Management Plan July 1996 - Amazon Web Services · 2020-04-09 · Hadrian’s Wall Management Plan...

HADRIAN’S WALLWORLD HERITAGE

SITE

Management PlanJuly 1996

ENGLISH HERITAGE

HADRIAN’S WALLWORLD HERITAGE SITE

MANAGEMENT PLAN

Hadrian’s Wall Management Plan July 1996

HADRIAN’S WALLWORLD HERITAGE SITE

MANAGEMENT PLAN

CONTENTS Page

Forward

Overview

1. Introduction 1

2. The boundaries of the World Heritage Site 7

3. The need for a Management Plan 11

4. The status and objectives of the Management Plan 13

5. Date and research 19

6. Conservation and enhancement of the World Heritage Site and itsSetting 21

7. Treatment of the built-up areas of the World Heritage Site 25

8. Public access, transport and tourism 29

9. Making things happen 39

Maps 1 - 20: Proposed extent of the World Heritage Site and its Setting.

Annex A: References to World Heritage Sites in Planning Policy Guidance Note: 15.

Annex B: Scheduled Ancient Monuments forming detached parts of the World HeritageSite.


OVERVIEW

Hadrian's Wall, started by the Emperor Hadrian in AD 122, is an historic and cultural phenomenonof international significance. A treasured national landmark, it is the most important monument leftbehind by the Romans during their occupation of Britain. It is also the best known and bestpreserved frontier within the whole Roman world. From the Wall, its northernmost boundary, theRoman Empire stretched 1,500 miles south to the deserts of the Sahara, and 2,500 miles east to whatis present-day Iraq. The Wall stands today as a reminder of such past glories. A symbol of power,it remains an awe-inspiring testament to Roman mastery of the ancient world.

Crossing England from sea to sea, running up hills, across rivers, over granite crags and tidalmarshes, Hadrian's Wall was, for its time, an extraordinary feat of engineering. In its thoroughnessof planning and construction, in its technical grasp of landscape and terrain, in its scale indeed, itwas not equalled until the building of the canals seventeen hundred years later.

It is this power and presence which, for centuries, has attracted visitors to Hadrian's Wall, and whichin 1987, the World Heritage Committee of UNESCO recognised by designating the Wall as a WorldHeritage Site.

But Hadrian's Wall cannot be seen as a single, isolated monument. For over three hundred years,this whole tract of northern Britain was a heavily defended frontier zone. Behind the Wall's 73-mileprotective barrier were gathered all the military paraphernalia of imperial Rome. Forts, camps,roads, settlements - and within those settlements, temples, bathhouses, granaries, hospitals - no otherfrontier area of the Roman world contains such a wealth and complexity of Roman remains. All thiscan be traced today: sometimes blurred and sometimes quite clearly in the modern landscape. Itis a legacy for us to preserve and protect, along with the masons' graffiti, legionaries’ gaming-boards, lost purses and second century visitors' souvenirs which evoke so clearly the echo ofHadrian's marching legions.

A landscape does not remain static, and for nearly two thousand years, the Wall's environs have beenchanging. In the central section, much of the Wall's impact derives from its craggy, upland setting. There, it is the combination of ancient remains and rugged terrain which is so evocative:archaeology, ecology and landscape blend together to form an harmonious whole. To preserve theWall's stones themselves would be meaningless, if we did not also try to protect their picturesquesetting. Yet even here, this seemingly natural and uncompromisingly beautiful landscape owes muchof its character to man, for during Roman times and earlier, farmers were clearing the Wall'ssurrounding slopes for pasture.

To the west, the Wall is less visible, but much survives below ground through the lush country oflowland Cumbria and across the Solway tidal marshes.

Further east, and also in Carlisle, the overwhelming development pressures of the 19th and 20thcenturies have produced in Newcastle and Tyneside a setting for the Wall which is predominantlyurban. Here, the need is different - certainly to protect the remains which can be seen, and avoidthe unnecessary destruction of archaeology which remains buried and unseen, but also to help thepublic to appreciate just how much does remain despite later development.

The management of the Wall thus raises a complex set of issues. Today, definition of the WorldHeritage Site and of the wider zone which should be protected to preserve its setting, is all important. Of greatest importance are the surviving Roman remains themselves, and these should receive thehighest level of protection we can afford. But in the surroundings of the Wall archaeology andlandscape are in delicate balance, and the extent of the setting - the area within which we should beespecially cautious about proposals which might harm its character - should also be carefullydefined.


Unlike many other World Heritage Sites, Hadrian's Wall and its outlying areas do not form aseparate and self-contained archaeological zone. The Wall runs across country which is eitherheavily populated or, in rural areas, a working landscape. Besides numerous owners and occupiers,there are so many official bodies and agencies with differing responsibilities for the area. Around10% of the Roman remains within the World Heritage Site are owned and managed purely for thepurposes of preservation. Elsewhere, other interests also have to be considered. The role of theprivate landowner is crucial.

For Hadrian's Wall is subject to threats. There are increasing pressures which need to be addressed. Tourism can provide great benefits to visitor and local community alike, but the considerablenumbers of visitors, who bring much-needed economic opportunities in their wake, could, also, werepublic access not properly managed, damage the fragile archaeology and constitute a nuisance tofarmers, and wildlife. There are areas of buried wall and of other buried archaeology, particularlyin the central sector, at risk from erosion as visitors climb up and down the steep slopes.

Elsewhere, major development threats have only narrowly been averted in areas where they wouldhave done the Wall noticeable damage. Finally, the role that farming can play as a conserver oflandscape cannot be too highly stressed.

There is a clear need now for a shared vision and co-ordinated framework for action, if we are tosafeguard the character of Hadrian's Wall for future generations. It has fallen to English Heritageto take the lead here, as the agency responsible for the archaeological heritage. What we have setout to achieve in this management plan is, however, very much a collaborative exercise. The plansets a framework for action but it is the co-ordinated activity of all the owners and authorities alongthe Wall, and their commitment to this plan, which is critical for its success. It is not a statutorydocument but a blueprint for concerted action.

The main emphasis of the plan is a positive one - advancing measures to secure co-operation andpositive improvement, rather than imposing arbitrary controls. The key issues include a strategy fortourism - taking into account the views of the local community; ensuring a sustainable level ofvisitors; improving the visitor's experience; co-ordinating access, transport and facilities.

We need better information on the condition of the Wall and the effect of visitor numbers. We mustexplore with farmers, landowners and other agencies opportunities such as Countryside Stewardshipfor managing land in a way which enhances the Wall and its characteristic landscape whilerespecting their economic interests - a beneficial stewardship.

Effective management strategies need to be based on adequate information and monitoring: animportant feature of the plan will be the establishment of a database to help all managers. EnglishHeritage has volunteered to set this up, and to co-ordinate regular monitoring.

For nearly two thousand years, the landscape around the Wall has been changing and dynamic. This must continue. It is neither desirable nor possible to attempt to fossilize or homogenize thecharacter of land which has to earn its keep. Our objective, the objective set out in this plan, mustbe to manage change in a way which recognises the national importance of such an historiclandscape, the interests of all those who own a part of it - and the opportunities as well as theconstraints which such a heritage implies.


1. INTRODUCTION

1.1 The Significance of the Hadrian'sWall Military Zone

1.1.1 Hadrian's Wall was the most complexfrontier defence in the Roman Empire andis still the best preserved. Whencompleted, the Wall ran from the Tyne tothe Solway for a distance of eighty Romanmiles. At every mile there was a small fort("milecastle") to contain the patrollinggarrison and to provide a gateway throughthe Wall. Between each pair of milecastleswere two turrets to act as watchtowers. Toits north, the Wall was fronted by adefensive ditch. To its south was an evendeeper ditch, flanked by two mounds, nowknown as the Vallum. Along the line ofthe Wall were sixteen large forts holding asubstantial part of the whole garrison ofRoman Britain. Around each of these fortsthere was a civilian settlement. Linkingeverything together was a Military Road. West of the western end of the Wall atBowness-on-Solway, the defensive chainwas continued by forts, fortlets and towersat least to Maryport on the west Cumbriancoast and then by forts as far south asRavenglass.

1.1.2 All this resulted from the visit of theEmperor Hadrian to Britain in AD122 andwas his attempt, largely successful, to markout the northernmost frontier of theRoman empire. Built within a period of afew years, the Wall remained in use untilthe late fourth or early fifth centuries, andunderwent many changes over a period ofnearly three hundred years.

1.1.3 Although it dominated the Romanlandscape, the Wall did not stand alone. Itwas the final addition to a series of fortsand roads which enabled the Romans t ocontrol this frontier area. After the Wallwas added, many of these posts continuedin use, and provided outpost forts andsupply-bases. Despite the Wall's presence,there were also smaller settlements in thisarea of Britons native to the region, whoselives and lifestyles must have been changedby the Romans' arrival.

1.1.4 Taken together, these remains form a

frontier zone to an extent not foundanywhere else in the Roman empire. Theyare important not just for the directevidence of Roman military practice butalso for showing how it interacted with theterrain and climate of Britain. The exactsiting of the remains reflects thetopography and nature of the landscape butalso modified it. In its turn the Romanlandscape has been changed and alteredover a period of nearly two thousand yearsto give us what we have today. Much of itsinterest and significance lies not just in theindividual sites but in the way they relateto the landscape and its ever-changing uses.

1.1.5 This landscape differs sharply in characteralong the length of the frontier works. Atthe eastern end the landscape is urban. OnTyneside, the overwhelming developmentpressures of the nineteenth and twentiethcenturies have changed the landscape farmore than elsewhere. In eastNorthumberland, the country ispredominantly arable and open while in thecentral sector the ground rises to over athousand feet above sea-level and the land-use is pastoral. East Cumbria too ispastoral, except for the built-up areas ofthe City of Carlisle, but low-lying andgentler. West of Carlisle the landscapechanges again as the defences run along theedge of the Solway tidal marshes and thereare further differences along the westCumbrian coast, in part open and in partindustrial and urban.

1.1.6 Throughout the Roman remains surviveremarkably well. Even in the mostdeveloped areas, there are substantialremains visible, such as the forts at SouthShields and Wallsend, and much more isknown to remain buried. In eastNorthumberland, the Wall itself is largelyburied but the earthworks of its ditch andthe Vallum are visible for many miles andhave had major effects on the post-Romanevolution of the landscape. Associatedsites, such as Roman Corbridge, are wellpreserved. The foundations of the Wallitself were used as the basis for theeighteenth-century military road for manymiles.

1.1.7 From just west of Chollerford to Banks in


Cumbria the remains of the Wall and itsassociated features are prominent andoften dominant in the local landscape. Inthis area, other traces of the Romanmilitary occupation, such as the Stanegateroad, the fort at Vindolanda and the fortletat Haltwhistle Burn are well preserved asare features such as marching camps andother military sites in the Wall'shinterland.

1.1.8 West of Banks, the archaeology is lessobvious but still present in places asearthworks and more frequently as buriedremains. Investigation has shown thatremains survive even beneath urbanCarlisle and down the Cumbrian coast atsites such as Maryport.

1.1.9 The Hadrian's Wall corridor is importanttherefore both for the concentration ofRoman sites and for their survival andeffect on today's landscape. The Romanremains have contributed greatly to, andare in turn enhanced by the great beauty ofmuch of the landscape. Nearby oroverlying many of the Roman remains areareas of high natural conservation interest.

1.1.10 The international importance of the Wallwas recognised by its designation as aWorld Heritage Site in 1987 by UNESCOon the nomination of the United Kingdomgovernment. Unusually, the designatedarea was not mapped but only described. The written description included the site ofthe Wall, its ditch, and Vallum, all theknown fort-sites along it or near it, RomanCorbridge, the line of the Stanegate and itsforts, and the Cumbrian coastal defences asfar south as the fort at Ravenglass.

1.2 World Heritage Status

1.2.1 World Heritage Sites are designated byUNESCO on the recommendation of theWorld Heritage Committee in accordance

with the 1972 Convention concerningthe Protection of the World Culturaland Natural Heritage, which the UKgovernment ratified in 1984. The WorldHeritage Committee is advised on culturalWorld Heritage Sites by the InternationalCouncil on Monuments and Sites(ICOMOS), which also has nationalbranches.

1.2.2 World Heritage status identifies cultural andnatural sites of outstanding universal valueto be protected under the World HeritageConvention. To be included, a site mustmeet one or more of a list of criteria. Thedesignation of the Hadrian's Wall WorldHeritage Site recognises that it:

• bears a unique or exceptional testimony toa civilisation or a cultural tradition whichhas disappeared

• is an outstanding example of a type ofbuilding or architectural ensemble orlandscape which illustrates a significantstage in human history

• is an outstanding example of traditionalhuman settlement or land use which isrepresentative of a culture, especially whenit has become vulnerable under the impactof irreversible change

1.2.3 In addition to meeting the above criteria,which relate to its quality, the Hadrian'sWall World Heritage Site had also t osatisfy two further tests relating to itsauthenticity and to its management. These are:

• it must meet the test ofauthenticity in design,material, workmanship, orsetting, and in the case ofcultural landscapes, theirdistinctive character andcomposition

• it must have adequate legalprotection and/ortraditional protection andmanagement mechanismsto ensure that itsconservation is ensured.

1.2.4 World Heritage status does not imply any

additional statutory controls in the UnitedKingdom, since there is already anextensive range of protective designationsavailable for conservation purposes. However, the Government have recognisedthe outstanding international importanceof World Heritage Sites as a key materialconsideration to be taken into account by


all authorities determining planning orlisted building consent applications.Authorities are expected to ensure thatsuch sites are adequately protected by useof existing legislation, relating principallyto Town and Country Planning and to theprotection of ancient monuments andhistoric buildings.

1.3 The Role of Management Plans

1.3.1 In the most recent relevant planningguidance (Planning and Policy GuidanceNote 15, 1995), the significance of theneed to protect World Heritage Sites hasbeen stressed (PPG 15, para 2.22), and thepreparation of management plans for themhas been recommended.

1.3.2 The need to work with the owners andoccupiers of World Heritage Site is alsostressed (PPG 15, para 6.37). Since suchplans have no statutory basis, introduce nonew powers and do not diminish the role ofany existing body or individual.

1.3.3 Their purpose is to provide clear objectivesand a vision for the future management ofWorld Heritage Sites and a means for allthose involved to achieve those objectivesthrough consensus and partnership.


2. THE BOUNDARIES OF THE WORLDHERITAGE SITE

2.1 Introduction

2.1.1 The 1987 designation did not definemapped boundaries for the World HeritageSite. This was unusual even at the time,and there is now a need for the WorldHeritage Site to be clearly defined so thatall involved know where they stand.

2.1.2 The significance of the Hadrian's WallWorld Heritage Site lies principally in itscomplex of Roman military and relatedsites, and in the effect that these sites havehad on the subsequent evolution of thelandscape. For many, much of thesignificance of the World Heritage Site liesalso in the beauty of its landscape settingand the potential for nature conservation. The importance of the setting of a WorldHeritage Site has been emphasised also as aplanning consideration in governmentplanning guidance (Planning PolicyGuidance 15: paragraphs 2.22-23 - seeannex A). A different approach may beneeded within the urban areas of Tynesideand Carlisle, where the scale ofdevelopment in the last two centuries hasresulted in profound changes to thelandscape.

2.1.3 Except in the urban areas, the relationshipbetween the archaeological sites and theirlandscape setting is strongest and mostextensive where the remains form arecognisable linear element in thelandscape. The most striking example ofthis is the Wall itself but it is also true ofthe Wall ditch and of the Vallumearthworks. The linear elements are alsothe most dominant visually because of thecommanding line on higher groundfollowed by the Wall itself. Because ofthis, in the central sector in particular, theWall's line can be seen for tens of milesfrom north or south. In such areas,therefore, it is important that anydefinition of the extent of the appropriatelandscape setting for the Wall is confinedto a band within which local intervisibilityis the key consideration.

2.1.4 The 1987 designation also included anumber of important Roman sites at adistance from the main line of the Wall

itself. Outside the urban areas, these werethe sites along the Roman road known asthe Stanegate (Corbridge Roman site,Newbrough fortlet, Vindolanda, HaltwhistleBurn fortlet, and the forts at Carvoran,Nether Denton and Kirkbride) and theextension of the Cumbrian coastal defencessouth of Maryport (the tower at Risehowand the forts at Burrow Walls, Moresbyand Ravenglass).

2.1.5 Hadrian's Wall was protected to the northby outpost forts which were not included inthe 1987 designation for reasons of theirdistance from the Wall and their looserassociation with it. The outpost fort ofBewcastle, however, was one omissionwhich should have been included withinthe World Heritage Site. Of the outpostforts, it is the closest to the Wall. I tappears also to have been built for thespecific purpose of covering the ratherblind approach to Birdoswald and thereforeto be integral to the main defensivesystem.

2.1.6 The urban areas of Tyneside and Carlisleraise different issues. Here developmentsince 1800 has disrupted much of therelationship of the Roman archaeologicalsites to the landscape and has made theirlocation in many areas very uncertain. The need, therefore, is to protect theknown and located elements of the Romanfrontier and to safeguard areas where otherevidence might survive to allow forinvestigation, preservation and possibleclearance.

2.2 Recommended boundaries for theWorld Heritage Site

2.2.1 It is proposed that the World Heritage Siteitself should include the Roman militaryand related sites of national importance which have been defined by being scheduledas ancient monuments. If further suchsites are scheduled in the future, they tooshould become part of the World HeritageSite.

2.2.2 The World Heritage Site should thereforeconsist of the principal linear elements of the Roman frontier (wall ditch, the Wallitself, and Vallum with associatedmilecastles, turrets, forts, civilian


settlements, roads and, west of Bowness,the milefortlets and towers) from Wallsendto the fort at Maryport.

2.2.3 The World Heritage Site should also includeoutlying associated sites as shown on Maps1-20, including South Shields fort,Corbridge Roman site, Newbrough fortlet,Vindolanda and Carvoran forts, the fortletsat Haltwhistle Burn and Throp, and theforts at Nether Denton, Brampton OldChurch, Boothby and Kirkbride, and theCumbrian coast defences south ofMaryport (the tower at Risehow, and theforts at Burrow Walls, Moresby andRavenglass). The outpost fort atBewcastle with its Roman approach roadand signal towers together with civiliansites and other features such as marchingcamps within the landscape setting of theWall should also be included. All detachedsites are listed in Annex B.

2.3 The Setting/Buffer Zone

2.3.1 The current practice of UNESCO requiresnational governments to define bufferzones around World Heritage Site t ocushion them from unsuitabledevelopment. The Government has in anycase stressed the importance of the settingof World Heritage Sites in general in PPG15.

2.3.2 The importance of the setting of theHadrian’s Wall World Heritage Site hasbeen described above. As noted in 2.1.4the relationships between thearchaeological sites and their landscapesetting is strongest and most extensivewhere the remains form a recognisablelinear element in the landscape. It isproposed therefore that a defined Settingfor this principal linear element should beagreed by the local authorities within whichthe effect of proposals on the WorldHeritage Site should be regarded as a keymaterial factor in the determination ofplanning applications. The Setting wouldalso be a suitable area for targetingmeasures for positive landscapemanagement to maintain and enhance theenvirons and natural beauty of the WorldHeritage Site.

2.3.3 A proposed definition of the Setting of the

World Heritage Site is shown on Maps 1-20. This runs from the western edge of thebuilt-up areas of Tyneside to the Romanfort at Maryport, excluding the urban areasof Carlisle. This corridor includes thewhole of the continuous archaeologicalfeatures comprised by the Wall and itsassociated remains. The boundary withineach local authority area has been agreedwith that authority to ensure that it can beincluded in their Local Plans.

2.3.4 For detached sites outside the definedSetting it will be necessary to consider forany application in their vicinity the effectthat that application might have on thesetting of the ancient monument.

2.3.5 In the urban areas of Tyneside and Carlisle,the need is to protect the uncertain and theunknown from damage. Known Romanscheduled ancient monuments are includedas separate elements of the World HeritageSite. The general line of the frontierworks should be protected by the creationof a buffer zone within which the policiesand proposals set out in Chapter 7 of thisPlan should apply. The proposed bufferzone is shown on Maps 18 and 20.

2.4 Recommendation

2.4.1 These proposals will need to be put t oUNESCO by the United Kingdomgovernment for approval subject to theadvice of ICOMOS and the World HeritageCommittee. It is recommended that thisprocedure should be put in hand as soon aspossible. In the meantime, it isrecommended that all those involved inthe day-to-day management of the Walland its zone should use these proposedboundaries as the basis for implementationof the policies set out in subsequentchapters of the Management Plan.

2.4.2 As knowledge develops, it will be necessaryto keep the boundaries of the WorldHeritage Site itself under review, and it isrecommended that this should be anintegral part of the quinquennial review ofthe Management Plan.


3. THE NEED FOR A MANAGEMENTPLAN

3.1 Introduction

3.1.1 Hadrian’s Wall and the Cumbrian extensionof the defences west of Bowness stretchacross the north of England while thevarious associated sites are scattered acrossits hinterland. The size of the site, itsmultiple ownership (with less than 10 percent owned specifically for conservation),the very varied landuses around it, and thelarge number of local authorities and otherbodies involved, pose exceptionallycomplex issues for the coordination of itsmanagement, since it is part of a living andworked-in landscape which will continue t oevolve and develop.

3.1.2. There are four major factors which need tobe balanced. The first is the need t oconserve the archaeological sites and theircharacteristic landscape. The primaryreason for designation of the WorldHeritage Site is the historical and culturalimportance of the surviving remains andlandscape of the Roman frontier zone andthe way in which they have evolved andbeen used down to the present day. Theremains still have very considerablepotential to provide further knowledge ofour past and of the Roman Empire. It isvital, therefore, that the area is managed insuch a way as to preserve the finitearchaeological sites and to enhance andconserve the landscape of which they arepart.

3.1.3 Second, the World Heritage Site lies withina living and working landscape dominatedby agricultural activity. A prosperous andflourishing agricultural regime sympatheticto the Site and its Setting is also essentialin the future. Their present aspect and theway in which they have evolved over pastcenturies is largely the result of agriculturalactivity. If farming did not continue, thechanges to the landscape and to the settingof the archaeological remains, as well as toits nature conservation interest, would bedramatic. It is important though that anychanges in farming are carried out in wayswhich respect the essential character of thelandscape.

3.1.4 The third factor, access to Hadrian's Wall,is of high importance. The Wall hasattracted visitors since the sixteenthcentury and has become a regular touristdestination throughout this century. Overthe last fifty years numbers have risen,though attendance at some major sitesseem to have peaked as long ago as 1973. A number of sites are managed for publicaccess by a variety of bodies and there isfurther access by means of public rights ofway, some of which are heavily used. Thepotential for access will be furtherenhanced by the creation of the Hadrian’sWall National Trail.

3.1.5 Public access to the World Heritage Siteleading to increased understanding andenjoyment of it, is clearly desirable butmust be managed in such a way as to avoiddamage to the archaeological sites or t othe landscape, and to minimise conflictwith other land uses in the World HeritageSite and its Setting. This is in line with theGovernment's stated policy that tourismmust be sustainable. (Planning PolicyGuidance 21).

3.1.6 Lastly, it is necessary to consider thecontribution made by the World HeritageSite to the regional and national economy. While considerable benefit is derived fromfarming activity along the length of theWall, the World Heritage Site can alsocontribute to the economy through thedevelopment of tourism and relatedservices. This contribution has becomeincreasingly important as other industrieshave declined, and a large number of bodiesare looking to tourism to provide anincreasing part of the local economy inyears to come.

3.1.7 The need to achieve the correct balance isshown by a number of pressures on theWorld Heritage Site, which, if notcontrolled, could be damaging. Apart fromthe archaeological remains themselves,acceptable evolution of their setting and ofthe landscape as a whole depends onstriking a proper balance between thefollowing elements.

3.1.8 Development: In the past parts of theWall and its associated features have beenbuilt over, particularly on Tyneside and in


Carlisle. There is still a need in the urbanareas to safeguard the remains of the Wallfrom development proposals as buildingscome to the end of their useful lives. Inother areas, the World Heritage Site and itsSetting could still be harmed byinappropriate or large scale development,and the Wall itself has in the past beenseverely damaged, and in parts destroyed,by operations such as quarrying. Therehave been two major applications relatingto minerals since 1990.

3.1.9 Tourism and Access: Properly managed,tourism can be an immense advantage t othe region and to the World Heritage Sitethrough the generation of additional wealthand of resources that can be used forconservation and landscape management.Through enjoyment of their visit, visitorswill gain an awareness of the WorldHeritage Site and its significance. It isessential, though, that tourism is managedso that the archaeology and landscape, and the interests of those who live in the area,are properly protected in accordance withthe principles of sustainable tourismaccepted by Government and by theEnglish Tourist Board.

3.1.10 Over-visiting can cause damage both to thelandscape (including its wildlife interest)and to individual archaeological sites eitherfrom erosion or from insensitivedevelopment of facilities for visitors. There can also be an adverse effect onfarming activities (e.g. through livestockbeing worried by uncontrolled dogs). Erosion has been an issue on somerelatively limited portions of the Wall forover twenty years.

3.1.11 Farming: since the last war, agriculturehas gone through enormous and necessarychanges within the Hadrian's Wall area aswell as elsewhere. There has beenincreased forestry in the uplands of thecentral sector and a substantial move t oarable in east Northumberland. Pressure t ointensify land

3.1.12 use and to seek greater efficiency has ledto the use of new and larger buildings forstock and for storage and to theamalgamation of holdings. There has alsobeen a tendency in some areas towardsremoval of field boundaries and thereplacement of walls and hedges by moreutilitarian fencing.

3.1.12 Some scheduled archaeological sites are stillunder plough and suffering damage. Thereare also a few places where grazing patternsare causing erosion.

3.1.13 Prosperous agriculture is essential to themaintenance of the landscape socharacteristic of the Hadrian's Wall zone. It will be necessary for farming to evolvein the future as it has in the past but thereis a need to look with those who farm andwith others at ways in which this evolutioncan, if necessary, be combined withmeasures which will secure the long termsurvival of the World Heritage Site and itsSetting. It will also be necessary to lookfor ways in which such measures can besupported with the necessary resources.

3.2 The Status of the Management Plan

3.2.1 Among those involved there is muchinterest in the World Heritage Site and itsSetting and concern for their conservation.To give effect to these concerns there is aclear need for an overall framework andcommon agreed objectives.

3.2.2 Management Plans for World HeritageSites have no statutory basis. The Plan forthe Hadrian’s Wall World Heritage Site introduces no new powers nor does itsuggest that the role of any existing bodyor individual should be diminished. It doesprovide clear objectives for the futuremanagement of the World Heritage Siteand its Setting and provide a platform forall those concerned to move forwardthrough development of consensus andpartnership.

4. THE STATUS AND OBJECTIVES OFTHE MANAGEMENT PLAN

4.1 The Status of the Plan4.1.1 The problems and opportunities facing the

Wall are not new. As long ago as the


1930's threats to the Wall helped t oprecipitate the 1932 Ancient MonumentsAct and led to the Roman Wall and VallumPreservation Order which only lapsed in1979. There have been more recentattempts to address them through the DartReport of 1976 and the Hadrian’s WallConsultative Committee Report of 1984. These reports made a number ofrecommendations, some of which havebeen implemented, but much still remainsto be done.

4.1.2 The designation of Hadrian's Wall as aWorld Heritage Site in 1987 and theincreased emphasis on management plansby UNESCO and more specifically by theUK government in PPG 15 provides theoccasion for the production of thismanagement plan.

4.1.3 In addition to the numerous owners andoccupiers of the World Heritage Site, alarge number of different bodies havepowers and duties relating more or lessdirectly to it. These include twelve localauthorities, two Government RegionalOffices, the Department of NationalHeritage, the Ministry of Agriculture,Fisheries and Food, the CountrysideCommission, English Nature, the RuralDevelopment Commission, and two touristboards as well as English Heritage. Thereare also a large number of other bodiesinvolved. Such as the National Trust whoare a major landowner in the centralsector, representative bodies such as theNational Farmers Union and the CountryLandowners Association, and site managerssuch as the Vindolanda Trust.

4.1.4 The role of the private landowner andoccupier is crucial since much of whatneeds to be achieved will rest with thosewho own and managed the land and havelooked after it well. ICOMOS guidelinesalso emphasise the need to work with thehost community and obtain its support forthe objectives and policies of theManagement Plan. PPG 15 alsoencourages local authorities to work withowners and managers of World HeritageSites (see Annex A).

4.1.5 English Heritage, as the agency chargedwith securing the protection and public

understanding and enjoyment of the builtheritage, have, therefore, taken the lead toproduce a Management Plan for theHadrian's Wall World Heritage Site whichfalls within the parameters outlined aboveand which will achieve a secure future forthe World Heritage Site.

4.1.6 We have done so in partnership with alarge number of bodies, includingrepresentatives of the private sector, t oproduce this plan which we hope willcommand a wide measure of support.

4.1.7 The plan seeks to establish an overallvision for the future of the World HeritageSite and its Setting which will be widelyacceptable. The plan seeks also to gain thecommitment of all those involved to thisvision and its realisation.

4.1.8 The plan is, therefore, a statement of theobjectives necessary for the bettermanagement of the World Heritage Siteand its Setting to achieve an acceptablebalance between conservation, access andeducation, the interests of those living andworking within the World Heritage Site andits Setting, and the use of the WorldHeritage Site and its Setting for theeconomic and social benefit of thepopulation at large.

4.1.9 While the plan provides an overall policy

context for the management of the WorldHeritage Site and its Setting, it is not astatutory document and can only beadvisory and consultative. EnglishHeritage will work to obtain the voluntarycommitment to the plan of all thoseinvolved.

4.2 Vision for a Management Plan

4.2.1 Following chapters of the Plan discussparticular issues and set out policies to dealwith them. These need however to be setwithin strategic objectives which willachieve the necessary balance described inChapter 3.

4.2.2 Change is inevitable, especially so withinany landscape, which has an organicnature. The essence of the approach to themanagement of the World Heritage Siteand its Setting is that the impact of change


must be understood and monitored, so thatif it begins to have a damaging effect onthe resource, appropriate and sensitiveremedial action can be taken.

4.2.3 ICOMOS advise that Management Plansshould be based on a strategic view overthirty years, and medium term objectivesfor each five-year period. These providethe strategic objectives for the operationof the policies set out in subsequentchapters.

4.3 Guiding principles for management ofthe World Heritage Site for the nextthirty years, 1996 - 2026

1. Provision of the opportunity toidentify and promote changebeneficial to the WorldHeritage Site and its Setting,and to protect and safeguardtheir future for cominggenerations.

2. Seek to develop partnershipand consensus among a l lthose, public or private,involved within the WorldHeritage Site and its Setting: the Plan can only succeed ifEnglish Heritage works with otherbodies and individuals (particularlythose working and living in thearea) to achieve commitment andconsensus to the objectives of thePlan, and to develop partnershipsto reach those objectives.

3. Maintain and reinforce thespecial character of the area:measures should be continuallytaken by all involved to enhancethe area’s cultural and naturalassets, including its beauty andwildlife.

4. Retain the vitality of the Wall'slandscape: it is important thatthe landscape surrounding the Wallcontinues to be used and is keptliving and worked-in, not fossilisedas a totally sterile archaeologicalarea. While care needs to beexercised to ensure that thecharacter of the landscape is not

irreparably altered by the way inwhich it is used or by inappropriatedevelopments within it, it mustcontinue to sustain agricultural andappropriate forestry uses.

5. Maximise public and privateresources for the enhancementand management of thelandscape: With heightenedawareness of the fragility of thenatural and man-madeenvironment, public and privatebodies should be encouraged t oalign themselves with efforts t oassist its conservation andpreservation and to co-ordinatethe use of existing resource. Efforts should be made to seek`sponsorship' for fundingenvironmentally-sound initiativesthroughout the World Heritage Siteand its setting.

6. Available opportunities shouldbe used to maximise thebenefits of sustained long-termmanagement plans of the Walland its area.Such plans provide the opportunityto work out the consequence ofpotential actions. It is importantto ensure that new policies do notthemselves cause additionalproblems.

7. Seize available opportunitiesfor freeing the most sensitivesites from moderndevelopment or planting: thereare still archaeological sites of highimportance which are currentlyburied beneath buildings or undertree-cover. Where opportunitiesarise, advice and appropriateincentives should be used t oencourage owners to consider removing modern buildings ormature trees from the moresignificant and archaeologicallysensitive sites and earthworkremains, while recognising theimportance of woodlands in thelandscape.

8. Develop understanding of thearchaeological or historic


value of individual sites and ofthe World Heritage Site as awhole: the exact course of theWall and the quality or nature ofits survival is still unknown in anumber of places. Opportunitieswhich arise for examination andrecording should be seized and fedinto the processes of strategicresearch on the World HeritageSite and its archaeological andhistorical context. Developmentof a research agenda, and keepingthis under continual review, shouldhelp focus on the real questionswhich need to be answered.

9. Improve public understandingabout the value andimportance of the WorldHeritage Site: publicunderstanding in the UK andabroad about World Heritage Sitesand their international value andimportance should be fostered.Respect for the sensitivity of theWorld Heritage Site, its Setting, archaeology, geology and wildlifeand the needs of the rural economyshould be built into educationalprogrammes at all levels. Visitorsor tourists to the area should be inno doubt that they are in a specialarea.

10. Continue to improve thevisitor's visual, cultural, andeducational experience of theWorld Heritage Site: measuresto improve the visual amenity ofportions of the Wall and itslandscape will increase itsattraction to visitors, as well ashelping to channel them moreeffectively. Efforts should also bemade to keep interpretation andfacilities for visitors up-to-date andco-ordinated, and by methodswhich reflect current expectations,provided that these are appropriateto the World Heritage Site. Theseneeds also to be more work on thephysical management andconservation of areas to whichthere is access.

11. Improve access to and withinthe Hadrian's Wall WorldHeritage Site: the provision oftransport, particularly to thecentral portions of the Wall,provides one of the mainenvironmental problems facing themanagement of the resource.Means should be found ofimproving the public transportprovision, and other alternativemeans of access, limiting thegrowth of intrusive parking, andintroducing methods of trafficmanagement appropriate to thesensitivity of the World HeritageSite and its Setting. It is importantthat the consequence of increasedor altered access are fully workedout and understood.

12. Ensure that the economicbenefits of tourism within theWorld Heritage Site and itsSetting are maximised for thebenefit of local communities: tourism is already a significantcontributor to the local economy. Though the benefits can beunevenly spread this needs to bebuilt on in ways that do notcompromise the integrity of theWorld Heritage Site or damage theinterests of others living andworking within the area.

4.4 Objectives for the next five years, 1996- 2000

1. Clear definition of the extentof the World Heritage Site andits archaeological resources,and UNESCO's confirmation ofthis designation

2. Agreement with localauthorities of a defined Settingfor the World Heritage Siteand application by them of co-ordinated planning policies within local plans or structureplans for the whole of theWorld Heritage Site and itsSetting, which distinguishbetween their separate needs.


3. Resolution of the status andcontribution to the WorldHeritage Site of the Wall i nthe urban areas of Tynesideand Carlisle

4. Within existing legislation,provision of enhanced andfocused protection for theWorld Heritage Site and itsSetting; review of the extent ofareas scheduled as being ofnational archaeologicalimportance.

5. Establishment of bettermanagement regimes forindividual sites by seekingagreement with landowners/occupiers and other relevantbodies on indicative targets formonitoring and enhancing a l lsensitive archaeological sitesand their landscape (includinggeology and wildlife) in theWorld Heritage Site and itsSetting; implementation ofthese targets by voluntarymeans (when possible) usingall available sources of funding(e.g. EU, MAFF, EH, localauthority).

6. Regular monitoring of thecondition of the earthworksand masonry of Hadrian's Walland other archaeological siteswithin the World HeritageSite, and targeting of grantsthrough use of concept of“limits of acceptable change”to secure recording andconsolidation

7. Introduction of Hadrian's Walldatabase to providearchaeological and planninginformation and amanagement database for theWorld Heritage Site

8. Formulation of an agreedacademic framework forresearch on Hadrian's Wall,including the publication of

outstanding information fromexcavation and survey

9. Management by EnglishHeritage of its own sites on theWall as exemplars appropriateto its World Heritage Status.

10. Monitoring the impact oftourists and visitors to theWall, and encouraging themaway from areas at risk oferosion by defining andapplying the concept of `limitsof acceptable change'

11. Minimising conflict withexisting land uses andsafeguarding sensitivelocations by management ofvisitor behaviour.

12. Encouragement of stepstowards the introduction of a nintegrated, sustainabletransport strategy to improvevisitor access to the WorldHeritage Site and its Setting.

13. Explanation of the importance ofthe World Heritage Sitedesignation and its implications toresidents and visitors, decisionmakers.

14. Enhancement of the quality ofvisitor experience in the WorldHeritage Site and its Setting.

15. Development of a coordinatedapproach to interpretationincluding non-archaeologicalaspects such as wildlife andgeology at Roman and othersites throughout the WorldHeritage Site and its Settingand to their marketing toachieve other objectives of thePlan

16. Maximising of local benefits ofsustainable tourism throughthe promotion of strongerlinks with local services andbusinesses and throughappropriate marketing and


tourism developments in thewider area.

17. Integration of currentinitiatives (eg the Hadrian'sWall Path National Trail; Hadrian's Wall TourismPartnership) within theManagement Plan approachthrough establishment of theCo-ordination Unit.

18. Establishment of a Hadrian'sWall Management PlanCommittee, representative ofinterests encompassing theWorld Heritage Site, tooversee and co-ordinate theimplementation of the plan,and also development of widermeans of communication withthe local population.

19. Appointment of a coordinatorand a small team to back upthe plan, and co-ordinateaction on implementing itsrecommendations.


5. DATA AND RESEARCH

5.1 Data for the management of theresource

5.1.1 Essential to the effective management ofthe World Heritage Site and its Setting is aclear understanding of what it is and ofwhat is happening to it. Thisunderstanding needs to cover all aspects ofthe World Heritage Site including itsmanagement as well as its history andarchaeology.

5.1.2 For effective management, there is a needfor information on land-use, on who isvisiting which portions of the WorldHeritage Site, on non-archaeologicalconservation interests, on the physicalcondition of the World Heritage Site andits Setting, and on the contribution whichit is making to the local economy. Without such information, it will bedifficult for managers of the WorldHeritage Site, be they farmers, other localbusinesses, agencies or local authorities, tomake appropriate decisions to meet theobjectives of the plan.

5.1.3 It is necessary, too, for information to begathered and assessed on a regular basissince only in this way will it be possible tojudge whether or not the objectives of theplan are being achieved. It is necessaryalso for this information to be readilyavailable to all those who have need of it,subject to any confidentiality.

5.1.4 Much information is, or has been, collectedbut it is held by a variety of bodies indifferent formats and is often not readilyaccessible. Such bodies include localauthorities, national agencies, museums,universities and private individuals. To beused effectively, and to enable an accurateassessment to be made of what otherinformation needs to be obtained, all theavailable information needs to be collected and maintained and updated as a data-base.

5.1.5 It is proposed, therefore, that a data-base to hold information relating tothe World Heritage Site should becreated, and updated by regularmonitoring of the condition and use ofthe World Heritage Site.

5.1.6 Various bodies, including the RoyalCommission on Historical Monuments forEngland and the Ministry of Agriculture,Fisheries and Food, have offered to provideinformation for the data-base. EnglishHeritage will undertake the setting up ofthe data-base over the next two years.

5.1.7 English Heritage will seek to set up themechanism and provide the initial fundingfor the compilation of a Hadrian's WallWorld Heritage Site database, which willdraw on, complement, and feed intoexisting cultural resource managementsystems dealing with separate parts of theWorld Heritage Site. The aim will bewithin two years to have compiled acomplete database covering the Wall area,and to make that data available to all thosewho need the resource to implement theirmanagement responsibilities in the WorldHeritage Site.

5.1.8 English Heritage are prepared also t ocoordinate the necessary monitoring of thecondition of the World Heritage Site. Thisprocess will need very active input fromother bodies and particularly thoseinvolved in the management of visitoraccess in general and of the developmentof the National Trail. Development of themonitoring regime of such matters asvisitor numbers or the physical conditionof archaeological and other sites will be anessential part of a research strategy for theWorld Heritage Site.

5.2 The research strategy for the WorldHeritage Site

5.2.1 A research strategy is not a luxury foracademics but is essential to a properunderstanding of the World Heritage Siteand thereby for its effective management. An important part of the strategy must beinvestigation of the history andarchaeology of the area as a whole sincethis is crucial to our understanding of thedevelopment of the World Heritage Site. New discoveries and understanding of thearchaeology of the World Heritage Site willhave a direct effect on how it should bemanaged. It is vital that research is notlimited to this area alone but also covers


other aspects of the development of thearea and its current use. The researchstrategy should inform the interpretivestrategy.

5.2.2 There will also need to be research into the

most appropriate method of managementand treatment of the World Heritage Siteand its Setting. All aspects of researchmust be properly integrated.

5.2.3 A number of initiatives are alreadyunderway in archaeological and other fieldsand it is important that these continue andfeed into the overall understanding of theWorld Heritage Site.

5.2.4 It is recommended that an integratedresearch strategy into the history,archaeology, landscape and current use ofthe World Heritage Site is established,based in the first instance on existinginitiatives and extended to answerquestions arising from the management ofthe World Heritage Site.

5.2.5 English Heritage should take the lead indeveloping this strategy, fully involving allthose bodies active in the area, includinglocal archaeological societies and otherconservation bodies. In particular, it isproposed:

1. To consult widely with localand national bodies andindividuals on the developmentof a possible research agenda,including that for the urbanareas

2. To establish, so far aspracticable, the existing stateof documentation

3. To compile a draft framework forresearch on the Wall area,summarising all the views of thoseconsulted, and identifying theareas where further work i srequired

5.2.6 The strategy needs as an early objective toaddress the problem of locating significantelements of the World Heritage Site wherethese are still unknown.

5.2.7 The strategy needs to relate the Romanmilitary remains within their wider contextboth topographical and chronological.


6. CONSERVATION ANDENHANCEMENT OF THE WORLDHERITAGE SITE AND ITS SETTING

6.1 The Present Position

6.1.1 The World Heritage Site and its Setting arealready subject to a number of designationsand regulatory controls as well asincentives for proactive management forconservation of archaeological sites andthe landscape. Many of the knownarchaeological sites of national importanceare scheduled as ancient monuments. Nature conservation sites are protected byEnglish Nature as Sites of Special ScientificInterest, and there are other designationsto protect important habitats. Around 27kms of the Wall in the central sector fallswithin the Northumberland National Park.Park Authorities have duties to protect thelandscape and natural beauty of their area.There are also a number of local landscapedesignations as well as areas of Green Beltland on the western side of Newcastle andnow proposed to the west of Hexham.

6.1.2 Local authorities have in their Structureand Local Plans a variety of policies t oprotect ancient monuments and theirsettings, and also historic buildings. TheGovernment has requested them inPlanning Policy Guidance Note 15 (seeAnnex A) to introduce specific policies toprotect World Heritage Sites and someauthorities have already done so forHadrian's Wall. Planning permission isrequired for most development. Certainkinds of development are permitted underthe General Development Order.

6.1.3 Scheduled ancient monuments are protectedunder the 1979 Ancient Monuments andArchaeological Areas Act so that theconsent of the Secretary of State isrequired for any works affecting ascheduled site, although certain activities -including established agricultural operations- are permitted under Class Consents. ClassConsent can be revoked for specificactivities on a scheduled site but, if this isdone, compensation would normally bepayable. As part of a wider programme,the extent of the scheduled areas are beingreviewed to ensure that they accurately

reflect national archaeological significance. Boundary changes for most sites, whenthey occur, are likely to be minor. Preliminary notification of owners andoccupiers will happen later this year.

6.1.4 Unscheduled archaeological sites have protection from development through theprocedure set out in PPG16.

6.1.5 Apart from the powers outlined above inparas 6.1.2 and 6.1.3 which are essentiallyregulatory, there are a number of schemesto promote good management of thearchaeological remains of the WorldHeritage Site and its Setting. EnglishHeritage and local authorities have powersto make grants for repairs of ancientmonuments and historic buildings. Ownersof important heritage sites - includingscheduled monuments such as those in theWorld Heritage Site - can seek exemptionfrom Inheritance Tax on these, and thismay be granted subject to conditions,which may include setting up amaintenance fund or management plan.

6.1.6 There are also a number of schemes forsupporting landscape management, andenhancing the natural beauty of thecountryside. English Heritage can makemanagement agreements for scheduledancient monuments. English Nature canprovide grant support for Sites of SpecialScientific Interest. There are a number of agri-environmental grant schemes ofwhich nationally the most prominent t oaffect the World Heritage Site isCountryside Stewardship, management ofwhich passed to the Ministry of Agriculturein April, 1996. Stewardship providesconsiderable opportunities for encouragingenhancement of the landscape. Localauthorities can also develop grant schemeswith similar objectives and this has beendone to good effect by the NorthumberlandNational Park. There are also possibilitiesof attracting funding from Europe t osupport schemes for proactive landscapemanagement.

6.1.7 Over the years a number of the moreimportant and spectacular parts of theWorld Heritage Site, along with specificarchaeological sites, have been acquired by


public and charitable bodies for their long-term preservation. Four forts are ownedby local authorities and a further two bythe Vindolanda Trust. The National Trusthave built up an estate in the central sectorwhich now amounts to around 1100 ha ofland and includes 8kms (5 miles) of Wall. English Heritage has in care some 8.2kmsof the Wall, including remains of four ofthe six visible milecastles, 16 of the 18visible turrets, two bridges, three forts withparts of their civilian settlements andother significant features, including thecentre of Roman Corbridge.

6.1.8 The proposals outlined in this ManagementPlan should not supplant existing powers,designations and management incentives orintroduce a further tier of bureaucracy. They do give a focus on the WorldHeritage Site and what is needed t oconserve and enhance it and its Setting. The policies are thereforerecommendations to the existing bodiesand individuals on how their powers can beused to benefit and enhance the WorldHeritage Site and its Setting. Theircommitment will be essential to the successof this plan. Clear identification of theWorld Heritage Site and its Setting will alsogreatly help to focus grant resources on itsconservation.

6.1.9 For much of the World Heritage Site and itsSetting there is a need to protect andenhance its landscape setting and itsnatural beauty. Individual archaeologicalsites need greater protection of upstandingor buried remains from damage. Followingsections set out proposals to achieve theseobjectives.

6.2 Planning Controls

6.2.1 Planning Policy Guidance Note 15 highlights the importance of WorldHeritage Sites as a key materialconsideration to be taken into account bylocal authorities and the Secretary of Statein determining planning and listed buildingconsent applications. Each localauthority is advised to formulate specificplanning policies for protecting WorldHeritage Sites in their areas.

6.2.2 It is proposed that:

1. Relevant authorities shouldshow the extent of theHadrian's Wall WorldHeritage Site and its agreedSetting in schematic form o nthe Structure Plan keydiagram. The accompanyingtext should indicate thatdetailed definition of theboundaries of the Hadrian'sWall World Heritage Site andits Setting is contained i nLocal Plans. It should alsoexplain the background toWorld Heritage Sitedesignation and theimplications for planningcontrols

2. All local authorities shouldensure at the earliest possibleopportunity that theboundaries of the Hadrian'sWall World Heritage Site andits Setting are clearly shownon the proposals maps in LocalPlan.

3. All local authorities should setout policies within their LocalPlans to protect the Hadrian'sWall World Heritage Site andits Setting. There should be apresumption in favour of thepreservation of the WorldHeritage Site itself. Proposalswithin its Setting will need tobe considered in terms of theireffect on the World HeritageSite. General policies ofprotection for the environmentshould be supplemented by aspecific policy which refers tothe international importanceof the World Heritage Site

6.2.3 Particularly in the central sector, it ispossible to see very long distances fromthe Wall itself and appreciation of thelandscape of the World Heritage Site couldbe harmed by large and inappropriatedevelopments in the distance. It would beimpractical to include these distant areaswithin the application of the policies setout in 6.2.2 but evaluation of major


developments for their visual effect on theWorld Heritage Site is desirable. Relevantauthorities should review proposalsfor major development beyond thedefined Setting of the World HeritageSite to ensure that there is no adverseeffect on its broader setting.

6.3 Protection of the archaeological sites

6.3.1 The archaeological sites of the WorldHeritage Site require a higher degree ofprotection than the landscape as a wholesince they are fragile and vulnerable t odamage which in many cases cannot berepaired. The principal threats to theintegrity of archaeological sites within theWorld Heritage Site are continuedploughing of some of the relatively smallareas of scheduled monuments still undercultivation, erosion caused by visitors orover-stocking and the planting of trees onsuch sites since tree-roots can causeconsiderable damage. The currentreview of scheduled ancientmonuments will ensure that knownsites of national importance haveappropriate protection. It is proposedthat existing ancient monumentslegislation should be used to achieveoptimum conditions for eachscheduled monument with prioritybeing given to preventing damagethrough cultivation or erosion at a l lsites where this can be seen to beoccurring. Areas of higharchaeological sensitivity shouldnormally be protected from fresh orreplacement tree planting; timberextraction, when it occurs, should becarefully managed so as not to causedamage and disruption to thearchaeology.

6.3.2 It is proposed that careful monitoringof the condition of the archaeologicalremains in the World Heritage Siteshould be maintained, andmanagement agreements or otherincentives used to combatovergrazing, poaching damage, or tomitigate other activities which impactadversely on the archaeology and thelandscape. All visible Romanmasonry should be monitoredregularly and routine and cyclic

maintenance carried out as necessary,with archaeological recording as a nintegral part of the process.

6.3.3 Advice to owners and farmers on themaintenance of ancient monuments iscrucial and regular contact is also a way ofdeveloping understanding within the localcommunity of the importance of thearchaeological sites. It is proposed,therefore, that English Heritageshould work through its own staff andwith other bodies to provide adviceand support to owners and farmers onthe management of scheduled ancientmonuments.

6.3.4 Not all archaeological sites are scheduled but unscheduled sites of either national orlocal importance have protection fromdevelopment through PPG16.

6.4 Landscape management andenhancement

6.4.1 The present landscape is the result of itsfarming and management over manycenturies. The best way to safeguard itsfuture and that of its archaeological andnatural historical heritage is to continue toprovide for sympathetic and conservation-conscious land-management regimes and toguide land managers to protect Romanremains and enhance their landscapesetting. Outside the built-up areas,appropriate agricultural land usesaround the World Heritage Site andits Setting should be encouraged andsupported as one of the best means ofconserving the landscape andpermitting it to change in a nappropriate way.

6.4.2 Most farmers are sympathetic to the aimsof conservation but can find achievingthem difficult because of financialconstraints. Much can be achieved throughschemes of landscape enhancementdeveloped and agreed on a voluntary basiswith individual farmers. There is scope forbetter joint working between the variousgrant-giving bodies to target assistancemore effectively towards the protectionand enhancement of the landscape of theWorld Heritage Site and its Setting. It i sproposed that positive measures for


preservation and enhancement of thecharacter of the landscape and itsnatural beauty should be developed. As a first step, local authorities,conservation bodies, landowners andfarmers should work together todevelop and agree appropriate targetsfor voluntary schemes of landscapemanagement. Conservation agenciesand local authorities should identifyopportunities for coordinated supportfor landscape management initiativesand to target grant-aid.

6.4.3 The Northumberland National ParkAuthority has demonstrated that it ispossible to obtain additional resources fromEuropean funds to support schemes forlandscape management. This is animportant step and it is proposed that apriority should be to seek out suchsources of funding to supplementthose already available formanagement and enhancement of thelandscape


7. TREATMENT OF THE BUILT-UP AREASOF THE HADRIAN'S WALL WORLDHERITAGE SITE

7.1 The problem of the urban areas

7.1.1 The course of Hadrian's Wall through theurban areas of Newcastle and Carlisle wasspecifically excluded from the 1987 WorldHeritage Site designation, although thedescriptive text mentions a number of siteswithin those areas. However, the fact thataround 17% of its length, including severalof its associated forts and other untracedstructures, lies in areas which are nowprimarily urban does not mean that theseareas were not significant parts of theWall-complex. Although the visibleremains of the Wall in these urban settingsmay be limited in extent, theirarchaeological value can still be very great.

7.1.2 The main problems which are faced inthese areas are the limited extent ofremains of the Wall, and the fact that insome places its precise course is notknown. Much of the line of the Wall orother remains is overlain by moderndevelopment which may or may not havecompletely destroyed it. Moreover,because of the urban context, thesurroundings of the visible remains do notoften allow the site to be fully appreciatedwithin its setting.

7.1.3 Despite this, there are areas ofconsiderable opportunity: in parts of urbanTyneside, the line of the Wall is wellmarked by the lines of streets or roadswhich have followed it, and enlightenedpolicies of purchase, display, andinterpretation of some of the major sitesby local authorities have meant thatWallsend and South Shields forts are largelynow free of development, and thatportions of the fort at Newcastle havebeen revealed buried deep under later levels.

7.1.4 This suggests that although the remainsmay be limited in extent, and within areaswhich do not contribute markedly by thequality of their settings to the experienceof the Wall, they do offer the prospect ofimproving understanding of the system,and the ability to communicate about itand present it in suitable ways. The urban

sections of the Wall could therefore, inview of their location at or near its twoends, prove instrumental in providingorientation and interpretation within themain population centres along its course.This would act both as an added attractionto visitors and as an educational resource,and could play a major role in givingpositive messages about the value of theWorld Heritage Site to local people and totourists.

7.1.5 It has therefore been proposed above(section 2.1.6, 2.3.4) that scheduledancient monuments which are part of thefrontier complex should be included withinthe World Heritage Site and that thegeneral line of the Wall should beprotected by a buffer zone which will allowthe relevant authorities to develop policiesto protect and explore this part of thezone.

7.2 A vision for the urban areas

7.2.1 This chapter of the Management Plan,therefore, seeks to re-establish the linkbetween the Wall in the urban areas andelsewhere, and to recommend a series ofpolicies and initiatives specific to thoseareas which will permit the unity of theWall from end to end to be appreciated.

7.2.2 A vision for the Wall in the urban areas istherefore the exposure of its remainswherever practicable, and the creation ofopen space along its line, or its fullerinterpretation, so that its presence can bebetter seen and appreciated. Fundamentalto this approach is the need to improveprotection through the creation andapplication of planning policies: successwill be dependent upon understanding andrevealing enough of the Wall within theurban areas to be able eventually to applyproper protection to those areas where ithas not yet been revealed, but where it canbe shown to exist.

7.2.3 The following section sets out threepolicies to begin realisation of this vision. In the medium- to long-term, it may bepossible to make the course of the Wallthrough the urban areas easily recognisable, punctuated by visible portions of the Wallor its structures. This would helpcommunicate effectively the scope and


extent of the original system despite theurban setting which has now overlaid it. Ifthe course of the Wall can be made moreappreciable within the urban areas, thismay permit better use and interpretationof the resource, for example, bydeveloping an additional route for theproposed Hadrian's Wall Path along orcloser to the course of the Wall.

7.3 Recommended approaches to theWorld Heritage Site in the urbancontext

Improving protection7.3.1 It is recommended that, as an initial

step, the relevant local authoritiesshould draft and seek to adoptcomplementary or model planningpolicies relating to the treatment ofHadrian's Wall. These would need tobe aligned as consistently as possiblewith relevant policies adopted for theremainder of the Wall.

7.3.2 The aim of such policies should be t oimprove the protection of known remains,the course of the Wall, and the settings ofits archaeological remains, as well as t oprevent further remains being overlain bynew modern developments.

Increasing knowledge and visibility of theremains

7.3.4 It is recommended that, as a secondmain step, the relevant authoritiesshould make use of availableopportunities to increase the visibilityof the remains or the course ofHadrian's Wall. This would have thebeneficial effect of reinforcing theassociation between individual partsof the Wall complex, re-establishingthe linear nature of the Wall so far aspracticable, and in the processincreasing knowledge about the Wall,throwing fresh light in particular o nthose areas where its course and theextent of associated remains areunclear.

7.3.5 The aims of such an approach would be toraise general public awareness of themonument by making its presence, extent,and continuity more readily appreciable,and to maximise opportunities for learning

more about the position, extent andsurvival of the Wall in the urban areasthrough carefully planned research atstrategic locations. By this means, in duecourse, it may be possible to achieve asnear as possible a clear line of sight alongthe course of the Wall, punctuated by anumber of key visible elements.

7.3.6 Means of achieving this could include:

1. Protection by scheduling, ofhitherto unknown archaeologicalsites of national importance.

2. Implementation of a researchprogramme of survey andexcavation, where appropriate,targeted on main areas ofuncertainty, leading to evaluationof the quality and survival of theRoman remains

3. Identification of key sites ofexceptional importance wherelong-term plans for the removal orprevention of overlayingdevelopment can be justified

4. Consolidation and exposure ofremains in a number of strategiclocations, possibly including the re-excavation and display ofpreviously excavated areas, whenappropriate and merited by thequality and robustness of theremains

5. The consistent use of appropriatesurface treatments to mark thecourse of remains of the Wallwhich have been located, but whichhave necessarily been reburied

Presentation and interpretation7.3.7 It is recommended that steps are also

taken to heighten appreciation of theexistence of the Wall in the urbanareas by seeking to communicate withthe public at a number of levels aboutthe Wall and its remains. This wouldinclude both the visible traces andthose which are no longer exposed,but whose former presence can still beappreciated within the urban setting.


7.3.8 The aims of such an approach are properlyto interpret the Wall within the urbanareas, and to permit visitors and residentsto gain an overall appreciation of thetotality of the monument. There is also agood opportunity to exploit to the full theintroductory potential of the Wall inthese areas. Seeing the Wall in its urbansetting may often be the first experienceof it for tourists; it is important that thisencounter is made as meaningful aspossible. The urban areas, with theiropportunities for a more robust landscape,may also be better able to sustain visitorpressure than more sensitive areaselsewhere, and can, for the wider benefit ofthe World Heritage Site, make use ofmethods of interpretation which areappropriate to the general lower sensitivityof the settings of the remains, and whichwould be unthinkable in the areas of higherlandscape and archaeological valueelsewhere within the World Heritage Site.

7.3.9 Methods of achieving some of these aimscould include:

1. Coordinating an approach by allresponsible bodies to presentingand interpreting the remains andcourse of the Wall

2. Developing or refiningmanagement plans for each of thesignificant sites

3. Positioning the urban elements ofthe Wall within the overallstrategies for interpretation of thewhole system outlined in Chapter 8of this plan, while responding t othe fact that the post-Romanhistory may be stronger in theseareas than elsewhere

4. Using the contacts made by localmuseums through `Friends' groupsand other organisations t opromote active local involvementin the care and protection of theWall

5. Discussing with responsibleauthorities or agencies thecoordination and association of themuseum-based contributions t ointerpretation

6. Developing appropriate methods ofon- and off-site interpretation,including virtual realityexperiences, activity programmes,publications, and in limited andcarefully controlled circumstances,clearly- distinguished reproductionsof Roman buildings


8. PUBLIC ACCESS, TOURISM ANDTRANSPORT

8.1 Introduction

8.1.1 Tourism can be both an advantage and athreat. Access enables people to visit,enjoy and appreciate the significance ofthe World Heritage Site and its Setting. Overuse can damage them. Tourism is alsoan important contribution to the localeconomy. It is necessary to strike anappropriate balance so that people mayvisit without causing damage. Public accessto the Site and its Setting must be plannedand managed to avoid or minimisepotential conflict with other interests.

8.1.2 The high importance of tourism as a majorcontributor to the national economy isgenerally recognised. The Government hasemphasised, though, in Planning PolicyGuidance Note 21 that tourism must bemanaged in a sustainable manner, settingout four guiding principles:

• supporting the development of theindustry in ways which contribute to,rather than detract from, the qualityof the environment.

• promoting the understanding ofenvironmental quality concerns withinthe industry and of the need t oimprove the quality of its service andits products.

• ensuring through the regional touristboards and Training and EnterpriseCouncils that managers in tourismadopt visitor management techniquesthat can mitigate the impact on theenvironment.

• encouraging those types of tourismwhich in themselves aim to safeguardthe environment. (PPG 21, para3.15).

8.1.3 This is in line with English Heritage’s ownduties in caring for the built heritage. Inaddition to the conservation of ancientmonuments and historic buildings, EnglishHeritage also has a duty to encouragepublic education through enjoyment of theheritage.

8.1.4 PPG 21 followed on from the Tourism andEnvironment initiative set up by theGovernment in 1990. A Task Force,representing both tourism andenvironmental interests, investigated theextent of tourism’s impact on the naturaland built environments and on its hostcommunities, and considered how anynegative effects night be minimised. TheTask Force’s findings andrecommendations were published in theirreport “Maintaining the Balance” in May1991. The report emphasised that theenvironment has an intrinsic value whichoutweighs its present value for tourism,that its enjoyment by future generationsand its long-term survival must not beprejudiced by short-term considerations,and also that tourism must be managed sothat the environment is sustained in thelong term. It identified the majorproblems as being over-crowding, trafficcongestion, increased wear and tear onphysical fabric, and insensitivedevelopment of facilities.

8.1.5 Tourism is of high importance to theregional economy and as means of raisingrevenue for maintenance of the WorldHeritage Site. It is therefore vital that itshould continue to be fostered andmarketed but this must be done in wayswhich do not endanger the conservation ofthe World Heritage Site and its Setting orthe interests of the “host” community.

8.2 The Present Position8.2.1 Studies carried out for this management

plan and for the Hadrian's Wall TourismPartnership showed a mixed picture of thepresent position. In 1973 the four maincharging sites received 457,000 visitors. In 1993 the equivalent figure was 502,000visits but to eight sites spread more widelyalong the Wall than the four open in 1973. Figures for those four sites showed a dropof 135,000 visits annually over thetwenty-year period. Anecdotal evidencesuggests that in contrast the number ofvisitors to free sites and using public rightsof way in the World Heritage Site has risenover the same period.

8.2.2 Visitors have access not just to paid entry


and free sites on or near the Wall, but alsoto other sites close by, by the road andfootpath network, public transport, and aresupplied by a variety of informationservices, accommodation providers andother businesses.

8.2.3 There are already a considerable number ofsites where the visitor can gain access t othe Wall or its associated remains, or learnabout some aspect of the Romanoccupation. These include at least tenforts or settlements which charge forentry, eight associated museums, and atleast 14 locations which are relativelyaccessible, where entry is free and wherethere are visible remnants of the Wall orassociated remains visible above ground.

8.2.4 A rapid study carried out for this planassessed the sensitivity of the WorldHeritage Site in terms of the impact ofvisitors on its archaeology, natureconservation, landscape and on the hostcommunity, particularly with regard t ofarming activities.

8.2.5 The study classified the various sectors ofthe Wall into three levels of sensitivityreflecting the present level of use and theeffect that it is having. These levels are:

• the most sensitive: fragile areasunder considerable pressure fromvisitors, with remedial managementactions required as soon as possible. In many cases these are "honeypot"sites where it is not appropriate orpossible substantially to reduce visitoraccess, so that managementintervention must not only protectthe resource, ameliorate existingproblems but also ensure continueddelivery of a high quality of visitorexperience

• medium sensitivity: fragile areaswith fewer pressures at present, eitherbecause the sites are inaccessible orbecause they are receiving generallyappropriate levels of use. In this case,the level and type of managementintervention requirements will vary inresponse to particular issues

• least sensitive: more robust areas

with few pressures at present, and/orwhere current management techniquesare coping with pressure. These areascould accept more recreationalactivity without serious detriment t othe landscape or archaeologicalremains, subject to specific siteconstraints and access issues

8.2.6 The study estimated that about 10% of thewhole length of the Wall fell into the mostsensitive category, though actual damagehas yet occurred in only small parts of thisstretch. Monitoring will be essential t odetermine how this position may bechanging.

8.3 Recommended approach8.3.1 Access is important in allowing people t o

visit, enjoy and learn about the WorldHeritage Site. Clearly, there are someexisting problems and there is potential forgreater damage in the future. Tourism alsohas a role as part of the local economywhich needs to be developed. These issuesneed to be addressed by all those involved. It is important that all are guided by theprecautionary principle and are aware ofthe consequences of what is proposed. Priorities for management intervention toachieve the right balance betweenconservation, access and the interests ofthe host community include:

1. Managing access to safeguardparticularly sensitive locations andto minimise conflict with existingland uses

2. Helping people understand theWorld Heritage Site designationand its implications

3. Encouraging steps towards theintroduction of an integrated,sustainable transport strategyincluding both public andalternative means of transport t oimprove visitor access to theWorld Heritage Site and its Setting.

4. Improving visitors’ enjoyment ofthe World Heritage Site

5. Developing a coordinated approachto interpretation at Roman sites


throughout the World Heritage Site

6. Ensuring that the local benefits ofsustainable tourism are maximisedthrough the promotion of strongerlinks with local businesses andservices and through appropriatemarketing and tourismdevelopments in the wider areas.

8.3.2 The key to successful management ofpublic access in the World HeritageSite and its Setting lies in theestablishment of an integratedmonitoring programme. Thisprogramme must be capable ofidentifying where visitor pressure i scompromising the quality of thelandscape or endangering parts of theWorld Heritage Site and also theextent to which management actionhas been effective in tackling theproblems. It must be sufficientlysophisticated to trigger managementaction where it is required.

8.3.3 It is recommended that the techniqueused to monitor environmentalimpacts is based on agreement o nminimum environmental standardsfor each site and defining carefully inadvance how much change it canundergo before starting to sufferdamage. This approach is known asdefining the `Limits of AcceptableChange' (LAC), and needs to takeaccount of a wide range of factors(physical, visual, ecological). Limits ofAcceptable Change should deal withall aspects of site management as wellas purely archaeological issues.

8.3.4 These limits form a set of quality standardsagreed by the site manager with therelevant agencies, who also agree inadvance the management action to beundertaken if changes to the site start t oexceeds these standards. The system isproactive and closely related to sitemanagement issues and it is important thatthe quality standards (LAC values), issuesand monitoring methods are regularlyreviewed to ensure their continuedrelevance and acceptability.

8.4 Helping people understand the World

Heritage Designation8.4.1 Helping people understand the designation

of the World Heritage Site is important. Greater awareness by visitors will helpthem to appreciate the outstandinguniversal value of the Wall and itslandscape and to understand and respectthe need to protect and conserve itthrough careful and concernedmanagement, and also the need to respectrural land use of the area.

8.4.2 This can be achieved through the variousforms of interpretation of the Wall and bythe use of uniform symbols such as thelogo for World Heritage sites. It is alsomost important that the nature andsignificance of the World Heritagedesignation should be included in anyeducational work.

8.5 Managing Access8.5.1 The sensitivity analysis of the various areas

of the Wall summarised above in para8.2.6 can help identify actions which maybenefit users or visitors and safeguard theintegrity of the archaeological andlandscape significance of the Zone. Careshould be taken when promoting visitoraccess to specific areas to avoid damage tothe World Heritage Site or its Setting andadversely affecting existing landmanagement and other commercialactivities. This approach should ensurethat pressures caused by visitors do notcompromise the inherent quality of thatwhich has attracted them in the first place.

8.5.2 In view of the difficulty of defining eachsite's `carrying capacity' of visitors whichcan be heavily dependent on variablefactors, `Limits of Acceptable Change'should be used to define managementactions that would be triggered in responseto defined signs of visitor pressure or wear. This approach places responsibility on theagencies involved in managing visitoraccess to implement an effectivemonitoring programme to identify whetherthese agreed limits are being exceeded.

8.5.3 Several key concerns which may need to bemonitored by this means can already beidentified. These include disturbance t oarchaeological remains; footpathcondition; the condition of vegetation,


soils and wildlife populations in and aroundSSSIs; and other areas of importance fornature conservation; contrasting pressureson free and paid entry sites along the Wallincluding litter and car parking, and theimpact of visitors on agricultural concerns.

8.5.4 It is important to achieve a balancebetween providing access for visitors t othose places where the Wall's archaeologyand setting can best be appreciated, andencouraging visits to paid entry sites wheretheir impact can be carefully managed bydirect, localised remedial action. Currentpatterns of visits to the Wall, however, area combination of ease of access resultingfrom public transport and car parkingprovision.

8.5.5 For a full picture of visitors' use of theWall, regular and consistently compiledqualitative and quantitative data is required,although something of a picture can bebuilt up from a number of existingindividual surveys, including compilationsof visitor numbers. Information isavailable on aspects such as the number ofstaying `tourists' to the area rather thanday visitors, the proportion making firsttime or repeat visits, the methods of travelto and around the area, and the numberswho make `free' rather than paying visits.

8.5.6 It is proposed that techniques aredeveloped to manage access so thatthe defined Limits of AcceptableChange for each site are notexceeded, using a system of zoningand channelling linked tointerpretation, education and othernon-prescriptive intervention. Techniques could include:

1. Increasing understanding aboutappropriate behaviour through highquality interpretation at sites andpopular stretches along the Wall, atorientation centres and at car parksand rail/bus stations. Interpretationshould be informative rather than negative,to provide an understanding and respect forthe World Heritage Site.

2. Spreading the visitor load among a l lthe area's attractions: At present manyof the paid-entry Roman sites are

undervisited, while other areas suffer fromexcessive visitor pressure. Visits t odifferent sections of the Wall should beactively encouraged to spread the load atbusy periods. Visits should also beencouraged to non-Roman and non-archaeological sites (eg natureconservation sites appropriate for access),subject to the agreement of all partiesinvolved.

3. Shifting countryside recreation bymore active promotion of otheralternative locations for countrywalks, many of which already existclose to the Wall's central sector.Footpath routes could be promoted withinthe broader central section to movevisitors away from the key honeypot sitesand onto routes better able to cope withincreased visitor pressure.

4. Limiting disturbance to livestock,agriculture, and wildlife: Among thegreatest concerns for landowners andfarmers are the dogs of visitors, some ofwhich are not closely controlled and, onoccasion, cause a nuisance and danger t olivestock, or foul crops. There can also bea threat to wildlife. Although powers existfor Highway Authorities to make ordersrequiring dogs to be kept on a lead onspecific paths, they are difficult t osubstantiate and to enforce. Nonethelessconsideration should be given to theintroduction of an appropriate bye-lawwhere significant nuisance has been shownto exist. It is also essential to seek t oeducate and inform visitors throughpromotional material about the problemscaused by dogs on agricultural land as wellas other concerns, such as crop trampling,litter, leaving gates open and disturbance t olivestock and wildlife.

8.6 Transport and access

8.6.1 The 1974 DART study, and the subsequent1984 HWCC report identified the need t oimprove traffic management along theMilitary Road, and the problems are stillpresent. The importance of the road forlocal use and access is obvious and must notbe compromised. Nonetheless means mustbe found to discourage through traffic fromusing the B6318, and to reduce speedsalong certain stretches. It is recognised


that achievement of this objective is likelyto be attained only when the A69 has beenimproved.

8.6.2 It is recommended therefore that adetailed feasibility study should beproduced by highway authority trafficengineers, to examine means ofdiscouraging through traffic fromusing the B6318, and of calmingtraffic using the B6318 and the minorroads around Banks, whilerecognising that major changes willnot be achieved in isolation fromresolving issues around the use of theA69.

8.6.3 Detailed parking surveys should alsobe done by highway or localauthorities as resources permitthroughout the Wall area, i nconjunction with visitor surveys, todetermine the level of formal andinformal parking, the length of stayand visitor activities, as a prelude to afull traffic management study for thearea. This should include examination ofcar parking charges, the security of car-parks, means of control of informalparking, the development of `green point'car parks, and the development of `parkand ride' facilities for key sites.

8.6.4 Growth predictions suggest that pressure onroads and parking facilities in the centralWall area is likely to increase in thecoming years. At the same time, there isa growing awareness of, and concern about the impact of traffic and cars on theenvironment and local countryside. PPG13 states the need for local authorities t oreduce the growth in the length and numberof motorised journeys whilst at the sametime encouraging alternative means oftravel which have less environmentalimpact.

8.6.5 If a greater proportion of visitors to sitesalong Hadrian's Wall are to arrive by"green" modes of transport, all theagencies concerned with the managementof the World Heritage Site should promoteand support public transport, walking andcycling so that individual visitors have aviable alternative to travel by car for all orpart of their journey.

8.6.6 It is recommended that an integratedpublic transport strategy is preparedcovering visitor access to the wholelength of the World Heritage Site,based on the existing public transportstrategy prepared for NorthumberlandNational Park in 1993. This could inaddition consider better promotion of theTyne Valley line and bus services as ameans of exploring the area; means ofadvertising all the public transport servicesof recreational value within the Corridor,together with the key footpath links t osites along the Wall; a possible extensionof the period of operation of the Hadrian'sBus Wall service; a feasibility study for thereopening of Gilsland station; and thepossibility of establishing a `ring and ride'taxi service to operate within the centralsection of the Wall. Improvements of thissort could also benefit local communities.

8.6.7 Encouragement to cyclists using the areashould be given by means of thedevelopment of cycle routes using as far aspossible existing minor public roads andbridleways.

8.6.8 Bridlepaths and footpaths play animportant part in the provision andmanagement of access. Alongside thedevelopment of the National Trail, it i srecommended that a recreationalnetwork (using existing rights of wayas far as possible) is identified toenable the promotion of circular andlinear walks using sections of theTrail linking into settlement andpublic transport where possible. Changes to the network of pathsshould be considered whereverproblems or opportunities exist.

8.6.9 Accessibility for all Hadrian's Wall sitesshould be carefully addressed, and thestandard symbol for disabled access usedonly where really merited. Access for allto public transport, disabled parkingbays, other facilities and informationboards should all be addressed as partof a wider programme to comply withcurrent standards of provision for theless-abled.

8.7 Improving visitors’ enjoyment of the


World Heritage Site

8.7.1 Taking into account the special needs andqualities of the Hadrian's Wall corridor,tourism in this area must combineeconomic development with the measuresoutlined above for protection of the WorldHeritage Site and its landscape. Thisincludes:

• developing a high quality tourismexperience which meets the needs ofthe independent, environmentallyaware tourist

• achieving an increase in visitorspending, for example by attractingmore high spending overseas touriststo the area

• encouraging more people to leavetheir cars at home and to travel in andaround the corridor by publictransport and other, non-motorised,means such as cycling and walking

• attracting more British tourists to takeshort breaks in the area by extendingthe tourism season into the quieteroff-peak months

• stimulating visitor interest in themanagement and conservation issuessurrounding World Heritage Sitedesignation and encouraging them t oplay a part in caring for the area'sspecial features

8.7.2 To achieve these objectives will require acombination of measures. It is essential toensure that sites cater adequately forvisitors' needs, both physical and cultural,so that they have an enjoyable visit. Theappropriate level of provision will varyfrom site to site and must comply with therequirements of a policy of sustainabletourism. What is needed at a major sitewill need to be considerably more elaboratethan at free sites or on rights of way. It isrecommended that each manager of asite managed primarily for publicaccess should draw up a sitemanagement plan setting out thetargets to be achieved. In addition t othe definition of Limits of AcceptableChange for each site, plans will need t o

address the following issues.

8.7.3 Site facilities: good site facilitiesenhance the image of the World HeritageSite and are in fact a means of managingand influencing visitors. Current provisionvaries, and there are opportunities on mostsites for sensitive improvements withinexisting buildings. There will be a need t oreview such fundamental issues as car-parking and provision of toilets not just atcharging sites but also at other placeswhich attract large numbers of visitors.

8.7.4 Improved exhibitions and displays: inorder to deliver a high quality visitorexperience which complements theimportance of World Heritage Sitedesignation, periodically and as resourcespermit it will be necessary to upgradeexhibitions, displays and otherinterpretation, both on and off-site.

8.7.5 In order to widen the access to informationabout the World Heritage Site, it i srecommended that all exhibitions andother interpretative facilities l inkinto an overall interpretationstrategy. They should be accessible to allvisitors, including those with impairedmobility or vision, children and foreignvisitors.

8.7.6 Education: many of the sites on the Wallalready make provision for educationalwork. It is important that this should bedeveloped for all age groups. Possibilitiesinclude education packs, new technology,site facilities such as education rooms andguide lecturers or site-based teachers. It isalso important to develop outreachactivities into schools and othereducational establishments. Educationalmessages put over by this means shouldinclude the conservation needs of theWorld Heritage Site and the significance ofits designation.

8.7.7 Gateway Sites, Orientation centres,and visitor information points: at alimited number of key gateway sitesto the area, information should bepresented for visitors to understandfully the range of facilities availablewithin the World Heritage Site, andto plan their visit accordingly. They


should be close to major road, rail and busnetworks, and their existence should beadvertised in promotional material, andprovide information about the extent,importance, `heritage' codes, and visitorattractions in the World Heritage Site localservices and other places to visit, and localtransport networks, including `green'tourism. They would also provide anopportunity to introduce visitors to thenature and significance of the WorldHeritage Site, and to the needs for itsconservation, and the part that they canplay in this. A number of orientationcentres at major sites in the WorldHeritage Site and its Setting wouldreinforce and expand these messages.

8.7.8 Visitor Information Points (VIPs),providing basic factual andinterpretative information about theWorld Heritage Site, should beinstalled at key car parks, transportinterchanges and visitor facilitieswithin the area. They act as a tier ofinformation provision below OrientationCentres, and can be developed as eitherindoor or outdoor units, with the designmodified accordingly.

8.8 An interpretative strategy for theWorld Heritage Site

8.8.1 Co-operation between the agenciesresponsible for managing the major Romansites could result in improvements to thequality and variety of the visitorexperience on Hadrian's Wall. Thedevelopment of specific themes for eachsite - including, for example the Wall itselfand its associated forts, its archaeology,architecture, engineering, military history,naval history and trade, the Empire,civilian lifestyles, religion and economicactivity - would encourage visits to severalsites to build up a complete picture of theRoman presence in the area. In places,too, opportunities may arise for informingvisitors about the role and needs ofarchaeology, conservation, farming andland management and other present-dayuses of the World Heritage Site, andplacing the Wall chronologically within awider `Borderlands' theme.

8.9 Maximising local benefits

8.9.1 This issue was addressed in 1994 by theSustainable Tourism Marketing Strategydeveloped for a consortium headed by theNorthumbria Tourist Board. This strategyhad as one of its main objectives the taskof spreading economic benefit across theregion with an emphasis on ensuring thatlocal businesses and commercial operators,including the farming community, are ableto benefit from increased tourist activity.

8.9.2 Attaining this objective will be aided by thepolicies set out in this chapter. It will alsobe important to:

• provide appropriate signing forservices available within localcommunities

• encourage development of a visitorinfrastructure which will supportmoves to extend the length of stay inthe area and encourage appropriateoff-peak access.

8.9.3 Further opportunities also exist through theHadrian's Wall Tourist Partnership t oencourage visitors to stay longer in thearea, and to stimulate additionalexpenditure In the local economy, byimproving the quality, increasing therange, and promoting the availability ofaccommodation and catering provisionwithin the vicinity of the Wall.

8.9.4 The development of a `green tourism code'may also be instrumental in attractingenvironmentally aware tourists, and canalso be used to identify operators andservice providers who comply with it.

8.10 Marketing strategy

8.10.1 Vital to achieving the objectives set outabove is an appropriate marketingstrategy. This need is being addressed bythe Hadrian's Wall Tourism Partnership.

8.10.2 The first step is the identification of themost important attraction of the areawhich will identify it for tourists. Thesimplest and most direct `branding image' isfocused upon Hadrian's Wall and itssurroundings. `Hadrian's Wall and theBorderlands' has already beenrecommended as a common and universal


byline for marketing campaigns by allagencies involved in attracting tourists t othe Wall zone. It is also recommendedthat awareness of the Wall Zone'sinternational importance is emphasised byincorporating the message `Hadrian's Wall- a World Heritage Site', supported by asuitable graphic image, into tourismadvertising and print wherever appropriate.

8.10.3 Key target markets for this `product', andmeans of reaching these have beenidentified, and point to the importance ofgrowing `environmental' awareness,particularly amongst higher spendingsections of the European market.

8.10.4 A strategy to promote the area as onewhich offers a `sustainable' tourismexperience cannot simply rely on specialslogans or marketing campaigns. Thefacilities on offer must keep pace withvisitors' expectations, and must bepresented in ways that help reinforce theenvironmental message, as outlined above.

8.11 The Hadrian's Wall National Trail(Hadrian’s Wall Path)

8.11.1 Proposals for a new National Trail, theHadrian's Wall Path, were submitted by theCountryside Commission to theDepartment of the Environment in March1993. These were approved by theSecretary of State in October 1994. TheTrail provides for a long distance footpathfrom Wallsend in the east to Bowness onSolway in the west, roughly following theline of Hadrian's Wall along the majorityof its route.

8.11.2 In approving the proposals for the Trail,the Secretary of State drew particularattention to three main issues: the likelyimpact of the trail on the farmingcommunity; the overall costs of theproposals balanced against the likely usageof the route; and the environmentalimpact of developing a National Trailwhich runs through a sensitive historic site.

8.11.3 The Hadrian's Wall Path is one of themajor proposals which will affect theWorld Heritage Site within the coming 5years. The Trail will provide greaterresources for the management of the rights

of way network as well as opportunities forthe more effective management ofwalkers. Much detailed work, led by theCountryside Commission, still remains t obe done, in securing the additional fundingwhich will be necessary for the creation ofthe Path within a reasonable timescale, itsnetwork of linking paths, and theassociated environmental mitigation anddesign work. Agreements with the relevantHighways Authorities have to be set inplace, and specific actions andrecommendations made by the Secretary ofState have to be followed through. It i sstrongly recommended that theplanning and implementation of thiswork should harmonise so far aspossible with other initiatives andproposals embodied in thisManagement Plan.


9. MAKING THINGS HAPPEN

9.1 Introduction

9.1.1 This Plan seeks properly to define theWorld Heritage Site and its Setting, and tooutline the policies needed within this areato achieve the necessary balance betweenconservation, the interests of those wholive and work within it, properly managedaccess to it by visitors and tourists, and thebenefits of their presence to the localeconomy. The Plan has no statutorystatus or effect. It introduces no additional powers, nor does it suggest that the role ofany existing body or individual should besupplanted. It does seek to establish aplatform for all those concerned about thefuture management of the World HeritageSite to move forward together.

9.1.2 While the Plan sets out some detailedproposals, it firstly seeks to establishprinciples for action. Translation of thoseprinciples into actions will be the result ofdetailed work by the large number ofindividuals and bodies who own or areinvolved with the management of theWorld Heritage Site. However, the fate ofthe Dart Report and of the 1984 Hadrian’sWall Consultative Committee Report showthat there is a need for a champion for theManagement Plan and the World HeritageSite to focus attention on it and t ocoordinate activity. There are also someactivities (such as the data-base) whichneed to be developed for the whole WorldHeritage Site.

9.1.3 Two specific mechanisms are thereforeproposed. The first is a ManagementCommittee, formed primarily of thoseagencies and groups who have beeninvolved in the consideration of themanagement plan itself. Their task will beto oversee the delivery of therecommendations arising from the plan,and to encourage all partners in theexercise to adopt the plan's outcomes. The second is a dedicated Co-ordinatingUnit, which can be assigned specific tasksin relation to the proposals within themanagement plan.

9.1.4 As many as possible of the

recommendations in thismanagement plan should be followedup and implemented by those alreadyholding management responsibilitiesincluding landowners and occupiersin their relevant areas.

9.2 Initiatives already under way

9.2.1 A number of new initiatives are beingplanned or are under way, and will soonbegin to have an impact on the WorldHeritage Site. Not all can be listed here,but they include the review and revisionduring 1996/97 of the scheduling of theWall and associated features, and aNational Park scheme, supported by ERDFand EAGGF Objective 5b funds, to enhancethe quality of the tourism infrastructureclose to the Wall. There are alsoproposals for the Hadrian's Wall Path, ledby the Countryside Commission, and forthe implementation of the SustainableTourism Marketing Strategy under theleadership of Northumbria Tourist Board. Provision is being made, within theseinitiatives, for the following elements ofwork.

Hadrian's Wall National Trail

9.2.2 A Trail Development Officer has beenappointed by the Countryside Commissionto prepare the implementation of theHadrian's Wall Path. At present the postis mainly concerned with setting up thenecessary linkages with owners, highwayauthorities, planning authorities, andEnglish Heritage. It is envisaged that thework involved in setting up andimplementing the Trail may take up t ofive years.

Hadrian's Wall Tourism Partnership9.2.3 A Project Officer has been appointed t o

co-ordinate existing marketing activities,and to carry out or encourage thedevelopments in sustainable tourism in theHadrian's Wall region as recommended inthe study completed by ASH ConsultingGroup and Transport for Leisure on behalfof the Northumbria Tourist Board in 1994. The aim of the post is to stimulateinterest in the area's attractions, in `greentourism' issues, in extending the visitor


season, and in harmonising approachesacross a wide range of interests to thedevelopment of these themes.

9.2.4 Both posts are intended to work within theoverall policy set by the World HeritageSite Management Plan.

9.3 Other management involvement

9.3.1 Owners and occupiers: The major shareof responsibility for the Hadrian's WallWorld Heritage Site and its Setting lies withthose who are landowners or tenants ofland on or near the line of the Wall. Thepreparedness of owners and occupiers andtheir advisers to support the conclusions ofthe management plan, and to align theirland management practices so as t omaintain the character of the area andpreserve its archaeological heritage andlandscape quality will be fundamental t othe success of the management planprocess and in securing commitment to itsoutcomes and recommendations. Dialoguewith owners and farmers is vital to ensurethat they are aware of the special characterand quality of their land, that they areadvised on practices which will bebeneficial to the Hadrian's Wall area, andthat they are encouraged and supported sofar as possible to follow therecommendations within this plan. Aliaison group could be productive.

9.3.2 Sites managed primarily for publicaccess: it is recommended that a l lpublic bodies and Trusts who managesignificant Wall-sites for the benefitof visitors and for the long-termpreservation of the resource shouldcompile individual management plansfor their own sites to cover a five-yearperiod in the first instance, based o nthe framework of the approachadopted within this World HeritageSite management plan. EnglishHeritage will be following thispractice in respect of its managedsites within the World Heritage Siteas exemplars.

9.3.3 National Park and other localauthority involvement: theNorthumberland and Lake DistrictNational Parks make resources available

for care and management and advise theCountryside Commission, MAFF, and theForestry Authority on the deployment ofvarious types of grant. The National ParkAuthorities employ qualifiedarchaeologists, provide some resources fortheir own conservation grants scheme, runa ranger service, car-parks and visitorcentres. County Councils operate similarservices and also employ archaeologists. With Tynedale District Council theNorthumberland National Park runs aseasonal bus service in the central sector.

9.3.4 All local authorities are required to publishlocal plans. In the Hadrian’s Wall areathese should state clearly the policies fordevelopment control and other policies forrecreational or educational use whichshould be applied within the WorldHeritage Site. Specific sites might also beearmarked in the plan as appropriate forvarious types of development, includingpotential visitor facilities. Localauthorities also have responsibilities foreconomic development and tourismpromotion and developments as well as forsome aspects of conservation.

9.3.5 Many of the detailed recommendationswithin this plan relating to planningpolicies, development control, landscapemanagement, tourism and the provision oftransport or services may fall to the localauthorities to carry out in the firstinstance, incorporating agreed approachesto the management of the World HeritageSite within their own local plans at theearliest opportunity. Once revised plansincorporating an adequate measure ofprotection for the World Heritage Site arein place, authority staff and members areencouraged to use them to maintain asensitive and environmentally-ledapproach to development control andother local or strategic planning issues.

9.4 The Hadrian's Wall ManagementCommittee

9.4.1 As is clear from the wide-ranging nature ofthis management plan, the extent andnumber of bodies and individuals involvedin the Hadrian's Wall Military Zone islarge, and embraces planning,environmental, academic, agricultural,tourism and visitor management interests


currently exercised by a wide range ofauthorities and agencies. It is impossible t osee meaningful progress towardsachievement of the objectives of themanagement plan unless the dialogue whichhas now been established or reinforcedcontinues as part of the process ofoverseeing the realisation of themanagement plan's conclusions.

9.4.2 A Management Committee for theWorld Heritage Site ManagementPlan, composed principally of thosebodies which have contributed to theformulation of the management planitself, should be formed to act as theprimary forum for issues concerningthe management of the WorldHeritage Site. Such a Committeewould need to meet at least twice ayear, and should fulfil the followingroles:

(1) to oversee the implementationof general and specificrecommendations made withinthe Management Plan, and tomonitor the success in meetingthe targets it sets

(2) to establish a forum formanagement issues, and tocontinue to co-ordinate effortstowards concertedmanagement within theHadrian's Wall WorldHeritage Site

(3) to receive reports fromresponsible bodies andagencies on projects whichaffect the Hadrian's Wall area

(4) to agree action programmesand priorities for developingspecific aspects of themanagement plan

(5) to monitor the condition of theWorld Heritage site, anddevelop and agree o nappropriate action to deal withthreats to its well-being

(6) to develop and agree furtherpolicies and codes of practice

for protection, recording andresearch, access,interpretation, andpreservation of the WorldHeritage site, as well assafeguarding the livelihoodsand interests of those livingand working within the zone,and to encourage the adoptionof such policies by responsiblebodies and agencies

(7) within the overriding need toconserve the World HeritageSite, to promote the economyof the region

(8) to agree the work programmeof, and provide generaldirection for the proposedHadrian's Wall Co-ordinationUnit

(9) to review the conclusions andrecommendations within themanagement plan, todetermine the frequency of thenecessary updating of the plan,and to oversee this processwhen it occurs

9.4.3 If other partners and agencies are agreed,English Heritage should continue to takethe lead in hosting and servicing thecommittee.

9.4.4 The main participants within such aCommittee should includerepresentation of all local authoritieswithin the World Heritage Site, offarmers and landowners (via CLA andNFU) sufficient to give adequate coverof different types of farming and landuse within the World Heritage Site,other major landowners (eg NationalTrust, Forestry Commission)archaeological and tourism interests,agencies and government departmentsactive within the zone (includingGovernment Offices North-East andNorth-West, Department of NationalHeritage, the Royal Commission onHistoric Monuments (England), theCountryside Commission, English Nature,Ministry of Agriculture, Fishery and Foods,Rural Development Commission, ICOMOS


UK regional tourist boards) andrepresentatives of parish councils throughthe respective county CommunityCouncils.

9.4.5 The Committee should work closely withthe other bodies steering major Wallinitiatives and through time-limitedworking groups focused on particular issues. As far as possible it should work withexisting groupings rather than create newones. The Committee will inevitably belarge and may wish to consider a smallerSteering Group to meet more often on itsbehalf. Informal group contacts will alsobe necessary.

9.5 Communication

9.5.1 There will also be a need for widercommunication with people living on ornear the World Heritage Site and with usergroups and the voluntary sector. Thisneeds to work in both directions to ensurethat people are aware of how the Planmight affect them and so that thoseimplementing the Plan are aware of localconcerns. The necessary links could beachieved either by the creation of aconsultative forum for the whole Wall orby holding meetings for various parts ofthe World Heritage Site.

9.5.2 Experience suggests that a single meetingwhich seeks to cover issues of this naturewhich might arise anywhere within thewhole World Heritage Site is unwieldy anda series of local meetings may be moreeffective. If this approach is adopted, itmay be appropriate also to organisemeetings through local parish councils orvillage societies, or through other localinterest groups.

9.6 The Hadrian's Wall Co-ordinationUnit

9.6.1 Although action for following up many ofthe recommendations in this managementplan lies with individuals or bodies whoalready hold responsibility for portions oraspects of the World Heritage Site, thetask of establishing communicationbetween those who have an interest inseeing the plan succeed, co-ordinating theirefforts, and securing commitment and

resources for this work are additional t oany specific individual or organisationalrole at present.

9.6.2 This role can be fulfilled by a Co-ordinationUnit in the first instance for a limitedperiod. The presence of such a Unit withthe staffing resources to carry out some ofthese tasks would be a major differencebetween this and previous managementapproaches to the Wall.

9.6.3 A small Co-ordination Unit willtherefore be English Heritage's initialcontribution to this effort to deliverthe objectives of the managementplan and to establish communicationbetween those who have an interest i nseeing the plan succeed, to co-ordinate efforts, and to securecommitment and resources for thiswork. The role of the Unit will not beto replace the efforts which othersmay be able to provide in seeing theplan succeed, but it can carry out thefollowing functions:

(1) service the ManagementCommittee, and alongside thepartners construct annualwork programmes to meetagreed priorities

(2) ensure communication andliaison with all those involvedin the management ofresources within the WorldHeritage Site, including individual landowners andbusiness interests

(3) provide assistance with adviceand information, scheduledmonument consents, andsetting and monitoringstandards for work on the Wall

(4) maintain and update theproposed World Heritage Sitedatabase, and provide users ofthe resource with theinformation they need

(5) monitor and review regularlythe physical condition of theWall, and devise, target andimplement management action


to deal with potential or actualthreats to it

(6) where necessary co-ordinatejoint bids for funding fromother external sources forprojects relating to theHadrian's Wall WorldHeritage Site

(7) devise and manage specificprojects associated with themanagement plan process orother projects which may affectthe World Heritage Site

(8) house staff involved in majorcross-boundary projects, i frequired

(9) review the management planand provide for its regularupdating

9.6.4 By fostering liaison and communication,some of the existing perceived burden infulfilling all the existing requirementsrelating to the World Heritage Site onindividuals and organisations may bereduced. The Unit needs to be small andflexible in its operation to achieve itsobjectives. Its staff will be a Director,secretary, and the existing English HeritageHadrian's Wall Field Officer and ICOMOSManagement Plan administrator.

9.6.5 In order to provide the necessarydedicated liaison and local co-ordination to implement the agreedconclusions within this managementplan, English Heritage will from April1996 for at least two years provide therequired resources for the funding ofthe key post of Director of theHadrian's Wall Management Plan Co-ordination Unit, the necessaryfunding to develop and maintain theproposed computer database, and thesecretarial support staff.

9.6.6 The Unit will operate from a centrallocation near the World HeritageSite, and, initially at least, its staffwill be within the line managementcontrol of English Heritage, thoughsubject also to guidance received from

the Management Committee who willhave a crucial role in developing itswork programme.

9.7 Adopting the management plan

9.7.1 The management plan has been framed toprovide for policies and recommendationsfor action which can be taken by a numberof different bodies and individuals to be ofoverall benefit to the World Heritage Siteand its Setting. It is hoped, therefore, thatthis plan can be agreed and adopted by alllocal authorities, statutory bodies, andagencies which operate relevant controlsor policies within the Hadrian's Wall area,and also that it will obtain the support ofthose who live and work within the WordHeritage Site. It is also hoped that theproposals for management actionembodied within this plan will form a seriesof guidelines for a sustainable approach t othe Wall Zone on the part of owners,businesses, those who manage visitorattractions, and their advisers.

The status of the plan9.7.2 The management plan for the Hadrian's

Wall World Heritage Site makesrecommendations which, it is hoped, willattract sufficient consensus among nationaland local statutory bodies to form a basisfor concerted action. The UK governmenthas accepted a global responsibility for thecare and protection of the outstandinguniversal value which is enshrined in thisand the other UK sites on the WorldHeritage List. As this document is the firstof what may become a series ofmanagement plans for all of the UnitedKingdom World Heritage Sites, it isrecommended that the Government shoulddraw the attention of the World HeritageCommittee to the production of the planand to the proposed definition of theboundaries of the World Heritage Site.

Revising the plan

9.7.3 Planning is an iterative exercise, and it isenvisaged that the management plan willnot stay relevant to current circumstancesfor more than the normal planning cycleof around five years. It is recommended,therefore, that mechanisms should beput in place through the proposed


Hadrian's Wall ManagementCommittee to ensure that thenecessary refreshment of the policies,revisiting the issues, and reframingthe recommendations takes place sothat the plan can continue to providefor the active care of this WorldHeritage Site in the future.

9.7.4 English Heritage has assumed the lead rolein pulling together all the strands for thiscurrent version of the management plan. Representatives of the Department ofNational Heritage and of the GovernmentRegional Offices have been closelyinvolved with the formulation of thisversion of the plan. It is recommendedthat the same GovernmentDepartments continue to exercise aclose monitoring role over theoutcomes from the exercise, todetermine whether such a processforms a meaningful discharge of theGovernment's national dutiesconcerning World Heritage Sites, andwhether English Heritage should beassigned the role of leading therevision of the plan in due course.

Management Plan July 1996 - Amazon Web Services · 2020-04-09 · Hadrian’s Wall Management Plan...

Documents

Transcript of Management Plan July 1996 - Amazon Web Services · 2020-04-09 · Hadrian’s Wall Management Plan...