The bid team at Port Sunlight told me that 30 Expressions of Interest' were submitted. They could not recall all of them but those they could were:
Port Sunlight
Birkenhead Park
Sankey Viaduct
City of York
British Virgin Islands
'a privately owned site in Oxfordshire' (on the forum I hypothesised this could be Upper Heyford, a counter-suggestion was Kelmscott Manor)

We have three transnational bids that seem highly likely - Gracehill (Moravian Church Settlements), Navan Fort (Royal Sites of Ireland) and Redhills (Workers Assembly Halls).

Considering the appeal for applications specifically said they were looking for prospective sites beyond the British Isles it is possible that St Helena and Turks & Caicos may resubmit. Personally I think Chatham would add to the List and Shetland sounds very interesting.

But even adding all of those together I'm only at 13. Where are the other 17?

Well one of them would seem to be this -
"The Hampden Collection".
It appears that a campaign was launched on Nov 30 2021 "to make Football's Square Mile, the World's Biggest Open-Air Football Museum, a UNESCO World Heritage Site."

Leaving aside the issue of how realistic the aim might be, it seems to be a serious campaign, albeit one led by enthusiasts. rather than (as is the case of Sankey Viaduct) any arm of government. It would surely need more "offical" backing to go any further.
Here is their Web Site which includes a very (very!) lengthy video (2yrs 16 minutes!) - I don't recommend it!.
These are a couple of news reports of the launch in Nov 21 and a progress report in April 22. It would seem that this is more than just a bit of "kite flying" and that we can expect the group to have made a formal application as part of the T List renewal process.
Scottish Daily Express
The Herald

Certainly "sport" is an under-represented historical cultural element on the List (leaving aside the sports of Rome, Greece and Meso-America... and bull fighting I suppose!) - and a site related to the development of "Soccer" would seem to be one which it would be very nice to have if a genuinely authentic early one could be found. Whether this proposal cuts it I might doubt - are there really enough "tangible" remains from that early period (1871-3) - "We discovered the footings of the 1st Hampden pavilion".....? But, it would be quite amusing if Scotland beat England (the self styled "home of football") to the post on this one! England's "Football Association" was created in 1863 and the first FA cup was in 1871. The Scottish FA was formed in 1873.

Sankey Viaduct
A bit of background on this UK T List applicant identified by @Liam above. This is the Wiki entry for the viaduct and this is another good source of information.

a. The application has been reported in the local media - The St Helens Star and The Liverpool Echo (both May 2022)

b. The Application for T List status is a part of a much bigger "Heritage Strategy" for the Borough of St Helens. This was developed in 2019 and is intended to cover the years through to 2030. Notably, gaining WHS status is neither major nor an essential part of the strategy. The report proposes "Explore feasibility and interest in developing a campaign to achieve UNESCO World Heritage List status for the Liverpool & Manchester Railway, leading to a decision as to whether to proceed" but the "Sankey Viaduct Heritage Park" will go ahead whatever. Whether any T List application will relate solely to the Viaduct and its heritage park or will include parts of the Liverpool & Manchester Railway beyond it isn't yet clear.

c. There is no doubt that it is "unfortunate" that UK has, so far, been unable to find/progress a WHS related to its early Railway development. The Forth Railway Bridge (1882-90) isn't from that period.. The UK T List had an entry for "The Great Western Railway: Paddington- Bristol (selected parts)" from 1999-2012 but it was removed by the 2011 Review. That review faced 2 early "Railway related" applications - The Great Western Railway from the 1999 T List and "The Birth of the Railways: genesis of modern transport, England " - a multi site proposal covering the North East of England and the Manchester area (The Sankey Viaduct didn't get a specific mention however). It rejected both with the comment that "The Panel were concerned by the overlapping proposals in this area (see also no.30). There is a need for a study to consider whether it is possible to identify a coherent nomination relating to the early development of railways, undoubtedly an area in which the UK made a very significant global contribution. If such a coherent proposal can be developed, the Government should consider adding it at a future date to the new Tentative List". I have found no evidence that such a study and recommendation has taken place.

d. Way back in 1999 ICOMOS produced a report titled "Railways as World Heritage sites". Although the main author was from UK (Antony Coulls - currently Senior Curator of Rail Transport and Technology at the National Railway Museum) it was paid for by Austria.....I wonder why? Ah - of course , Austria had been pursuing its nomination for the Semmering Railway and no doubt obtained both information and kudos from the study which included that railway! The study also covered "The Liverpool and Manchester Railway" (including the Sankey Viaduct) as one of its 6 Case Studies. Its conclusion was very bullish - "As the railway which set the precedent for what was to come, the Liverpool & Manchester Railway is a remarkable survival of a transport corridor that demonstrates the relevance of many of the proposed criteria for World Heritage status."

e. Of course WHS nominations for Railways have moved on a long way since 1999 - most recently with the inscription of the entire Trans-Iranian Railway - all 1394kms of it! To think that, back in 1999, UK was concerned how it might nominate the Great Western Railway and had settled on the "String of Pearls" approach, selecting a few jewels along the line - Iran should of course have done the same!

f. In conclusion, it would seem that a focussed approach as per a posssible "Sankey Viaduct" T List entry might be more favourably received by the Review Panel than the dual extensive applications made in 2011. The sponsor - St Helens Council - also seems to be serious in progressing any nomination. However, there is still the problem that there doesn't seem to have been an overall UK Railway study to determine the best approach for representing its early Railway Heritage on the List. Is this "enough" and is it the "best"? Given the examples of entire lines in other countries, might this "small" listing might be considered a bit "timid". I suspect tht UK would be happy just to have a relatively "small" representative of that heritage and thus avoid the problems caused by excessively "large" inscribed areas and all the potential restrictions on development which they bring with them as evidenced by the Liverpool WHS. (on that matter- it is notable that we now have 3 T List applications situated within c15 miles of Liverpool - despite its removal from the List). Those wedded to the virtues of the Railway Heritage of North East England - home of the Stockton & Darlington Railway (the World's first public railway to use steam locos and also the home of the world's oldest continuously operating railway bridge - 1825 compared with Sankey Viaduct's 1830, albeit much smaller) and those from the West Country - convinced that Isambard Kingdom Brunel built the greatest railways, might disagree of course!

Another possible candidate, whose interest in gaining World Heritage status arose and has been documented since the 2011 T List review, is the village of Lavenham. It perhaps doesn't have the recent "chatter" and news reports as has been the case with E.g Port Sunlight but I list below what I have found regarding its possible application. Whether the objective of applying has already "died" we will have to wait and see!

a. It first indicated interest in the Draft "Lavenham Neighbourhood Plan" of 2014. This was publicized by the BBC at the time.
b. However, during the planning "consultation phase", English Heritage commented by letter on a number of matters relating to "the historic environment" and poured considerable cold water on the possibility – "Policy P14 is concerned with investigating the feasibility of adding Laveham to the UK's tentative list for UNESCO world heritage sites. While Lavenham is an exceptionally fine historic town, English Heritage believes that it will be difficult to make a case that meets the criteria for Outstanding Universal Value, which is a requirement for World Heritage Status. Also, while there are potential economic benefits that can be derived from WHS inscription, there are significant costs in achieving and sustaining this status and ensuring that the UK continues to meet the terms of the World Heritage Convention" One consultee commented this concern "Personally I do not believe that Lavenham comes into that sort of category and, if it did, the local people and organizations would lose control of various ways in which the village works."
c. Nevertheless the final version of the Plan agreed and published in 2016 included this statement "Project P13: UK Tentative list; The Parish Council will encourage consultation on the feasibility of Lavenham being added to the UK's tentative list for recognition as a UNESCO World Heritage Site and will take steps to achieve this if appropriate.". How it maintained the ambition despite the negative English Heritage response isn't clear. It does represent a very minor part of the Plan which was put to a referendum and accepted with around 90% in favour (page 61).
d. Nothing more seems to have happened although the current (and since 2015) local MP claims on his Web site that he is "campaigning for UNESCO World Heritage status for the historic village of Lavenham" Now I suppose is "the moment"" to do something about it (though one might have hoped for more evidence of earlier background work and lobbying/gaining of support)!!

I suspect that very few WHS travellers who have visited UK from "overseas" will have visited Lavenham – or even heard of it. It is situated in East Anglia around 75 miles NE of London and is one of a number of towns (with Hadbury, Sudbury and Long Melford) which grew rich (indeed among the richest towns in England at the time) on the Wool trade in the 15th/16th centuries. It was "left behind" by the Industrial Revolution and only ever had a "branch line" railway station. As a result, its 15th/16th C built heritage and overall late Mediaeval layout remains remarkably intact. In many ways it is the archetypal English village of half-timbered houses with a fine range of public buildings such as its Guildhall, together with an enormous church whose size and magnificence is out of proportion to the size of the village. See Wiki

No doubt such a nomination could be seen as being rather unadventurous, even "sameish" as others around the World but it does seem a major gap in UK's inscribed list that there is no village of vernacular buildings which conforms to the iconic "chocolate box" image of a past rural England. Surely there is a need for the List to reflect the range of regional vernacular heritage – Hungary has Holloko, Germany has Quedlinburg, Sweden has Gammelstad, Turkey has...... etc etc for many other European (and beyond)? If Korea can have Hahoe and Yandong what is so difficult or extreme about finding specific and previously unrepresented value in English vernacular architecture?? Do they not each possess enough of their own unique aspects if properly investigated and "told"? There does seem to be an element of defeatism and lack of imagination in the English Heritage response!! Unless of course England really does want to opt out of further nominations because of "cost" etc or only look for sites with Industrial or post-Industrial heritage!! I am sure that Belgium or France would have put together something along the lines of "The Wool Heritage of East Anglia" covering villages in Dedham Vale (A designated "Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty") and the Stour Valley in which Lavenham is situated. Add in "Constable Country" and surely it can have as much "OUV" as the works of a minor architect from Uruguay or some Pauper Colonies in Belgium (etc, etc, etc) !!! Is this sort of Nomination really to be dismissed as not having OUV because, as with inscribing yet another Cathedral, Latin American town or European city, it has "all been done before"?

Oh I actually discussed thos one on another thread, reposting here as it is relevant:

Oh yes a lovely idea, 99% sure nothing will ever come of it, but it has my support :)

They even have their own bid website (also promotes their own Football tours of Glasgow).

I know other sites have played up their role in disseminating sport or culture around the world (Cornish Mines and rugby spring to mind), however they all used it as support for a very tangible peice of built heritage, that already had some sort of OUV. This site, with the best will in the world, doesn't have that. It is a bowls club, a brewery and the most tangible Hampden Park.

Now Hampden was at one stage the largest stadium in the world but that isn't really the stadium that is there today, which even the most ardent Scottish fan would probably regard as the 4th or 5th worst national stadium out of the 5 in the UK and Ireland.

Still fair play to them, it is a really interesting propossal, just doesn't really have a chance of getting near the t-list. It does make me want to go on one of their tours though, and I guess that is the main aim.

The Wetlands of the English East Coast (serial nomination)
- Humber Estuary
- The Wash
- Wallasea Island
- Holkham Beach
- Minsmere RSPB reserve

This nomination is an expansion (I believe) on the former tentative nomination "The Wash and North Norfolk Coast" which was removed from the UK tentative list in 2012.

https://www.itv.com/news/anglia/2022-10-19/englands-east-coast-bids-for-same-status-as-great-barrier-reef-and-grand-canyon

An interesting development.
The T List proposal is said to have been "led by the RSPB and supported by the National Trust, Wildfowl and Wetlands Trust and the Crown Estate". The RSPB is an internationally respected organization with a high profile. It would seem unlikely that it would get itself involved in such a proposal without having some background knowledge (possibly including putting out feelers to IUCN?) that it might be received positively. Here is the RSPB "take" on its initiative. We are told that "A new report, authored by ABPmer, has confirmed the outstanding universal value of the English east coast wetlands and their role in the East Atlantic Flyway." Marine Consultancy ABPmer seems to have credibility regarding Marine environmental matters but I am not sure how "good" it is at assessing World Heritage OUV!!! I note that its Mission statement includes "delighting clients" - let's hope that RSPB is "delighted"!

But the area doesn't figure in any of the "gap lists" regarding Natural WHS of which I am aware. Indeed, if anything, the opposite could apply. There seems to have been a plethora of "Flyway" nominations recently. I have just checked an email exchange I had with Els back in late Feb 2008 when the concept of "Connections" was being developed. I note proposing one for "East Atlantic Migratory Flyway - Donana, Banc d'Arguin, Djoudj". Well that "Connection", as Els's "Blog" of May 2020 identifies, has morphed into one called "Bird Migrations" ("WHS that are key stopover sites for birds on one of the major flyways.") and now has 52 entries

To be fair, many of these "connections" are for WHS whose "migratory" aspect is a relatively minor element of their total OUV. But there have been a number also where it has been the major one – e.g Wadden See (2009), Migratory Bird Sites (China 2019), Getbol (Korea 2021). China had also hoped to add to that WHS in 2023 with "The Coast of the Bohai Gulf and the Yellow Sea of China". Are we seeing a "Natural site" equivalent to the many cultural Viticulture sites by which almost any Reserve on a flyway claims OUV?! All "Flyway sites" are "important" of course but what makes them so important as to justify WH inscription??

The East Atlantic flyway already has at least 4 WHS – is there "room" for another in the form of UK's East Coast Wetlands which are so close to the Wadden See? Guinea Bissau has another Eastern Atlantic Flyway site on its T List in the form of the Bijagos Islands but a nomination was deferred in 2013 for "protection" rather than "OUV" concerns, so we could expect it to return some day - "La Guinée-Bissau a présenté une première fois le dossier de candidature au patrimoine mondial. La réponse de l'UNESCO a été de dire : « Oui, effectivement, l'archipel des Bijagos présente un caractère universel exceptionnel ». Par contre, d'après leur appréciation, le gouvernement de la Guinée-Bissau n'a pas encore les moyens suffisants pour faire en sorte de conserver ce patrimoine sur le long terme".

Regarding the possibly upcoming UK T List entry – Here is a map (scroll down) of the possible locations. It covers a surprisingly large chunk of England's (non "cliff") Eastern coastline (I would suspect that much of the rest is town/industrial or caravan sites)! But, in that respect, is it really any different from the multiple sites on the Chinese and Korean "equivalents"? The full report from which the map has presumably been taken is unfortunately not available as far as I can see - so I can't check one aspect of the map which seems surprising - namely that it seems to highlight the "inland" Broads as well as the "true" coastal wetlands (Going North, the last area of yellow before the coast turns West towards the Wash). None of the other reports mentions this area of lakes and rivers formed both by sea level changes and man-made peat workings and now a major UK holiday area.

Apart from the "Broads" issue, one other location stands out in particular for me – Wallasea Island. This has been subject to a lengthy and costly project of "rewilding" titled "The Wild Coast Project".... "a landmark conservation and engineering scheme for the 21st century on a scale never before attempted in the UK and the largest of its type in Europe". As early as the 15thC the area of creeks and banks had been drained and walled (originally by the Dutch!) for agricultural use and eventually became fully ploughed. It has now been returned to creeks and mudflats using much of the "spoil" from London's latest underground project "Crossrail". "The project made new land areas including seven artificial islands and saw the bulldozing of 300m of the seawall to flood 115 hectares of farmland. This new landscape has evolved into a stable natural environment of mudflats, salt water lakes and coastline that provide more habitat for wildlife, particularly wading birds". IUCN is "big" into such developments and I would expect to see this one highlighted in any nomination as an examplar of the "way forward" in such matters, rather than something to be hidden away!.

Finally it might be worth recording this document (downloadable here) which emerged in my searches for other potentially upcoming "Flyway" nominations. It relates to the Volga Delta. ("The Volga Delta is a crossroad of flyways of many migratory waterfowl and water-related bird species."). Although dated 2008 it doesn't seem to have resulted in any action by Russia to add the area to its T List.

No appetite in Berwick to become World Heritage:

Councillors decide against fresh bid to gain world heritage status for Berwick

The article conclues with the astonishing sentence: "The Pyramids of Egypt, the Great Barrier Reef in Australia and Liverpool's historic docklands all have world heritage status."

Wow that is much more extensive than I thought, Goole -> Whitstable.

With a bit of a tweak (RSPB reserve at Rainham Marshes) London could even get a 5th WHS from it, and Chatham could end up being double inscribed.

I will admit, I have no real idea on the value of it in natural terms, though it acts as a mirror to the Wadden Sea on the other side of the North Sea, which seems like a reasonable precedent.

Looks like they have corrected that one now.

Though Liverpool seemed like an odd choice. They are equidistant to Hadrian's Wall and Edinburgh, both of which would have seemed like more known and relevant sites to choose.

Whilst searching for some info yesterday I came across a number of recent documents about UK "World Heritage matters"
I reference them here as book marks! As far as I can remember and discover they have not been recorded here before,

a. UK WORLD HERITAGE ASSET FOR THE FUTURE - A Review of the State of UK World Heritage Sites. Technical Report 2019 by an organisation titled World Heritage UK ("the only independent body focussed exclusively on the UK World Heritage Sites with its membership drawn locally from the Sites themselves").
It is a massive (209 page!!) and glossy review of UK WHS sites, policy etc etc. It concludes "The Review has highlighted the need to turn the UK Collection of World Heritage Sites from undervalued places to major national and local assets and to establish their future management as exemplary in global terms. WH:UK is recommending a Plan of Action. The Plan should be the essential starting point and a catalyst for addressing the current shortcomings of World Heritage Site management and conservation in the UK. WH:UK is encouraging the UK Government to build on the Review and take a lead with other stakeholders in progressing the propositions in the Plan."
As far as I can see nothing has happened on any of its points! It predated the Liverpool de-listing. It doesn't really cover the issue of where UK should go next with its T List. It contains an interesting "model" of the stages "followed" by UK in gaining inscriptions (which I feel possibly owes too much to post hoc attempts to assign a rationality which wasn't actually present!) and some amazing (in my eyes!) info about the cost of UK WHS

b. 2 Expert Documents about the Liverpool site delisting. IMO they both make legitimate criticisms of UNESCO's approach to the preservation of cities like Liverpool
i. Article in the "Town and Country Planning" Journal titled "lessons from a sorry world heritage saga"
ii. Article in the Institute of Historic Building Conservation's members' journal (Dec 2021) titled "What was Unesco up to in Liverpool?"(This partly involves the same guy as wrote the other article)

9 Scottish locations that could be UNESCO World Heritage sites according to Scotsman readers

These 9 Scottisch locations are named by the readers:
1. The Isle of Iona
2. The Old Course at St Andrews
3. Arbroath Abbey
4. The Flow Country (nominated for 2024)
5. Shetland's Iron Age Settlements
6. The Isle of Islay
7. The Isle of Staffa
8. Glenfinnan
9. Cairngorms National Park

Any you agree with and could be a worthy addition to the List?

The Scotsman has published such lists in the past. Only the Cairngorms really grab my attention as a potential great addition to the world heritage list and the Shetland Settlements being the next best candidate.


If Scotland does become an Independent nation (it might not off course) Cairngorms National Park would likely be added to their tentative list. The Cairngorms Mountains were dropped from the UK Tentative List in 2012. Despite its complications of having multiple towns and villages within the boundaries of the park (perhaps more appropriate as a UNESCO Biosphere Reserve?), there is potential for OUV. In fact, Cairngorms National Park has been discussed as one of only a few promising candidate locations (for one day) reintroducing wolves to Britain. While controversial, it's a very real possibility in the coming decades. With the parks expansion during the past two decades and various other "rewilding" projects in progress, it might be only a matter of time before its seriously discussed again for world heritage status.

Indeed! See this article from The Scotsman in April 2018 - "10 Scottish locations that should be World Heritage sites". The reduction from 10 to 9 in the intervening years reflects the destruction of the Glasgow School of Art in a second fire in June 2018 - all the other suggestions remain the same. The Scotsman must keep the article on file as a "column filler"!

BUT - the time and effort giving the 9 remaining sites a quick perusal and investigation was not wasted! Whilst looking at "7. The Isle of Staffa" I thought that its best chance would have been to have been nominated together with the Giants Causeway (GC) way back in 1986. Its most famous landmark, Fingal's Cave, was, after all, created 50 million years ago by the same lava flows as created the GC – both acquiring similar polygonal "columnar jointed" rocks.

So I had a look at the documents relating to the 1986 GC Nomination to see if anything was said about Staffa/Fingals Cave at that time and made the very surprising (to me at least!!!) discovery that UK must have actually nominated GC on both Natural AND Cultural grounds!!! We do not have the Nomination file but we DO have both the ICOMOS AND IUCN evaluations!!! ICOMOS surely would NOT have evaluated the site unless it had been a "Mixed" natural/cultural nomination?
Its evaluation states
"ICOMOS RECOMMENDATION
That the proposed property be included on the World Heritage List on the basis of criterion II" and "ICOMOS believes that the Giant's Causeway, though a natural site, is no less a part of mankind's cultural heritage. It meets criterion II of the guidelines for cultural properties, since it influenced considerably the development of the arts during the pre-Romantic and Romantic periods".... but concluded "If the Committee wants the Giant's Causeway to be included as a cultural property, it would be only logical to require that a complementary proposal be made. This would add the Great Causeway and Fingal's Cave on Staffa Island, since these two properties are indissociable from the legend." (sic)

Despite this apparent recommendation for inscription on Cultural criterion II, the site was subsequently inscribed SOLELY on Natural criteria and nothing, as far as I can find, was ever heard again of a Cultural inscription either for GC or for Staffa!!!! 1986 was a very different era in "matters WHS". I really can't see the Mendelssohnian or the Celtic legendary arguments used in 1986 cutting much ice for a nomination in 2023

The IUCN evaluation also considered Staffa when doing its "comparison section" and concluded "Staffa is famed for its columnar basaltic lavas (at Fingal's Cave) which are spectacular but not better than those of the Causeway and the locality lacks the clear development of a thick succession of flows." Followed by "the only serious rival would be the Isle of Canna (owned by the National Trust for Scotland) where most of the Causeway's features may be seen together with evidence for explosive volcanism and for the presence of ancient river valleys with gravel infills. However Canna does not have the accessibility of the Causeway area either in terms of getting to the locality or of approaching the features once one has arrived at the island". It is difficult to see why "accessibility" should play any part in determining whether a natural site should be inscribed but that was then. In any case IUCN didn't want to push the Natural case for Staffa and even saw Canna as being a better example of the natural values!

None of this, of course, gives much hope for any future Fingal's Cave nomination.
Columnar jointing isn't that rare around the World. See Wiki for a list and this Connection of existing inscribed sites