YES: Julitta Clancysays the current route is neither morally nor economically sustainable. NO: Minority opposition must not be allowed to impede a carefully planned and much needed route, argues Michael Cassidy.
'If Tara is a symbol of our national and cultural identity," wrote Conor Newman, Edel Bhreathnach and Joe Fenwick in History Ireland in 2004, "this roadway will stand as a permanent monument to a loss of direction, meaning and identity." The Tara/M3 issue is not about heritage versus progress, or about individual monuments. The national issue which has dogged the process from the beginning is why a landscape of such importance in Irish history, culture and identity was included in a motorway and a local planning process. What is the compelling reason for routing this lengthy motorway through the Tara-Skryne valley, a vandalism akin to driving a motorway through Newgrange and Knowth?
The M3 is one of four motorways traversing Meath, a county which boasts a rich heritage of international renown, including the landscapes of Tara, Brú na Bóinne and Lough Crew, which attract hundreds of thousands of visitors each year, bringing jobs and investment into the county. Tara is a place of iconic status for Ireland, and to drive a motorway through it and "preserve by record" the monuments in its way is surely beneath our national dignity. It is neither morally nor economically sustainable.
Those opposed to re-routing argue, firstly, that the M3 is urgently needed to relieve commuter suffering and congestion in our towns, and to open the county to investment; secondly, that Tara consists solely of the monuments on the Hill of Tara and the "M3 is further away than the existing N3"; and, thirdly, that the integrity of the planning process must be respected.
On the first point, we have stated repeatedly that we do not oppose the motorway per se - we simply challenge its routing through the Tara landscape. We live in Meath and are painfully aware of the deficiencies in our transport infrastructure in the context of a rapidly growing population. Whether the M3 can be seen as a panacea is another question.
The second argument has been convincingly refuted by experts. The monumental ritual complex on the Hill of Tara is the focus of a wider archaeological and historical landscape of national and international importance. An Bord Pleanála has recognised this in refusing permission for two substantial developments in the valley since the M3 decision, and the new National Development Plan describes the Tara-Skryne area as being of "exceptional value", of "international importance", an area "highly sensitive to development" and worthy of designation as a "Landscape Conservation Area".
On the third point, the inclusion of the Tara landscape in this motorway, contrary to expert advice (including the roads authority's archaeological consultants), clearly demonstrates that the planning process did not proceed with the degree of rigour required in dealing with an area of such importance.
In addition, the process did not allow for the meaningful public discourse envisaged by EU directives. An informed discourse would have averted the present mess, preserved the landscape and delivered an integrated transport solution capable of completion within the original target date. It is important here to recall that of the six routes presented during the consultation process, only one was outside the Tara hinterland, the only one recommended unreservedly by the archaeological consultants. This route was never properly investigated and neither the planning inquiry nor the State's heritage protection agency questioned why.
Finally, we are condemned for not seeking judicial review of the M3 decision. Such an action would have addressed only procedural/technical deficiencies; the substantive issue could not have been raised, and the costs individually would have been enormous. Such is the fairness of the process!
So what can be done? The Lismullin discovery and a new Government have provided an opportunity to re-examine the issue. It is not too late to re-route; the landscape is intact and must be preserved, and the legislation allows for re-routing. All that is required is political will and ingenuity. The Tara-Skryne section (including the 26-acre Blundelstown interchange) must be reviewed by an independent committee of experts, and the rest of the route, particularly the bypasses, can progress as planned.
Meanwhile, the Navan rail line should be expedited, the dangerous sections of the N3 made safe and deficiencies in the M3, such as its routing into the M50 bottleneck at Blanchardstown/Ashtown, reviewed.
As for Tara, a well-managed heritage park would attract more visitors to Meath, and the National Roads Authority could provide initial funding, in recompense for the damage it has done.
Julitta Clancy is a council member and former president of the Meath Archaeological and Historical Society
In 1999, the M3 motorway began its journey along the longest planning process in the history of the State. The chosen route received full approval by An Bord Pleanála in 2003 following a 28-day oral hearing addressing all issues of concern, such as potential impacts on the Hill of Tara and the archaeology of the area.
However, minority opposition groups continue to obstruct the progress of one of the most carefully planned projects in modern Irish infrastructure - a development which would enhance the economic potential of the region and greatly ease the burden for Meath's 20,000 commuters.
To date, the National Roads Authority has spent in excess of €23 million on archaeology and employed more than 400 archaeologists. The M3 involved desktop, field and geographical surveys and 165 sites were identified - including Lismullin - along the 70km route with only 25 per cent of these sites lying between Dunshaughlin and Navan. This level of discovery is entirely consistent with experience on other national road schemes.
In the planning stages of the M3, 10 potential routes were identified. Actual route selection was based on 18 different factors, many of which addressed local concerns.
However, the nub of the opposition to the M3 comes down to a single topic - archaeology and history. Protesters calling for the M3 to be re-routed have failed to assess the merit of the chosen route of the M3 in a holistic context.
The current M3 route lies 1.5 miles away from the Hill of Tara, further than the existing N3. Furthermore, it will not be seen or heard from the central plateau of the hill. Even from the northeastern descent, the M3 will be less visible than the N3.
It is fair to say that any development in Meath would have an archaeological impact given its rich archaeological landscape, but every effort has been made during the route selection process to avoid all known archaeological sites.
Re-routing the M3 is therefore not a solution to the protests of the minority, and archaeology and history alone cannot be the determinant factors in the development of the region. Other issues need to be considered such as the need to minimise the severance of farms and communities; avoid house demolition; and ensure the route performs in terms of traffic.
Only one alternative route, which is known as the Pink Corridor, performed better in terms of mitigating archaeological impacts. However, this corridor had other negative impacts associated with it which, when considered in balance with archaeology, meant that it was not the optimum route.
If the protesters were to succeed in securing a route re-selection, the repercussions for the region would be catastrophic.
To date, Meath County Council has spent in excess of €150 million on the M3 and route re-selection would require a new EIS and a delay of at least three years. Given that Co Meath boasts one of the fastest growing populations in Ireland, and more than 50 per cent of the county's working population commutes daily to Dublin, prompt delivery of the M3 is crucial.
Not only will it improve the conditions for its predicted 22,000 daily users, it will also improve the entire region's attractiveness as a location to do business. Indeed if the motorway was coupled with the restoration of the rail line - as exists in Drogheda and Mullingar - commuting would become easier in both directions and the pull factors for potential investors would increase dramatically. No industry is prepared to invest in an area deficient in infrastructure, but this is just one of the issues that the M3 opponents fail to grapple with.
The current route for the M3 has majority support. In a political context, all six TDs from the Meath East and Meath West constituencies are fully supportive, while a recent survey by Orchard Research revealed that almost 80 per cent of people in the three main towns along the existing N3 corridor are in favour of, or have no objection to, the proposed M3 route. Meath Citizens for the M3 also recently surveyed local opinion along the controversial Tara-Skryne section of the route and found that 92 per cent of locals were in favour of the proposed route.
The overwhelming consensus is that the M3 should not be rerouted. Given that the M3 will be 1.5 miles away, Tara will not be damaged by the new road and it is wholly feasible for modern infrastructure to live side by side with the heritage of the past.
Michael Cassidy is a former president of Navan Chamber, which has lobbied with the support of Kells Chamber and the national organisation Chambers Ireland for the completion of the current M3 route.
Last week Jerry Shanahan and Oisín Coghlan debated the question: does Ireland need nuclear power? Here is an edited version of some of your comments:
It's a no-brainer! We can't continue to depend on fossil fuels, we can't continue to belch out greenhouse gases like there is no tomorrow, and the only currently available remedy is nuclear power. Nuclear power is a clean and safe source of power and its only downside is the storage of spent fuel. I am sure we will eventually discover a way to dispose of it more safely than the current requirement of almost indefinite storage.
- Francis Foley, Ireland
The usual tree-huggers will be out to denounce this option, as they are trying to stop the gas being brought ashore in Mayo. Let's wait till the lights go out to find a workable solution. Or let's be realistic and ask now: "Are we competent enough to build and safely run nuclear generating stations?". I believe that with a bit of leadership, the answer is yes.
- Andrew Callaghan, Ireland
Why solve one problem by creating another? Such a small nation does not require such a tremendous output of power, especially when nature has bestowed upon us a perfect environment for renewable energy. Why follow the coat-tails of countries looking for an easy way out when we can become one of the leaders of the solution?
- Joseph, Ireland
While I can understand the slight attraction to nuclear energy, by reducing our waste (in energy), by insulating and investing in clean, renewable resources, we don't need to invest in nuclear energy. Why would we bother if we don't need to?
- Ryan G, Ireland
Yes, Ireland needs to start planning immediately for a couple of nuclear power stations: one to generate electricity and the second to produce hydrogen for transport. I cycled in the rain the 70 miles to Carnsore to protest against Dessie O'Malley's plans in the 1970s, but am happy to admit now that I was wrong. It's way too late to try to develop a new wind- or wave-power technology. Denmark are world leaders in wind generators with less wind than Ireland, and they're far from self-sufficient. The selfish SUV consumers and their like refuse to change their lifestyles. They just won't do it, guys, and so, in the meantime, Greens, we need to build two nuke stations, one for hydrogen fuel for our transport, and one for home energy.
- Gary Lynch, Ireland
Why should Ireland need nuclear power? Sure, Ireland is facing an energy crisis and will have to get rid of its dependency on fossil fuel imports. But keep a few things in mind: uranium is a finite resource, as well as oil and gas, and will get a lot more expensive as it is used more; nuclear power is not clean: the emissions caused in the countries that have uranium mines do not directly affect Ireland, but they are definitely a problem that all countries using nuclear power have to face. The way it is dealt with at the moment is a shame. Nuclear power is not safe: if you do not recall the news, just type "Forsmark" or "Sellafield" into an internet search engine. And even if a safer way to dispose of nuclear waste is eventually found, we should first think of getting rid of the waste we have produced so far. Nuclear power creates more problems than it solves. The only way towards a sustainable energy supply is a massive increase in renewable power usage and a massive improvement in energy efficiency.
- Stefanie Engler, Germany
join the debate @ www.ireland.com/head2head