thesweetcheat
|
World Heritage status v planning consents
Jun 30, 2013, 22:54
|
UNESCO are threatening to remove Cornwall's WHS status (which relates to mining heritage rather than prehistoric stuff) because of (a) plans to build a supermarket complex at Hayle and (b) plans to resume mining at South Crofty mine. The latter is somewhat ironic given the WHS status' reflection of the mining tradition they want to revive.
The UK government does not intend to request that Cornwall Council withdraw the planning consent for these two projects. South Crofty's CEO stated:
"We have also seen a government statement which confirms that Unesco has no status in the UK planning system. Its committee cannot therefore stop the granting of planning consents and, most importantly from our point of view, it cannot prevent the implementation of existing consents.
.....
The only action that Unesco can effectively take is to remove Cornwall's World Heritage status, and that would be a very sad day indeed.
Cornwall's past is part and parcel of its unique identity, but to preserve that at the expense of its future would be hugely detrimental to its economic wellbeing."
Links here:
http://www.thisiscornwall.co.uk/Hayle-South-Quay-supermarket-endanger-town-s/story-19339966-detail/story.html#axzz2Xjpw4dmG
http://www.thisiscornwall.co.uk/Hayle-stands-firm-heritage-status-threat/story-19396527-detail/story.html#axzz2Xjpw4dmG
http://www.thisiscornwall.co.uk/South-Crofty-hits-Cornwall-s-heritage-site-status/story-19406842-detail/story.html#ixzz2Xjrg6H8F
Anyway, thought I'd mention it on here as I think there is a perception that WHS is "for life", e.g. Stonehenge/Avebury. It appears not. This story also indicates that the government may be prepared to support planning consent, even where WHS status is put at risk.
|
tjj
|
Edited Jul 01, 2013, 00:54
Re: World Heritage status v planning consents
Jul 01, 2013, 00:41
|
A dilemma indeed. Having read the links it appears planning consent for a new mining project and supermarket were granted before Unesco threatened to withdraw WHS status and the threat is really the only power Unesco have in this scenario. I understand part of the requirements of having WHS status is that nothing is significantly changed (i.e. new building can only take place on an existing site of a redundant building) so Unesco have some justification. However, to block the new projects would mean loss of jobs and prosperity to the area so seems a bit unreasonable.
PS: You mentioned Stonehenge and Avebury WHS - I did hear there are plans to split this into two sites carrying World Heritage status whereas at present it is one site.
|
harestonesdown
|
Re: World Heritage status v planning consents
Jul 01, 2013, 01:36
|
Unesco sabre rattling. They'll save face by allowing it under semi unworkable rules that will be ignored whilst a blind eye is turned.
Unless my radar is well off it's a non story really.
|
