Solivagant, can you at least write the names here please while trying to figure out uploading files?

As requested..... with my summaries of conclusions in italic plus some additional comments of my own. Have concentrated on the rejected ones.

Ancient Mid Ulster (NI) https://www.visitmidulster.com/things-to-do/explore-ancient-ulster
Concentrating on the Prehistoric sites (centred on Beaghmore Stone Circles), rather than the Christian ones, on this Web site....BUT yet another "Prehistoric" site from the island of Ireland! "Difficult to assess OUV... a lot of it is still under bogs....suggestion that inscription would help preservation ....but that should be in place first". Nb Navan Fort, which is notably missing from this list of applications is NOT in "Mid Ulster"
Armargh Observatory (NI) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armagh_Observatory
"To be a part of a Transnational Nomination with Dunsink & Birr" – rather ruined by the fact that these were not included in Ireland's new T List"! "Come back if and when they are".
Barbican https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barbican_Estate "Recognised as a "Masterpiece of Brutalist Architecture" with authenticity and Integrity ... BUT Boundary issues and no clear support from Freeholders or Local Auth". There is surely room for a good selection of Brutalist buildings on the List.....but this in the centre of London is likely to be a step too far. The potential impact on Commercial Developments is far too great. The Tower of London is already facing problems in that respect! The City of London will not want anything to limit its activities
Bedford Park & Brentham Gdn Suburbs https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bedford_Park,_London
"A "Community developed bid" BUT lacking global significance or support of private owners"
Birkenhead Park "Strong application ...good OUV in an under represented area of Heritage. Concerns about future integrity in face of developments and about the boundary"
Bodnant Garden (Wales) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bodnant_Garden
"A significant garden with exceptional elements and a fine example of the Britsh Wooodland style. Had support from NT and the private owner. Not strong enough in comparative analysis?" So Wales now has no T List site. I find it interesting that NT supported this application – I had previously gathered that its experience across the years with Fountains Abbey had rather put it off having any more sites inscribed in their own right (It has a number within wider inscriptions – E.g Slate Landscape and Devon & Cornwall Mining). There does seem room for a/some good "English country Houses"? Blenheim Palace is just too ginormous.....but some smaller mid range homes and gardens/estates would add to the List. There are plenty to choose from....
Chalk Streams of Southern England https://www.wildlifetrusts.org/habitats/freshwater/chalk-rivers
"Nominated as a Cultural Landscape - generally "undercooked" re comparative analysis, protection etc". WWF says "Our chalk streams are unique – there are only about 200 chalk streams in the world, and most of them are in the southern half of England (with a few in France)." The CL aspect might be problematic but as a rare niche eco-system this might have legs? Whilst half of Europe seems to have OUV as part of the Primeval Beech Forests, UK has a number of its own rare ecosystems which haven't had a look in. The Flow Country covers one but the rare "Temperate" or "Celtic Rainforest" hasn't ...and neither has this
Creswell Crags "English site which contains evidence of Palaeolithic populations living near the northern limit of the European range during the Ice Age, was proposed as the lead of a transnational nomination with a network of similar European sites" – but not clear with whom. As has already been on the T List can come back if and when ready! I fear that Creswell Crags is desperate for something to help it survive its dire financial position....just being on the T List would have helped!
Culloden Battlefield (Scot) https://www.nts.org.uk/visit/places/culloden
"Not of global significance, not enough tangible value, comparison v other Battlefield sites worldwide?" Supported by Scottish NT... William Wallace and Braveheart of course were in a totally different battle but this application does seem to be somewhat of that ilk.....We visited last year and were interested to note the attempts to present the battle more in the light of a "Scottish Civil war" scenario (As opposed simply to English v Scots) with many Scots on both sides...
East Atlantic Flyway – England E Coast Wetlands. "USP is to be very much about "adapting" and "realigning" wetland preservation in the light of climate change rather than simply "conserving".... Will be a major "new" message "UK to develop and demonstrate best practice in this respect". Need to differentiate from other Atlantic flyway WHS...suggests adding Crit ix (Applic was only for Crit x and Wadden See has 8/9/10)
Tunnels Inside the Rock – From Royal Engineers to James Bond (Gib) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tunnels_of_Gibraltar#:~:text=The%20tunnels%20of%20Gibraltar%20were,of%20its%20entire%20road%20network. "an exceptional example of tunneling and a fascinating story.... But lacking OUV?" Interestingly this would have been included within the earlier "Gibraltar Defenses" T List site existing from 1996 to 2012.
The Greater Baths NP (BVI) https://www.bvinpt.org/event-details/the-greater-baths-national-park#:~:text=Encompassing%20the%20beaches%20and%20rocky,beaches%20and%20secret%20rock%20pools. "Lacking OUV". Has already been on the UK T List between 1995-6
Little Cayman Marine Parks & Protected areas (CYM) https://doe.ky/marine/marine-parks/
"spectacular geology has given rise to a marine ecosystem exceptional in diversity and beauty and distinct enough to demonstrate OUV"
The Landscape of the White Horse https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uffington_White_Horse "Lacking OUV and landowner support"
Port Sunlight https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Port_Sunlight
"Well developed applic and a convincing case....with good integrity and authenticity". Concern about its place within a comparative analysis and fact that UK already has Lanark, Saltaire and Derwent Valley" (Though surely this latter isn't relevant to a Housing development!!) Rather surprisingly "Owner Support" was marked as "No". Not really clear why this got such short shrift.. and no great encouragement...?
Sankey Valley Heritage Park (St Helens) https://www.sthelens.gov.uk/article/5964/Sankey-Valley-Country-Park "A lot of "associated value" from early days of Railways ("Rainhill trials" etc) – but often outside the boundaries. Lacks OUV"
The Zenith of Iron Age Shetland (Scot)
"A strong bid in many respects... but concern about need for progress on developing it compared with its previous time on the T List! "
Siccar Point (Scot) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siccar_Point
"Significant as "Birthplace of Geology" but otherwise just another geological "non conformity". Too much emphasis on its associative value. Consider Geopark??" UK has already been "bitten" by Darwin's Home on the same issue!
York
"Strong OUV for "continuity" across a wide range of ages, but need to work more to differentiate from the many other historic cities"

Oh wow -- thanks for posting. Just visited the Barbican for the first time last weekend in London -- it was not for me. Actually, almost anything Brutalist is not for me. Nice conservatory at the Barbican, though.

And speaking of gardens, I'm fascinated to see Bodnant Gardens had been considered. I have fond memories of a spring visit to the garden almost twenty years ago; beautiful place.

For me, York is the clear stand-out, followed by Shetland, so I'm glad they got onto the list. I'm very much in favour of a UK-led Brutalist nomination, but it needs to be transnational in my view - and from the sounds of it there is no local desire for the Barbican to lead this. I would have been happy to see Uffington on the T-List as an iconic British site (even better if it brought in the Cerne Abbas Giant too). And I felt Port Sunlight just about did enough to warrant a place - at least this provides background to why campaigners seemingly spent more effort on stressing how WH status would benefit Port Sunlight rather than how listing Port Sunlight would benefit the list.

I'm afraid I don't see OUV in the Atlantic Flyways (a poor man's Wadden Sea) or Birkenhead Park. I really like Bodnant Gardens (last visited in August, will probably visit again in April / May), but a WHS it ain't in my eyes. There is almost nothing left in Sankey Valley now I'm afraid so this application is laughable. And Creswell Crags was a weak candidate too.

Mid Ulster and the Caribbean sites sound interesting, but I'm not qualified to judge.

To conclude: let's progress York and Shetland with alacrity, maybe pick up a few more sites from transnational bids, and try and get some better applications in for 2032.

The ongoing saga of the Stonehenge tunnel:

Stonehenge tunnel: Campaigners lose High Court challenge

Further to the above comment about the new UK T List - "Armagh Observatory targets Unesco World Heritage Status
€800m (£685m) funding from the Irish Government for "Cross Border Projects"" of which this is currently intended to be one.
Note - "Prof Burton added that it could take another 10 years to get onto the Unesco list itself."
Presumably UK will only add Armargh Observatory to its T List once the Irish government indicates that it is doing so for its Observatories and is intending to progress the Nomination...... when that will be...?
Nb The Dunsink Observatory is (just!) within the boundaries of Dublin and would give that capital city a WHS.

Have finally found the official Irish Government announcement details.

N/b At first these do NOT specifically mention anything about a UNESCO WH Nomination, merely stating - "Working with the Astronomical Observatories of Ireland on how the heritage and tourism value of its three sites at Dunsink, Armagh, and Birr can be harnessed"......

But, further down, is something far more significant in that it also refers to the "Royal Sites of Ireland" (Which of course also has a UK/Ireland Transboundary dimension)! Why on earth this wasn't mentioned in the opening list isn't clear- but the implication must surely be that the "Royal Sites" TWHS has priority over the, as yet not-TWHS, "Observatories" site and that work on it IS taking place ("....Continuing to support....."), The only confirmation of that which I can discover is the creation of a "Royal sites Steering Group" containing reps of all involved authorities including Armargh in N Ireland. It has a Web site but no recorded recent activity!

"UNESCO World Heritage status for transboundary sites:
- The Department of Housing, Local Government and Heritage (National Monuments Service) is working with the Astronomical Observatories of Ireland (AOI) - a partnership of Dunsink Observatory, the Armagh Observatory and Planetarium, and Birr Scientific and Heritage Foundation - to support a UNESCO World Heritage status bid as a transboundary property and feasibility work on how to harness the unique, connected scientific and built heritage value of the three sites in the years ahead.
- The National Monuments Service is also continuing to support the trans-boundary World Heritage Property bid of The Royal Sites of Ireland (including Eamhain Macha/Navan Fort in Armagh) which was included on Ireland's World Heritage Tentative List in 2021."

PS Sorry Liam - I see you have posted on this matter under Ireland!!

I'm late to this but thanks for the persistence Solivagant.


Oh I had been wondering about this, I have seen the chat about the majority of the world's chalk streams being in the South of England and wondered if they may be ramping up for more recognition.

This is pretty much my backyard, the Meon Valley in particular is my default, weekend nice drive to see my family. The villages of East and West Meon are lovely and the watercress beds in Warnford are certainly very enjoyable to look at. And further over the "Watercress Line" heritage railway and industry in Arlesford and the streams going through Winchester are indeed rather lovely.

Is this enough to convey OUV? Of course not, but there are plenty of other landscapes with a focus on a specific foodstuff that have made it on the list, why not this one. Though I think this is reflective of the broad UK approach that the T-list is used to promote site that actually are of OUV, rather than taking some local regions specific heritage asset and arguing it up to a place on the WHL by focussing on some minutae.


Yeah I can't see this one going very far for the reasons Solivagant picks out. Despite my reputation for loving all forms of modern architecture and London I don't particularly like it. Whilst it has some great components, a lot of it is a confusing mess of grim tunnels and underpasses.

The National Theatre on the Southbank would get my vote if London wanted to focus on a single brilliant example of Brutalist architecture.

But as suggested a Brutalist serial site could well be a good option, I'm sure Solivagant would welcome a new local WHS in Peterlee as well as the listing of our old University. (Though I am not sure I will be allowed home to Portsmouth if with the chalk streams and this Southampton ends up with two WHS :), especially as we pulled down or own Brutalist Masterpiece)


I'm with Liam on this one, the Uffington white horse and a selection of other hillside figures (Long Man of Wilmington, Cerne Abbas Giant) are actually rather interesting and unique, and centuries or even millennia old.

Flow Country 2024 nomination comprises 7 locations instead of 1 (although they all are close to each other), as announced in this List.

See the draft Mgt Plan for what they involve. I will update the TWHS page on this website accordingly.

It looks like the Stonehenge debate at the WHC was all for nothing as the tunnel looks set to be cancelled again.

Though just to be clear that has nothing to do with WHC or ICOMOS it is as about government finances (or lack there of), and a brand new government framing the former administration for this lack of money, and the impact that will have on their own policy proposals.

I suspect that it also reflects the continuing divide in opinion as to the best way of progressing on the A303 matter......The controversial tunnel scheme is an "easy" sacrificial lamb on the financial altar when there are many people who don't want it.... It was interesting that the new Labour government must have supported the diplomacy which led to the amendment ...one might have thought they would have preferred an " In danger listing" ...then they could have come along and cancelled the scheme thus enhancing their environmental etc credentials.... but no doubt they didn't want even that type of "diplomatic loss of face" but I am sure they already knew that they were going to cancel (postpone?) it!!

So it gets kicked into the long grass and we can imagine a further delay of at least 10 years before something (different??) emerges.... perhaps the way to solve it is to wait until we are all in electric vehicles with no emissions and being automatically driven by AI so as to control the traffic jams by avoiding the "look at Stonehenge" slow down ...and packing many more vehicles into a short space

I have a funny feeling that may actually be UK government (of all shades) policy on transport infrastructure, don't actually invest in it and just hope it fixes itself :)

Though on the plus side there is already a nice bit of electric charging infrastructure (40 charging points) at the Amesbury services, just on the edge of the core zone, a handy way to indulge in my guilty pleasures of Toby Carvery, Taco Bell or Home Bargains, whilst getting the battery up for the journey home

BIRKENHEAD PARK Progress.... and issues

UK media has had a number of reports regarding progress on Birkenhead Park's UNESCO nomination. This is one from the BBC "A full submission of the bid is expected by February 2026, once an evaluation has been completed."

The reason for it hitting the news now is a meeting of the Wirral Council Tourism, Communities, Culture and Leisure Committee which took place on 21 Sept with an Item whose purpose was "to provide an update on progress and achievements regarding the Birkenhead Park World Heritage project; to set out the steps ahead for achieving the park's recognition as a World Heritage Site; and to seek approval for the allocation of additional funds to realise the site's successful nomination to UNESCO, and thereby bring about the associated wide-ranging benefits of such global recognition".

Note the "need" for "additional funds" - £1.5 million!!! Non UK citizens may not be aware of the current political battle ongoing at the moment regarding taxation and expenditure at all levels of government. Yes that is always an ongoing issue everywhere, but is particularly acute in UK at the moment as the new Labour government tries to implement significant increases in expenditure to meet its election promises and fill "black holes" it claims the previous government left (!) whilst not increasing taxes in a way which turns out to be (too) politically damaging. The result is likely to be a mixture of carefully targetted but significant tax rises to pay for selected expenditure heads, accompanied by a degree of belt tightening in other areas..... Local government will be particularly under pressure as priority is given to socially related requirements......does supporting a UNESCO bid survive?

Hence, not surprisingly, the item immediately received an amendment (which was accepted during the meeting) - "The Director told the committee that in the last few weeks, the Director of Finance had instructed officers to avoid all unnecessary discretionary expenditure within the authority, thereby instigating a spending freeze. He asked that members be willing to consider changing recommendation 3, as at this time it was not realistic to ask the Policy and Resources Committee to ask Council to allocate a capital bid of £975,000 and a revenue bid of £580,000 to this project due to the difficult financial situation."

Instead this statement was adopted – but without specifying where the money might come from - "Recommend to the Policy & Resources Committee that, in light of the council's current and continuing financial position, that the Director of Neighbourhood Services is authorised to proceed with the project as described subject to securing external funding. Should that fail, then the matter can be reconsidered by members in 2025/26 when the council's financial circumstances may be clearer."

Here are the full minutes of the meeting

Leaving aside the possibility that a good part of the £1.5 million isn't forthcoming from "external sources" this paper describes the hoped for nomination timescale – indeed predicated on meeting a 2027 WHC target. This all clarifies that the 2027 WHC target is currently that of Wirral Council which does not yet know where it is going to get the required money from! Presumably the government has indicated that Birkenhead has "first go"! Unlike practices in some countries, there is no "race" among potential sites to see which can produce a satisfactory Nomination in the required timescale!

On a related matter – the UNESCO Executive Board has been meeting in Paris during October and, in common with other States, UK produced a "National Statement" on various matters related to its UNESCO policies. I noted this paragraph on World Heritage
" The UK was pleased to see a growing number of States Parties successfully inscribing their first or second World Heritage Site during the 46th Committee in New Delhi. We will continue to limit the number of nominations we submit to the World Heritage Committee, and we welcome efforts to increase nominations from States Parties with no inscribed Site of their own"
The UK seems committed to putting forward nominations no more frequently than every other year (except where it joins a transnational nomination led by another state presumably?). If Birkenhead Park slips then we can expect either a nomination gap or a slippage of all nominations.

This seems to fit with the Birkenhead 2027 and York 2029 news (see my post in the WHC 2027 topic)

Giants Causeway threatened!!!
Unusual cause.......see here

More from Dec 2023 here

The "United Kingdom National Commissionj for UNESCO" has just launched its new Website ("Our new website celebrates every aspect of UNESCO in the UK and provides essential resources for all those working in the UNESCO network and wider culture and heritage sectors. Scroll down to discover what's new!")

There is "A fully reimagined 'Our Sites' section" covering UK WHS as well as its Geoparks, Biosphere Reserves etc. All the WHS in UK (but not in overseas territories) and many of the other site categories have links to downloadable "Fact Sheets". My initial reaction to those I looked at was "Why would you bother".

Anyway - another resource, though whether it adds much for those of us with access to so much else is another matter!!