Take advantage of the search to browse through the World Heritage Centre information.

Stonehenge, Avebury and Associated Sites

United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
Factors affecting the property in 1992*
  • Management systems/ management plan
International Assistance: requests for the property until 1992
Requests approved: 0
Total amount approved : 0 USD
Missions to the property until 1992**
Conservation issues presented to the World Heritage Committee in 1992

[Oral report by ICOMOS and the Secretariat] 

Decisions adopted by the Committee in 1992
16 BUR VI.59
State of conservation

The representative of ICOMOS reported to the Bureau on the cultural sites he had monitored. A more detailed report accompanied by slide projections will be made during the Santa Fe session in December 1992 for all the cases mentioned. The properties in question are: Kizhi Pogost (Russian Federation), Monastery of Rila (Bulgaria), Budapest (Hungary) and Stonehenge (United Kingdom). With regard to the site of Stonehenge, the ICOMOS Representative mentioned the problem of tourist pressure and the deviation of the road A-344. A more detailed report will be submitted at the next session of the Committee at Santa Fe.

16 COM VIII
SOC: Stonehenge, Avebury and Associated Sites (United Kingdom)

Stonehenge, Avebury and Associated Sites (United Kingdom)

Concerning Stonehenge, the ICOMOS representative provided all the details on the management of the site as well as on the anticipated projects for improvement, including that of a museum site. The ICOMOS recommended to the World Heritage Centre to write to the authorities in the United Kingdom in order to support the measures undertaken for the management of Stonehenge.

No draft Decision

Report year: 1992
United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
Date of Inscription: 1986
Category: Cultural
Criteria: (i)(ii)(iii)
Documents examined by the Committee
arrow_circle_right 16COM (1992)
Exports

* : The threats indicated are listed in alphabetical order; their order does not constitute a classification according to the importance of their impact on the property.
Furthermore, they are presented irrespective of the type of threat faced by the property, i.e. with specific and proven imminent danger (“ascertained danger”) or with threats which could have deleterious effects on the property’s Outstanding Universal Value (“potential danger”).

** : All mission reports are not always available electronically.


top