The United Nations body, Unesco, sent a mission to Bath last November to assess the state of conservation of the city of Bath World Heritage site.

In an advance copy of its report sent to the British Government Department of Culture, Media and Sport which deals with World Heritage matters, the mission said: "The mission would like to remind the state party (the United Kingdom) that, in conformity with Paragraph 172 of the (World Heritage) Operational Guidelines, it is requested to inform the World Heritage Committee of any new development projects within the city of Bath World Heritage property and the green belt (such as the potential rugby field)".

In its comments on this passage the department said (prompted by our council?): "A green belt is a specific land use and policy designation under UK law and is not an interchangeable description of the landscape surrounding the property or its setting."

The report refers to a "potential rugby field". This is inaccurate. Although the possibility of a rugby stadium has in the past been discussed, no specific development proposal is currently under consideration. We therefore requested that the reference "...and the green belt (such as the potential rugby field)" be deleted.

In response, the mission deleted its reference to the green belt but, significantly, retained its request that the World Heritage Committee is informed of the potential rugby field.

It is high time we got behind the rugby club in seeking alternative locations for their ground. Why not part of Western Riverside for a sports stadium (not just for rugby)?

In its report, the mission said that: "B&NES council should be encouraged to adopt clear guidelines regarding the use of any location in the flood plains and along the river banks in Bath (such as The Rec, the Newark works area, South Quays etc) so as to prevent any development which could have cumulative adverse impact on the property's Outstanding Universal Value and integrity."

ANTHONY CROMBIE The Bath Society Green Park Station, Bath