Minister for the Environment Dick Roche protests against the "misinformation, disinformation and downright distortion" in the debate over the M3 motorway
One of the most striking features of the debate on the M3 motorway in Co Meath is the amount of misinformation, disinformation and downright distortion that has been introduced into the topic. It is worth recalling the facts.
These motorway proposals have been through a lengthy and extremely open planning process. Meath County Council carried out an extensive information campaign with local displays attended by over 4,000 people. In August 2003 An Bord Pleanála after lengthy consideration, including a public oral hearing that lasted over 28 days, issued findings favouring the motorway proposal.
One very odd feature of this case is that some of the most prominent academic critics who have railed against the archaeological directions I issued last week failed to make any submission to Meath County Council or to An Bord Pleanála and did not seek to address the oral hearing. No one subsequently challenged that decision in court within the time allowed.
Two other often overlooked facts are also worth recalling. First, the route approved by the planning process is farther from the Hill of Tara than the existing sub standard and highly dangerous N3 national primary road. And, second, the route avoids most of the known archaeology.
In September 2004 Meath County Council applied for directions in relation to the archaeological works to be undertaken at 38 sites along this 15.5km section of the route. The decision, which I made last week, and which has given rise to such vociferous reaction, was to issue detailed directions in relation to these archaeological works after consultation with the director of the National Museum, Dr Pat Wallace.
Dr Wallace offered detailed comments as to how excavations should be handled. These comments are reflected closely in the directions that I issued.
The directions provide that the archaeological works are to be carried out to the highest standards by professional archaeologists. They provide that should additional time or resources be required for the archaeological works, the time scale must be extended or the archaeological team enlarged as necessary. The excavations will be subject to ongoing inspection by State archaeologists. Even the vociferous critics have had little or nothing to say about the directions.
The director also made comments as to his personal views on the route, views which I respect but which are more relevant to the planning process that completed in 2003.
In this newspaper (May 12th), Frank McDonald suggested that I was being disingenuous regarding my role in relation to the M3 road development. In fact those who have claimed the National Monuments Acts could be used as a way of second guessing the planning process are being disingenuous.
The powers, which I exercise under the National Monuments Acts, are quite specific. They were never intended as a means of second guessing the planning process. The Acts were not put on the statute books to be an additional layer in our already complex, and extraordinary open, planning system.
To use the provisions of the Acts, as some are suggesting I should do, in an attempt to stymie a properly approved project would represent a very serious misuse of ministerial power.
The suggestion that any Minister should knowingly and intentionally abuse powers given in law is a novel one. It is surprising that a respected commentator such as Frank McDonald should decide to align himself with those who believe that I should act in this manner.
Concerns about pressures in the vicinity of motorways are valid. As pointed out by Prof Gabriel Cooney in his article in The Irish Times (May 16th), these can be addressed within the planning system.
We can ensure that appropriate planning policies are in place to provide for the future protection of this area.
I am taking action now, well in advance of the motorway being built, to ensure that robust controls are put in place.
Meath County Council is currently preparing a new development plan. I have instructed my department to engage with the council to stress the need for the plan to contain objectives to protect the archaeology, amenities and setting of the Hill of Tara and of the surrounding area. In addition, I am a statutory consultee under the planning code. Individual planning applications with heritage implications must be referred to my department for comment. As a further important safeguard, I have indicated that I am prepared to use this provision fully so as to prevent inappropriate development.
The use of the planning system in this way is a more lawful approach than that proposed by those who advocate abusing the provisions of the National Monuments Acts.
Much comment has been made on the landscape at Tara. Most of the comment is relevant to the planning process finalised in 2003; however a number of points arise which the critics have chosen to ignore.
This landscape has been altered many times in the past. Successive generations, from pre-history to modern times, have impacted on the landscape. They have, in many cases, removed all visible surface representations of the works of their predecessors.
This is, also, a living landscape with homes and farms and an existing transport corridor. This has been ignored by the critics.Given that Tara was the ancient hub of Ireland's native road system there is a certain irony in the current sometimes heated debate.
Throughout history the road from Dublin to Navan has altered. At one stage it ran through Tara village. In the 18th century a turnpike road was built to the east of this - the existing N3. The proposed M3 carries on this sequence by moving the route still farther from the Hill.
The key question raised in this case is one of balance; balance between needs and rights and responsibilities.
The directions I have issued, and which have been ignored by the critics, represent a measured approach. They protect heritage but do not deny the people of Meath and the surrounding counties the modern transport infrastructure that they need.
One octogenarian that contacted me pointed out that history and heritage are important. Both must be protected. But families and communities are also important. They too need consideration. The critics have "majored" on the former while ignoring the latter.