe SECTION II
Grant scheme for grass restoration since 2002, WHS coordinators to continue work to raise put in place by DEFRA following negotiation by awareness and develop closer links with local the WHS Coordinators community WHS monitoring indicators agreed in 2003 Proposed new Stonehenge visitor centre Monuments condition surveys Proposed tunnel for the A303 and closure of Funding sought for ongoing maintenance and the A344 capacity studies • No WH Funding is sought. No timeframe WHS Coordinators raising awareness of the provided importance of the site STONEHENGE: Stonehenge Project planning a tunnel for the A303, closure of the A344 and a new visitor centre outside the WHS. No timeframes provided
13. Monitoring • Formal monitoring programme
14. Conclusions and Recommended Actions • Main benefits of WH status: conservation, economic, management • Strengths of management: as listed in the above sections • Weaknesses of management: STONEHENGE & AVEBURY Multiple ownership No long-term funding in place for the WHS Coordinators’ posts and for conservation projects Insufficient funding for ongoing maintenance and management (apart from Stonehenge stone circle) Limited understanding of the prehistoric monuments and of the World Heritage status by the public Inadequate visitor facilities Impact of roads, cutting through monuments and landscape, and traffic STONEHENGE Difficult to access key prehistoric monuments because of the A303 barrier Conflicts of local interest Difficulties with decision-making on Stonehenge Project AVEBURY Difficulty to physically control visitor numbers leading to erosions.
Future actions: • Funding sought for WHS coordinators posts, conservation projects, ongoing maintenance and capacity studies