Sorry to disappoint, but everything I got was from this site, which was located on the list of pending sites page. (copy/paste) If anything is inaccurate or perhaps new, it would be more useful asking Els
OK Els where did we get
City of Charlestown (St Kitts)
for 2003 from? They aren't listed in the "Nomination histories" of the respective T LIst pages and I can't find them in the papers for 2003!
I homed in on them because I have become quite interested in "Step Wells" following this year's trip to India and was surprised to find that Rani-ki-kav had been nominated back in 2003!
It seems The monasteries of Tatev and Tatevi have been pending since 1978 so apparently there are no limits as the pending time.
I don't think that there is officially such a concept as "Pending" (though such a list is of course of interest to us in order show which sites at least got a far as getting nominated and not rejected - but should "Withdrawn" not also be included in our definition of "Pending"?) except in so far as a site has been REferred. The Operational Guidelines state "A referred nomination which is not presented to the Committee within three years of the original Committee decision will be considered as a new nomination when it is resubmitted for examination".
DEferred nominations can take as long as it takes to come back in and as far as I can see gain no benefit from having previously been deferred. Only "REferrals" avoid the need to have another AB "visit" so deferrals are treated just as any other "new" nomination
The only other benefit from having been previously de/referred arises from a recommendation at this year's WHC and applies solely to Committee members - "Recommends Committee members consider refraining from bringing forward new nominations that might be discussed during their term serving on the Committee, without prejudice to nomination files already submitted, deferred or referred during previous Committee sessions"
On which subject - Another "minor" administrative "Decision" made towards the end of this year's WHC which might have passed unnoticed was for the WH Centre and AB's to "Assess the advantages and disadvantages of merging the referral and deferral options for consideration of a nomination into a single mechanism".
A large amount of time was spent during this year's WHC arguing over whether some sites should be REferred or DEferred (even to the extent of having secret ballots!!)- and there were were widely differnt views over the pros/cons of each to the State Party. Indeed ther was a view that it was often a downside for the State Party NOT to have a further AB visit