Letter: English Heritage and questions of monumental responsibility
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.Sir: While there are aspects of the English Heritage 'strategy for the Nineties' that are to be welcomed, it none the less proposes radical changes in the manner of our heritage management and gives cause for serious concern.
No doubt it is possible for single monuments to be managed admirably by private and local bodies, although precedents suggest that to ensure adequate safeguards is by no means straightforward. But it is not only the guaranteed protection and management of single monuments that is brought into question: the amassed experience and expertise of English Heritage in compiling and caring for a representative portfolio of national and regional importance, thereby providing an overview, is surely at risk.
This matter will have wider repercussions, not least because of the imminent reorganisation of local authorities which it is proposed will play a key role in the future of these properties. Not only would the portfolio be dispersed to a large number of different bodies, but those bodies themselves face an uncertain future. The strategy document provides an outline only, and it would seem premature to dispute the priorities until full details are published.
We look forward therefore to contributing constructively during the consultation process that is no doubt about to begin.
Yours faithfully,
T. J. P. NIXON
Honorary Chair
Institute of Field Archaeologists
Birmingham
29 October
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments