Government kills off DCM's Stonehenge Visitor Centre

[Madweasels]

I thought that EH owned Stonehenge, but that the National Trust own adjacent land. Anyone got the definite answer on this?

[Unitof1]

I stopped by stone henge a few weeks back.[ATTACH=CONFIG]618[/ATTACH]

What I noticed was that there was a lot of people did not want to pay to stare at stone henge and have worn a track along the road side fence on the A344. I saw a few coach loads of foreign students do this and family groups. On the day it was almost as many who paid to go in and be patronised by some moronic eh Dictaphone dribble. [ATTACH=CONFIG]619[/ATTACH]Whether these people had seen the stones from the A303 and decided to stop I don’t know but I cant help but feel that the A303 is an asset to the site. Apart from my total hatred of English heritage and all who sail in it I have always wondered why there was ever an issue about moving the A303. I think a bigger issue would be to take that horrible fence down that protects eh’s authority as a keeper of a so called world heritage monument or dont take the fence down but make it free to entre.

(deleted for the usual reasons)

Kev. dont the national fro.trust own the land around the site but not the site itself. probably lots of others who want a slice of the action, tower of london, molas, white witches

[Dinosaur]

I thought that EH owned Stonehenge, but that the National Trust own adjacent land. Anyone got the definite answer on this?

Yes, hence the problem that NT can't just build their own visitor centre, without some pretty serious arrangement with EH first...

[kevin wooldridge]

...sorry I inadvertently gave the wrong information earlier. What I was trying to say was that the land where the proposed visitor centre was to be built is part of the National Trust land holding - isn't it?

[ex-archaeologist]

I reluctantly agree with BAJR that Stonehenge is cursed. Stonehenge and Avebury are of course both UNESCO World Heritage Sites deemed to be of 'Outstanding Universal Value'. UNESCO expressed regret following the Government's 2007 decision to cancel the A303 http://whc.unesco.org/en/news/400 and are increasingly concerned about the impact of development proposals on the settings of World Heritage Sites generally, even going as far as to remove Dresden from the list altogether following a road scheme.

[FONT=&quot][/FONT]I think the issue with Stonehenge is that both the road and the visitors centre pre-dated its designation, as clearly neither would be acceptable now. One would however presume that there would be a strong economic arguement for improving/ re-locating the visitors centre regardless of the national economic climate. Although if it really is the 4th most visited attraction in the UK. even allowing for people peering through the fence, then maybe this is a discentive for development, it's place in the tourist hierarchy being secure without the need for further investment.

Its a shame as visitors centres at similar archaeological World Heritage Sites abroad such as the Site Pont du Gard, where an extensive Roman landscape is being re-created, or across the Plain with the National Trust's work at Avebury show what can be achieved.

[Wax]

Have the Central Government and Local Government cut backs started hitting archaeology in general yet (Stonehenge excluded)? There are some pretty long faces in my part of the country and various projects that were in the pipeline may well stall, though nothing is certain things are not looking so good.

I hope we are not going to get a replay of the early 1980,s I could not face that again
Still we might get the massive Manpower Services schemes back}

[knapofhowar]

Rescue response to this short-sighted budget slashing is here:

http://www.rescue-archaeology.org.uk/bet...-responds/

I've put a link to Jonathan Jones (Guardian art correspondant) blog item at the end of the article.

[mpoole]

Question then, if the ?10m shortfall was squeezed out of another source as was discussed in the House of Lords on 17 June, (<<warning, weasely government-speak) would that be good money after bad or is the planned centre the best solution? The Rescue article doesn't seem to think so, but what is the alternative? How much more money will be spent on planning to be shot down again?

[drpeterwardle]

This cut was from a review of projects that had yet to start and could therefore be stopped without penalty, and the project was not without its critics anyway. I have not seen the reasoning for axing it. If I was the current Chief Secretary to the Treasury hastily making these decisions I would axe it for the following reasons:

1. Can it be funded by the lottery or can more lottery funding be used?

2. Can it be funded by the private sector – it should make a profit?
3. What difference will it make if it is delayed for a few years?
4. It would only create a few jobs?

Indeed the Culture Minister said

"I recognise the disappointment that everyone in the heritage community feels at today’s announcement. But I hope that they, and others, will understand why this has come about - the costs and benefits of this project had to be considered in the light of the current financial picture. We all have to accept trade-offs, but even though we can’t afford to fund the project today, it remains a priority for the future.”

See http://www.culture.gov.uk/news/media_releases/7191.aspx

This project only received planning permission in January and after allowing three months for legal challenge of the permission the actual date for government’s commitment to the funding was April, that is within the projects committed to in the last month of the Labour Government.

The decisions to commit to the funding of the project were all subject to there being a satisfactory business case. This was still being considered in Jan 2010 see

http://www.regeneris.co.uk/news.asp?ID=249

Stonehenge has been a national disgrace for decades and clearly something has to be done the question is what and by whom. There are no easy answers which is why the debate has taken so long and so much money has been spent on it.

The actual government funding for the projected new visitor centre is as follows:

DCMS budget ?10 million

EH (EH are government funded) ?9 million
Highways Agency ?4 million
Lottery Funding ?5 million

In 2008 887,000 people visited the monument paying ?6.90 for an adult which would generate about ?4.6 million income per year. In addition there is the revenue from the shop and the food stall. So even EH must make a profit from it of say ?2 million per year. To my mind the question is how much more profit would the new visitor centre generate?

The decision to put the visitor centre 1.5 miles away is an expensive one. A transit system will be involved which will mean employing sufficient people to operate it at peak times, say 1000 visitors in an hour. So how much would this cost to run?

This could therefore be a good rational logical decision by government to review something to see if better value for money can be obtained. (I am however sceptical that this is the case.)

English Heritage’s comments can be found at http://www.stonehengevisitorcentre.org/pdfs/10-million-pound-17-june.pdf.

They say:

“This does not necessarily mean this is the end of the project. We will be discussing the withdrawal of Government financial support with the Department for Culture, Media and Sport. We will be making an announcement as to the future of the project after the English Heritage Commission meets on 30 June.”

Peter

[deadlylampshade]

"The decision to put the visitor centre 1.5 miles away is an expensive one. A transit system will be involved which will mean employing sufficient people to operate it at peak times, say 1000 visitors in an hour. So how much would this cost to run? "

There is already a scheduled bus route, the Stonehenge Experience I think it is called, which one assumes would be utilised as transport from the visitor centre to the site.

Having said that, I suspect it is a peak season addition only so some costs would be incurred in making it an all year round requirement.