Or what profit does it make? Well now we know, thanks to a question by Andrew Rosindell MP (Conservative), who asked the Secretary of State for Culture, Olympics, Media and Sport. John Penrose replied with some basic figures from English Heritage, which graphed look like this (with my calculations for “profit”). This excludes a total of £3.6m spent 2008–11 on “environmental improvements project” (presumably THE project, against which EH was able to set a £1m grant from the SW Regional Development Agency). It’s a tough place to manage, but if that’s what it can do now, the suggestion is that any money government were to invest in the site would pay dividends.
Advertisements
The problem with this chart is it offers a black and white view. If Stonehenge was self sufficient it’d be fine. The site is no doubt EH’s jewel in its crown and most visited site. People will continue to pay anything. Any revenue it makes is filtered off to it’s 400 other sites which are unprofitable, as well as financing Blue Plaque Awards, independent scheduling grants for private home owners and excavation & research.