by Dr. Philip Whitbourn

It is one thing to identify a site as being of outstanding universal value, that it should be off concern to mankind as a whole, but quite another to ensure its well-being.

Central Government in the United Kingdom, through a Planning Policy Guidance Note (PPG15), has officially encouraged local planning authorities, owners and managers of World Heritage Sites, with other agencies, to work together to ensure that comprehensive management plans are in place for such areas.

As a first step in assessing the overall situation, ICOMOS UK has produced for the Government, an "audit" of the ten World Heritage Sites in England in the form of a series of Monitoring Reports. These give certain factual information, such as details of ownership and of legal protection; they review the physical condition, the nature of the existing financial resources available, the trends in visitor patterns and they provide checklists of issues and make recommendations. Half of the funding for the initiative came from Central Government but matching funding had to be raised from private sources.

The ten World Heritage Sites in England vary greatly not only in date but, also, in their size and complexity. The earliest in date are the prehistoric sites at Stonehenge and Avebury in Wiltshire, which go back some 5,000 years. Between AD122 and 130 the romans built 73 miles of forts, milecastles, turrets, signal towers and the immense Hadrian's Wall to form the north-west frontier of one of the world's greatest empires. There are major medieval cathedrals at Canterbury and at Durham, while at Fountains Abbey the picturesque remains are combined with the 18th century water garden at Studley Royal to form one site. From the 18th century, also, is Blenheim Palace by the Baroque Architect Sir John Vangrugh, while the Houses of Parliament and the cradle of the industrial revolution at Ironbridge date from the 19th century.

In size, the sites range from a single monument at the Tower of London, to the whole city at Bath. Thus the detailed issues identified greatly vary too. Yet there are some common themes. Not least among these is the question of boundaries, which in many cases have been found to present anomalies, and of buffer zones. Central Government has made it clear that it sees the outstanding international importance of World Heritage Sites as a matter that should be a "key material consideration" when considering planning applications affecting them. So it is important that the extent of the sites should be right. It is important, too, that due regard should be had for their settings in the longer term.

The sites were inspected by the then Secretary of ICOMOS, Francis Golding. In general, the physical condition of the buildings and monuments themselves was found to acceptable or good, although significant exceptions were noted and, certainly, there is not scope for complacency. Moreover in several sites it was found that visiting could itself present a threat to physical fabric and that hikers' boots, for example, could easily tread down Roman remains.

Although the sites vary so widely, the Monitoring Reports have been set out in a similar form for each one under the following headings.

1. Description, Records and Information
   Under this heading were put the justification for inclusion in the World Heritage List, details of ownership, legal status and responsible administration, together with a note of any relevant publications.
   
2. Legislative Issues
   Here, the question of boundaries and Buffer Zones was discussed and mention made, too, of nay current development proposals.
   
3. Financial and Physical Characteristics
   In this section the physical condition of building was reviewed, together with arrangement for inspection, maintenance and repair, and the scale of existing financial resources.
   
4. Financial and Physical Issues
   Following on from the last section was a review of possibilities for increasing financial resources and for effecting physical improvements.
   
5. Management Information
   Under this heading any Management Plans that might exist were mentioned, together with information on staffing and on visitor numbers and facilities.
   
6. Management Issues
   Again, this last section was followed with a review of possibilities for improvements.
   
7. Issues Checklist
   Then, finally, a checklist was provided, summarising the main issues that needed to be addressed.
   

In all, the set of Monitoring Reports for the English World Heritage Sites forms a document of 178 pages. ICOMOS UK feels the document to be an important one that must not be allowed simply to gather dust on a shelf. It identifies a number of serious points that require attention and the next step should be to move on the comprehensive Management Plans that tackle the particular problems and needs of each site. Unlike the bound set of Monitoring Reports, Management Plans should be in a loose-leaf format, in a suitable ring binder, that can be kept up to date as a working tool. That, however, is a subject that goes beyond the scope of this article and it is one upon which many words of wisdom are available in the ICCROM / UNESCO / ICOMOS publication Management Guidelines for World Cultural Heritage Sites by Sir Bernard Feilden and Jukka Jokilehto.

Philip Withbourn is Secretary of ICOMOS UK.