Heritage up a planning cul de sac
Recently, An Bord Pleanála overturned permission for a two-storey house in Co Roscommon because of its proximity to the Rathcroghan archaeological complex.
It is hard to believe that this is the same body which, almost a year ago, gave full approval for the M3 motorway to cut through the centre of the 6,000-year-old Tara landscape, and allowed for a massive floodlit interchange to be constructed just 1km from the Hill of Tara itself.
It begs the question: is the protection of our archaeological heritage a key commitment under the Valetta convention and a key goal of government?
The planning inspector in the Roscommon case, citing Rathcroghan's "sensitive landscape of significant archaeological value", considered that the house development would be "seriously injurious to the amenities of the area". Yet his colleague in the M3/Tara case could see no harm at all "no significant impact" in a motorway ploughing through what Meath County Council's own archaeological consultants described as "one of the richest and best known archaeological landscapes in Europe".
The decision by An Bord Pleanála in the Rathcroghan case was influenced by the intervention of the Department of Environment, Heritage and Local Government. How is it that this department saw the need to intervene to protect the royal complex of Rathcroghan from a two-storey house development, yet apparently saw no need whatsoever to intervene to protect the landscape of the royal complex of Tara from a massive motorway development which will not only destroy the integrity of the cultural and natural landscape but will also involve the destruction of numerous archaeological monuments in its path?
The inspector in the Roscommon case called for the "examination of alternatives that may potentially be in less sensitive locations". This logic should be applied now to Tara and the M3. There are viable alternatives to routing a motorway through the Tara-Skryne valley alternatives that would involve a re-examination of this 15km section of the proposed 63km tolled motorway and would, it is argued, more realistically and efficiently address the urgent transport and commuting needs of Co Meath while respecting its unique and important heritage.
At their July meeting Meath county councillors called on the NRA to give them a full briefing on the implications of the proposed M3 in the light of the recent report on archaeological testing which confirmed the existence of at least 28 sites in the path of the motorway in this section alone.
Is it too much to hope that the government departments responsible might now intervene while there is still time and allow for consideration of a viable compromise that would be less costly to the taxpayer and our heritage?
Julitta Clancy
Asst Secretary
Meath Archaeological & Historical Society
Parsonstown
Batterstown
Co Meath
