Hi,

You're welcome. Here is the actual text - just took it straight from the 
site. It worked for me.

Muireann.


EU Petition PDF Print E-mail

MEATH ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND HISTORICAL SOCIETY
Petition to European Parliament Petitions Committee
546/2005 (Petition by letter and email dated 1 June 2005)
Re: M3 (Clonee to Kells) Motorway and its impact on the Tara 
Archaeological and Historical Landscape, Co. Meath, Ireland
Additional information - to accompany original petition and documents
Breaches of EIA Directive 85/337/EEC (as amended by Directive 97/11/EC) 
in the Environmental Impact Assessment of the M3 Motorway Scheme, with 
particular reference to Dunshaughlin to Navan section and route running 
through the Tara archaeological landscape
Complaint re breaches/non-compliance with EIA Directive 85/337/EC (as 
amended by Directive 97/11/EC), Articles 3, 5, 6 and 8
Developers: National Roads Authority and Meath County Council
References: M3 EIS (2002), Volumes 1, 2, 4; M3 Oral Hearing - 
Inspector’s Report (July 2003) and An Bord Pleanala Decision on M3 
Motorway (August 2003)
Compiled by Julitta Clancy 
Asst. Secretary, Meath Archaeological and Historical Society
Parsonstown, Batterstown, Co. Meath.

Contents: Page

Summary of breaches identified under Articles 3, 5, 6, 8: 2

1. Article 3 breaches – Impact on Cultural heritage 3

2. Article 5 breaches – Information to be supplied by developer 21

3. Articles 6 and 8 breaches – Public consultation/participation 28

4. Conclusions 36
Appendices:
1. Meath Archaeological and Historical Society and the M3 37
2. Meath Archaeological and Historical Society petition to European 
Parliament 42
3. Maps – route selection, public consultations, EIS and Tara survey

©Meath Archaeological and Historical Society 2006
M3 (Clonee to Kells) Motorway: Dunshaughlin to Navan section

Summary of breaches identified under EIA Directives - Articles 3, 5, 6 
and 8:

1. Article 3 breaches: Cultural heritage (Paragraph numbers refer to 
Part 1 below)

The M3 environmental impact assessment process:

1.1 Failed to identify, describe and assess the direct and indirect 
effects of the motorway on the highly sensitive and uniquely important 
Tara archaeological landscape

1.2. Failed to identify, describe and assess the direct and indirect 
effects of the Blundelstown Interchange on the Tara archaeological and 
historical landscape.
1.3. Failed to reflect the findings, warnings and recommendations given 
in the route selection reports (archaeology) in relation to the impact 
on the Tara landscape
1.4 Failed to reflect and take into consideration the latest research on 
Tara and its landscape and failed to consult with the expert 
archaeologists and historians who have been researching Tara on behalf 
of the State-funded Discovery Programme since 1992.
1.5 Failed to take account of existing planning practice and heritage 
protection policy in the Tara archaeological landscape as reflected in 
the Meath County Development Plan and as exemplified in the refusal of 
the golf course application in the Tara-Skryne valley

1.6 Failed to fully assess alternative options to the routing of the 
motorway through the Tara archaeological landscape.
1.7 Failed to fully describe and assess the findings of the geophysical 
survey in relation to B2 (chosen route). The geophysical report and the 
crucial geophysical images were omitted from the EIS volumes which 
contained only a summary of the findings
1.8 Failed to take due account of the “spectacular” findings of the 
geophysical survey which should have led to re-examination of alternate 
route options, in particular the only route “unreservedly recommended” 
on archaeological grounds, i.e. route P east of Skreen
2. Article 5 breaches - Information (numbers refer to relevant sections 
of Part 2 below)

2.1 Environmental effects – EIS failed to reflect the route selection 
findings
2.2 Alteration of information in transfer to EIS
2.3 Omission of information
2.4 Alternatives studied – narrow interpretation applied in EIS


3. Articles 6 and 8 Breaches – Public consultation and Public participation
3.1 Overall process in breach of EIA requirement for meaningful public 
participation.
3.2 Public consultation sessions not conducive to meaningful public 
participation
3.3 Follow-up meetings with consultants unsatisfactory
3.4 Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) deficiencies
3.5 Oral Hearing deficiencies
3.6 Access to information: general breaches of Article 6
3.7 Access to Route Selection Reports: difficulties experienced
3.8 Access to information on consultations held with statutory bodies


[Meath Archaeological and Historical Society]
1. ARTICLE 3: IMPACT OF M3 ON “CULTURAL HERITAGE”

Article 3
“The environmental impact assessment shall identify, describe and assess 
in an appropriate manner, in the light of each individual case and in 
accordance with Articles 4 to 11, the direct and indirect effects of a 
project on the following factors:
· human beings, fauna and flora;
· soil, water, air, climate and the landscape;
· material assets and the cultural heritage;
the interaction between the factors mentioned in the first, second and 
third indents”

Summary of breaches identified: The M3 environmental impact assessment 
failed to adequately
“identify, describe and assess” the “direct and indirect effects” of the 
motorway on the “cultural
heritage”as required by Article 3, with particular reference to the 
Dunshaughlin to Navan section.
In particular, the environmental impact assessment process (in all its 
stages) failed to “identify,
describe and assess”:
· the effects of the M3 motorway on the Tara archaeological and 
historical landscape,
· the effects of the Blundelstown Interchange on the Tara archaeological 
landscape
· alternatives to a route running through the Tara archaeological landscape

List of Article 3 breaches ( numbers refer to relevant paragraphs below)

In relation to Article 3, the M3 environmental impact assessment process:

1.1 Failed to identify, describe and assess the direct and indirect 
effects of the motorway on the highly sensitive and uniquely important 
Tara archaeological and historical landscape, described in route 
selection as “one of the richest archaeological landscapes in Europe”.

1.2. Failed to identify, describe and assess the direct and indirect 
effects of the Blundelstown Interchange on the Tara archaeological and 
historical landscape.
1.3. Failed to reflect the findings, warnings and recommendations given 
in the preliminary assessments and route selection reports (archaeology) 
in relation to the Tara archaeological and historical landscape, and the 
likely impact of the route on this landscape
1.4 Failed to reflect and take into consideration the latest research on 
Tara and its landscape and failed to consult with the expert 
archaeologists and historians who have been researching Tara on behalf 
of the State-funded Discovery Programme since 1992. This failure 
inevitably led to the poorly informed definition applied to the Tara 
archaeological landscape by the Inspector
1.5 Failed to take account of existing planning practice and heritage 
protection policy in the Tara archaeological and historical landscape as 
reflected in the Meath County Development Plan and as exemplified in the 
refusal of the golf course application in the Tara-Skryne valley (2003)

1.6 Failed to fully assess alternative options to the routing of the 
motorway through the Tara archaeological landscape. Despite the 
importance and sensitivity of the landscape, geophysical surveys were 
not carried out on any of the route options before selection of the 
chosen route. Geophysical survey was only carried out on the chosen 
route, and only after this route had been selected. The geophysical 
survey did not inform the selection process
1.7 Failed to fully describe and assess the findings of the geophysical 
survey in relation to the chosen route. The geophysical report and 
images were omitted from the EIS volumes which contained only a summary 
of the findings, as interpreted by the Meath Co Council’s consultants. 
The separate geophysical report was not advertised to members of the 
public purchasing the EIS.
1.8 Failed to take due account of the “spectacular” findings of the 
geophysical survey which, given their potential and their occurrence in 
this uniquely important area, should have led to re-examination of 
alternate route options, in particular the only route “unreservedly 
recommended” on archaeological grounds, i.e. route P east of Skreen 
(outside the immediate Tara landscape).


1. ARTICLE 3 BREACHES - details:

1.1 Failure to address the impact of the M3 on the Tara archaeological 
and historical landscape: The M3 environmental impact assessment process 
(in all its stages) failed to “identify, describe and assess” the 
“direct and indirect effects” of the motorway on the highly sensitive 
and uniquely important Tara archaeological and historical landscape.
[M3 EIS Vol. 1 (Non-technical summary, para. 5.4) and Vols. 4A, 4C, 
(Dunshaughlin to Navan) Appendix E (Archaeology), 2002; Inspector’s 
Report, July 2003; An Bord Pleanala decision on M3, August 2003]

1.1.1 Tara and its landscape: The Hill of Tara has long been recognised 
as Ireland’s premier national monument. In the past 10 years, largely as 
a result of pioneering research carried out by the State-Funded 
Discovery Programme, it is now widely recognised that the monumental 
complex on the Hill is the focus of a wider archaeological and 
historical landscape which is of national and international importance, 
a landscape which deserves the fullest possible protection

· “… The Hill of Tara represents the ritual and political core of a far 
larger territory or landscape. It cannot be regarded, or treated of, in 
isolation from this broader landscape because this would be to divorce 
it from its cultural and geographical context. … all our researches 
point to the valley between Tara and Skreen as an area of paramount 
importance throughout the history of Tara.”

[Conor Newman, archaeologist, NUI Galway, director of the Discovery 
Programme’s Tara Survey, submission to M3 oral hearing, Sept. 2002]

· “… I believe Tara and the complex or association of monuments and 
sacred spaces in its surroundings to be the most important of their type 
in Ireland, if not in Europe. Taken together, this group of monuments 
constitute an archaeological and cultural landscape which deserves the 
fullest and most generous archaeological protection”
[Dr Pat Wallace, Director of the National Museum of Ireland, letter to 
the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, 16 
March 2005]
· “Archaeological and historical investigation over the past 10 years 
have conclusively demonstrated that what was understood to be Tara in 
antiquity consists of the hill and its hinterland. This area is 
recognised, both nationally and internationally, as a landscape of 
extreme importance.”
[Statement signed by 17 leading archaeologists and historians, 21 
September 2004, accompanying letter published in Irish national newspapers]

· “This is a landscape not just a hill … it is the hill that is the 
focus of the more extensive landscape, a landscape that was understood 
by different generations, different peoples as their own, but all of 
their understanding rooted in the past.”

[Dr Edel Bhreathnach, O Cleirigh Institute, UCD, former Research Fellow 
with the Discovery Programme’s Tara Survey, presentation to MAHS seminar 
on the M3, 11 June 2005. Session I, p. 4]]

· “It would be hard to overstate the national and international 
importance of Tara. The Hill of Tara is only one element of a wider 
related archaeological landscape, the additional richness of which is 
continually being further revealed.”
[Dr Brian Lacey, CEO Discovery Programme, presentation to the Oireachtas 
Committee on the Environment, 2 Feb. 2005]


· “The monuments and sites at Tara have long been known to be of great 
historical and cultural importance, but in recent years major new 
discoveries have come to light, largely through the non-intrusive survey 
and research work undertaken by the Discovery Programme. These 
discoveries attest not only to a much larger collection of prehistoric 
monuments on the hill of Tara itself, but also to a much wider 
hinterland for the Tara complex, spreading across the valley and 
comprising an area of continuous human settlement over thousands of 
years. It is through this area that the proposed M3 will run!”
[Meath Archaeological and Historical Society submission to the M3 oral 
hearing, 12 September 2002]


1.1.2 M3 impact on Tara – concerns of archaeologists and historians: 
Eminent archaeologists and historians in Ireland and abroad – including 
the Discovery Programme experts on Tara’s archaeology and history - have 
expressed grave concern as to the impact which the M3 will have on Tara. 
They fear that the M3 as presently proposed will:

· destroy the cultural integrity of the Tara archaeological landscape

· irreparably damage the character, appearance and interpretative 
experience of Tara and Skreen

· destroy numerous archaeological sites and monuments discovered (and 
yet to be discovered along this section of the route), sites which are 
“part and parcel” of Tara and which should be treated only as part of a 
properly designed research plan, and

· inevitably lead to largescale development in the vicinity and 
landscape of Tara, particularly in the vicinity of the Blundelstown 
Interchange, further eroding the quality, experience and enjoyment of 
the landscape

· “Recent research has demonstrated that Tara is a much more significant 
complex than previously thought. The proposed motorway will pass through 
this very sensitive landscape and, in so doing, will destroy sites we 
know to be part and parcel of Tara and will also seriously detract from 
the setting and environment of this remarkable site.”

[Dr George Eogan, former Chairman of the Discovery Programme, and former 
Professor of Archaeology at UCD, Letter to the editor, Irish 
Independent, 2004]

· “The planned route of the M3 toll-motorway and major floodlit 
interchange at Blundelstown … will cut through the heart of this 
exceptionally sensitive landscape. In so doing it will irreparably 
damage the cultural integrity of this nationally and internationally 
significant archaeological complex. The construction of housing and 
industrial estates that will inevitably follow in its wake will destroy 
Tara’s environmental context forever.”
[Letter to national papers signed by leading archaeologists and 
historians, 21 September 2004]

1.1.3 EIS treatment of Tara landscape: Borrowing a phrase from the 
earlier route selection reports, the EIS acknowledges that the M3 will 
run through “one of the richest and best-known archaeological landscapes 
in Europe” (EIS Vol. 4C, App. E, Para. 3.1). However, the entire 
archaeological report contained in the relevant volumes (4A and 4C) 
fails to reflect the importance, nature and extent of this landscape, 
and the EIS does not identify, describe or assess the impact of the M3 
on this unique landscape.
[EIS Vol. 4C, Appendix E]

[Meath Archaeological and Historical Society]

1.1.4 EIS concentration on individual sites and monuments: In contrast 
to the earlier route selection reports, the environmental impact 
assessment (in all its stages) applied a too narrow interpretation to 
the terms “cultural heritage” and “archaeology”, concentrating on 
individual sites and monuments and failing to take account of the wider 
archaeological landscape and the impact of the M3 on this landscape.
· ” The process of evaluation by which the planning authority agreed to 
the proposed works in such a culturally sensitive area seems narrow. 
This is because it chose to confine its deliberation to Tara on the 
basis of the requirements of individual sites and ignored the importance 
of the place as a complex in the first millennium and later when it was 
as important as it was in the Iron Age and before”
[Dr Pat Wallace, Director of the National Museum of Ireland, letter to 
the Minister for the Environment, 16 March 2005]

1.1.4 EIS discussion on landscape impact misleading. Para. 9, Appendix E 
of EIS Vol 4C: “Potential impact of the proposed road on the 
archaeological landscape” is misleading in that it is almost entirely 
confined to a discussion of individual sites, the potential for further 
discoveries and recommendations for mitigation of these sites, and does 
not actually address the impact of the M3 on the Tara landscape.
[EIS Vol. 4C, Appendix E, para. 9]

1.1.5 Non-technical summary gives false impression of impact: The 
Non-Technical summary glosses over the landscape impacts and again 
concentrates on individual sites, givingthe false impression that the 
motorway will not impact on Tara:

· “Desk studies and subsequent field walkovers and surveys indicate that 
the chosen route runs through an archaeologically sensitive landscape. 
However, the main area of significance, around the Hill of Tara has been 
avoided by the proposed route alignment”

[EIS Vol. 1, para. 5.4.1, “Cultural heritage: archaeology”]

1.1.6 EIS and Inspector’s report failed to reflect latest research on 
Tara. This limited
understanding of the archaeological heritage reflects a traditional 
approach based on individual sites and monuments and is not in 
accordance with the modern approach – based on the research of the 
Discovery Programme - which views the heritage in its wider setting. The 
inevitable consequence of adopting this approach is seen in the narrow 
and poorly informed definition of the Tara archaeological landscape 
applied by the Planning Inspector [see also para. 1.4]
· “I am satisfied that the route, as proposed, would not have a 
significant impact on the archaeological landscape associated with the 
Hill of Tara as indicated by the area designated as the core zone on the 
RMP Map SK 500”
[Inspector’s report for An Bord Pleanala, 2003]

1.2 Failure to address the impact of the Blundelstown Interchange

The M3 environmental impact assessment process failed to “identify, 
describe and assess” the “direct and indirect effects” of the 
Blundelstown Interchange on the Tara archaeological landscape.

[EIS Vol. 1 (Non-technical summary, para. 5.4) and Vols. 4A, 4C, 
Appendix E; Inspector’s Report; An Bord Pleanala decision]


1.2.1 Blundelstown Interchange: The 26-acre artificially-illuminated 
Blundelstown
Interchange is located at the foot of the Hill of Tara, just 1.2km from 
the core ritual complex on the hilltop. There are serious concerns over 
this Interchange and its location:

· “I continue to have a difficulty with this relatively small section of 
the M3, because of what I sincerely believe to be the unacceptable 
degree of negative impact which it will inevitably have on the 
incomparable landscape of Tara and the proximity and scale of the 
proposed interchange at Blundelstown crossroads. …..The proposed 
large-scale interchange at Blundelstown crossroads is only a field and a 
half away from Rathmiles which is part of Tara. This will have a flyover 
and will compete with the Hill of Tara with the competitive advantage 
that it will have 24 hour lighting! In location and in scale it will 
demean Tara… Why has this interchange to be so extensive and why at this 
archaeologically sensitive location?”

[Dr Pat Wallace, Director of the National Museum of Ireland, letter to 
the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, 16 
March 2005]

1.2.2 EIS fails to assess impact of Blundelstown Interchange: Neither 
the Interchange nor its impact on Tara and its landscape are mentioned, 
described, discussed or assessed either in the relevant EIS volume (4, 
Appendix E) or in the Non-technical summary outlining the impacts on the 
cultural heritage (Vol. 1, 5.4)

1.2.3 Public consultations had no details of Interchange: Information on 
the Interchange was not available during the public consultation 
process, reference being confined to the mention of a “possibility” of 
an interchange at Blundelstown

1.2.4 Development in wake of Interchange: The potential for future 
development in the vicinity of the Interchange and Tara was not 
addressed in the environmental impact assessment and was not considered 
in the An Bord Pleanala decision.

1.3 Failure to reflect the findings and warnings of earlier 
archaeological reports as to the likely impact of the route on the Tara 
archaeological landscape (preliminary assessments and route selection 
reports)
[see also section 2 (Article 5 breaches) below]
1.3.1 Route selection at the heart of the problem.
The Meath Archaeological and Historical Society believes that a 
fundamental mistake was made in the original decision to consider 
routing the M3 motorway through the Tara landscape, and that this 
mistake was confirmed and compounded at further stages in the process, 
i.e. the selection of the chosen route (B2), the EIS, the Inspector’s 
report and the An Bord Pleanala decision.

1.3.2 Tara area should have been avoided at earliest stage:
It is difficult to comprehend the decision made in the earliest stages 
of the process to even consider routing the motorway (or dual 
carriageway as it then was) through the Tara area. Given the 
significance of Tara, the density of monuments and archaeological 
complexes already known in this section of the route, the pioneering 
research being conducted by the Discovery Programme’s Tara Survey (see 
1.4 below), existing planning practice and heritage protection policy in 
the Meath Development Plan (see 1.5 below), it would not have been 
unreasonable to assume that:

· responsible planners would have recognised this as an area to be 
avoided at all costs,

and

· the State’s heritage protection agencies and mechanisms would have 
made it clear that this area should be avoided at all costs

This expectation is arguably borne out when the findings of the early 
archaeological assessments are taken into account
1.3.3 Recognition of wider Tara landscape, its importance and 
sensitivity, in preliminary assessments and route selection reports 
(archaeology)
1.3.3.1 June 1999:
· “Where before there was a considered respect for the archaeological 
landscape on Tara, there is now an even higher regard for the complex 
cultural intricacies that are located within and in proximity to its 
confines….Tara did not exist in isolation. A glimpse at the distribution 
of sites around the Hill shows this. A second and more muted centre of 
activity existed to the east at Skreen, which straddles the eastern 
boundary of the corridor…The archaeological landscape is not constructed 
of isolated monuments and occasional finds. Rather, it is an interactive 
landscape that stretches beyond the standing remains. ….. It is 
recommended that all archaeological sites and their environs as 
identified be avoided. This recommendation is most strongly urged for 
the area of and surrounding the Hill of Tara, where current 
archaeological research is continuing to discover more and more sites.”
[Archaeological Assessment Paper Survey – Preliminary Area of Interest 
N3 Dunshaughlin North to Navan South and Navan West, Co. Meath. Valerie 
J. Keeley Ltd, Archaeological Consultancy, June 1999]
1.3.3.2 January 2000:

· “The Meath County Development Plan has identified the archaeological 
sites at Tara and Skreen as areas to be “…protected from development 
which would interfere with such sites or their setting and character”.

· “The Archaeological Assessment concludes that it is not possible to 
suggest a preference at this stage due to the complexity of the 
archaeology in the area and that any route is likely to uncover new 
information. This is especially relevant to the area of, and 
surrounding, the Hill of Tara where current archaeological research is 
continuing to discover new sites.”
[N3 Dunshaughlin to Navan Constraints Report, Final issue]


1.3.3.3 August 2000:

· “It is obvious that a ritual centre of Tara’s scale must have had a 
significant hinterland. Tara is comparable to sites such as the Bru na 
Boinne passage tomb cemetery… the ritual complex at Lough Gur, Co. 
Limerick, and the hillfort at Mooghaun, Co. Clare. These are complex 
prehistoric ritual sites, all of which are surrounded by hundreds of 
subsidiary sites, including habitation and ritual monuments. Unlike 
Lough Gur and Mooghaun, however, the intensive land use in the fertile 
lowlands around Tara has led to a masking of much of this activity.”
[N3 Navan to Dunshaughlin Route Selection Report – Archaeology, August 
2000. Dr. Annaba Kilfeather, Margaret Gowen & Co. Ltd, for Halcrow 
Barry, para.4.5]


· “In recent years, largely as a result of the research of the Discovery 
Programme, the extent and number of the archaeological monuments in this 
region has been greatly expanded. This in turn has led to an expansion 
of the zone of archaeological protection afforded to Tara, which now 
encompasses not only the hill itself, but also includes an area 
approximately six kilometres in diameter”

· “This section of the N3 runs through one of the richest and best-known
archaeological landscapes in Europe. At the centre is the Hill of Tara, 
the seat of the high kings of Ireland, and a focus of ritual, political, 
social and religious activity for over four thousand years. It would be 
virtually impossible to underestimate the importance of the sensitivity 
of the archaeological and historical landscape in this area.”

[Dr Annaba Kilfeather, Margaret Gowen & Co. Ltd, route selection report, 
August 2000, para. 3.1)

1.3.3.4 Omission from EIS: It is worth noting that, while most of the 
last paragraph was included in the EIS volumes, the final crucial 
sentence was omitted!

[M3 EIS Vols. 4A , 4C]


1.3.4 Route options in Dunshaughlin to Navan section

Four primary route options (initially 6 corridors and finally 10 
sub-options) were identified for assessment in this section. Incredibly, 
despite the findings of the preliminary archaeological assessments, of 
the 4 primary route options (10 sub-options) offered for consideration, 
only two (O and P) (amounting to 3 sub-options) were offered which were 
outside the immediate Tara area, and one of these (O, to west of Tara) 
was still too close to the sensitive area of the Hill.

Two of the 4 primary routes (G, O) and option B1 were ruled out entirely 
by Dúchas (the Heritage Service) in 2000, and only one (P) was 
“unreservedly recommended” from an archaeological perspective by Meath 
Co Council’s own archaeological consultants in route selection reports 
of 2000 and 2001 (The P route was believed to have been also the 
preferred option of Dúchas, the Heritage Service, but this has never 
publicly confirmed).
Route B2 was selected.

· In effect there was very little viable choice offered in the route 
selection in this section, contrary to the repeated statements of the 
NRA and others that 10 routes were put forward for consultation

· Given the significance of Tara and the sensitivity of the landscape, 
the fact that Dúchas had objected to several of the options, and the 
fact that only one was “unreservedly” recommended on archaeological 
grounds, it would not be unreasonable to think that the planners at this 
stage might have recognised that there was a serious problem with the 
routing in this section

· Geophysical survey was only conducted on one of the routes – the 
chosen route B2 – and this was only done after that route had been 
selected. [see 1.6 below]

· Analysis of the route selection data in relation to a range of 
environmental effects – including archaeology - raises serious questions 
as to the rationale for the choice of the B route. In effect, the P 
route comes out best in a number of factors. In addition, there is 
evidence for alteration of some of the data in transfer to the EIS
[NB: see also para. 1.3.5, and Section 2.1 below – which deals with 
route selection data under Article 5 - Information]




[Meath Archaeological and Historical Society]
1.3.5 Route selection reports (archaeology): specific findings on route 
options
1.3.5.1 August 2000: After outlining findings on each of the route 
options, and rejecting several outright, the route selection report of 
August 2000 outlined its clear preference for the P route east of Skryne 
which was “unreservedly recommended” from an archaeological perspective. 
In addition to P, 3 sub-options (B2, B3 and B4) “could be considered”, 
even though the reports had earlier identified many limitations and 
difficulties with each of these options.
The report warned as to the sensitivity of the entire area and the 
impact of the motorway:
· “In summary, the sensitivity of this area cannot be underestimated. 
Any development, particularly on the scale of the proposed roads, will 
have an immense impact on the landscape. The monuments around Tara 
cannot be viewed in isolation, or as individual sites, but must be seen 
in the context of an intact archaeological landscape, which should not 
under any circumstances be disturbed, in terms of visual or direct 
impact on the monuments themselves. As all the routes cross the 
archaeologically rich plateau around Tara and Skreen, it is highly 
probable that new archaeological monuments will be discovered during the 
course of the construction.” [7.2.]

· “For these reasons, the only unreservedly recommended route in this 
discussion is P. It avoids the areas of highest archaeological 
potential, does not cross the Boyne (although this will need to be 
addressed when a route is chosen for the Navan Bypass), and has the 
inestimable advantage of being largely invisible from the Hill of Tara. 
The area through which it travels is characterised by well-defined 
medieval clusters, and, while the possibility of uncovering subsurface 
archaeology cannot be ruled out, the potential is much lower than for 
the other routes.” [7.4]

[N3 Navan to Dunshaughlin Route Selection – Archaeology. Dr. Annaba 
Kilfeather, Margaret Gowen & Co. Ltd, for Halcrow Barry, August 2000]


1.3.6 Chosen route – B2:
Incredibly, the B2 route was chosen. This runs right through the Tara 
archaeological landscape, cutting through the Gabhra valley (between the 
hills of Tara and Skreen), the Boyne Valley, and the historic demesnes 
of Lismullin and Dowdstown, and includes a 26-acre lighted interchange 
at Blundelstown crossroads, located at the foot of the Hill of Tara, 
just 1.2km from the ritual complex on the Hill.
· “If Council were the body with decision making powers on this issue it 
is most unlikely that it would have chosen this new route. This is based 
on a wide appreciation of the historic landscape in the Tara-Skreen 
Valley and the important place of Tara in the construction of Irish 
identity. ….It is obvious that during the road design process 
consideration was given to Tara and cultural heritage. However, given 
the international significance of Tara it is a matter of debate if 
sufficient weighting was placed upon heritage in the matrix of criteria 
used to inform the decision making process.”
[Michael Starrett, CEO, Heritage Council, submission to Oireachtas 
Committee on the Environment 2 Feb. 2005]
· “In the knowledge of the singular cultural importance and sensitivity 
of the Tara landscape it is hard to fathom that the National Roads 
Authority (NRA) and Meath County Council (MCC) could have contemplated a 
development of this scale and invasiveness through the Tara/Skryne 
valley. In this instance one would have thought that absolute priority 
would have been given to cultural heritage and environmental issues 
above all else and this specific route option avoided at all costs. 
Unforgivably, it was not and the route through the valley was quickly 
adopted as the so-called ‘emerging preferred route’. This decision is 
all the more damning as unequivocal warnings were given by the NRA/MCC’s 
own consultants of the folly of driving a motorway through the valley at 
the very earliest stages of the route selection process. Shamefully this 
expert advice was diluted to the point of impotency for inclusion in the 
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). It would appear, therefore, that 
the EIS amounts to little more than an expensive and rather cynical 
exercise in ‘window dressing’.
[Joe Fenwick, Archaeology Dept. NUI Galway:“The Geophysical Survey of the
M3 toll-motorway corridor: a prelude to Tara’s destruction?” Ríocht na 
Midhe,Vol. XVI, 2005, p. 8-21]

NB: For a further analysis of the route selection report findings 
(comparing routes B and P), and the overall environmental effects data 
see below Section 2.1 (Article 5 breaches).
1.4 Failure to reflect and consider latest research on Tara
The environmental impact assessment process failed to take due 
consideration of the research on Tara conducted and published by the 
State-funded Discovery Programme and failed to consult with the expert 
archaeologists and historians who have been researching Tara on behalf 
of the Discovery Programme since 1992. This led to a limited 
understanding applied in relation to the landscape and the impact of the 
motorway on it
1.4.1 Discovery Programme research available: The Discovery Programme’s 
ongoing research was available for study by the archaeological 
consultants for the EIS and is referred to in the bibliography for Vol. 
4. Regrettably, this research is not reflected in the EIS study and the 
Discovery Programme’s Tara research archaeologists and historians i.e. 
Conor Newman, Dr Edel Bhreathnach, and Joe Fenwick, were not consulted 
at any stage of the process

1.4.2 Limited understanding of landscape reflected in EIS: The EIS 
reflects a limited understanding of the nature and extent of the Tara 
archaeological landscape as seen in the assumptions made in Vol 4C, App. 
E (para. 10, “Conclusions and mitigation”) in relation to the newly 
discovered sites.
· “The route that has been selected, although travelling between Tara 
and Skreen, two substantial and important archaeological sites, travels 
through the damp valley floor and is therefore less likely to produce 
archaeological material or features directly related to Tara, or indeed 
Skreen, than a route closer to Tara might do. The route seeks to avoid 
passing between sites that could be seen as outliers to Tara itself, and 
most of the sites crossed or approached by it are probably later in date 
than the great prehistoric complex on the hill.”
[M3 EIS, Vol 4C, Appendix E, para. 10.1)
1.4.3 Mitigation: rescue excavations not suitable in Tara landscape. 
Contrary to the EIS assumptions, the sites discovered in this section 
are part and parcel of Tara and, as such, should only be investigated as 
part of a properly designed research plan, instead of the rescue/salvage 
excavations carried out in advance of the motorway.
· “It is fair to say that Tara completely dominates documentary sources 
from Early Medieval Ireland. Consequently, the proposition before us … 
that because the monuments directly threatened by the proposed motorway 
are not of prehistoric date they are not connected or related to Tara is 
fundamentally flawed. Of course they are related to Tara, even the 
potentially Medieval ones…”
[Conor Newman, director of the Discovery Programme’s Tara Survey, 
submission to oral hearing, Sept. 2002]


· “This is a landscape that requires to be managed to the highest 
standard and with the utmost comprehension of its significance. Any 
invasive intrusion (namely, excavation) or surveying in this landscape 
must be undertaken only as a result of a carefully constructed research 
plan with the aim of seeking to answer specific questions. …. 
Archaeology undertaken as part of the construction of a motorway, no 
matter what precautions are taken or how many assurances might be given 
about the adequacy of the process, is not appropriate to this type of 
landscape.”

[Dr. Edel Bhreathnach: ‘Defining the historical landscape of Tara.’ 
Ríocht na Midhe, VOL XVI, 2005, pp. 1-7]

1.4.4 EIA definition of Tara landscape out of step with research:
The environmental impact assessment failed to reflect the latest 
research in relation to the definition of Tara. This failure led 
inevitably to the poorly informed and unscientific definition applied to 
the landscape by the Planning Inspector in which he restricted it to the 
“area designated as the core zone”, i.e. the monumental complex on the Hill:
· “I am satisfied that the route, as proposed, would not have a 
significant impact on the archaeological landscape associated with the 
Hill of Tara as indicated by the area designated as the core zone on the 
RMP Map SK 500”
[Inspector’s report for An Bord Pleanala, 2003]
1.4.5 Up-to-date research-based definition: Tara is part of a wider 
landscape
Heritage Council:
· “The debate is currently focussed on the definition of the boundaries 
of the Tara archaeological landscape. The Co Meath Record of Monuments 
and Places, which is a series of maps showing known archaeological 
sites, identifies two foci, the Hill of Tara and the Hill of Skreen. 
Such an approach could be considered as a traditional approach based on 
individual sites. A second definition is one based on the archaeological 
and historical work carried out by the Discovery Programme in the 1990s. 
This approach has formed the basis for defining Tara as part of a wider 
landscape, with the area to the east of the Hill forming part of the 
Royal Demesne in the early medieval period….The Heritage Council concurs 
with the need to view archaeological sites in their wider landscape 
setting and has actively engaged with the practical issues of defining 
and managing archaeological landscapes.”
[Michael Starrett, CEO, Heritage Council, presentation to the Oireachtas 
Committee on the Environment, 2 Feb. 2005]



Director of the National Museum of Ireland:

· “You will be aware of the controversy that presently rages about what 
constitutes the core area of Tara. I accept the most up-to-date 
definitions of this from the archaeological and historical standpoints.”
[Dr Pat Wallace, Director of National Museum of Ireland, letter to the 
Minister for the Environment, 16 March 2005]


1.4.6 NRA and Meath County Council: contrasting views of the Tara landscape

In various statements since the An Bord Pleanala decision in 2003, the 
NRA and Meath County Council have sought to downplay the significance, 
nature and extent of the Tara landscape. This of course contrasts with 
both the views of the route selection archaeological consultants (see 
1.3) and the accepted research-based definition of Tara

· “The Tara Valley already has a network of roads, entrances, farm 
buildings, houses, agricultural plant, septic tanks and business 
premises. It is a landscape largely sculpted in the 18th/19th centuries. 
Archaeological sites lie hidden beneath the soil throughout the Irish 
countryside. It is these hidden features that make up the archaeological 
landscape, which is not visible to the naked eye.”

[Michael Tobin, Chief Executive, NRA, Sunday Tribune article, December 
2004; also contained in NRA full page advertisement published in various 
national and local newspapers]

· “The landscape in the Gabhra valley does not constitute a pristine or 
intact archaeological/historical landscape….To suggest that such a 
landscape is an intact archaeological one and hence a national monument 
is wrong and attributes an integrity to that landscape which does not 
exist in reality….. Whether any connection, either archaeological or 
historical, ever existed between the Hill of Tara and Skryne is anyway 
debatable. “

[Daire O’Rourke, NRA Senior Archaeologist, affidavit in High Court 
proceedings, Salafia v. Minister for the Environment, 2006]




· “This landscape is not a pristine archaeological landscape. It is a 
cumulative landscape which has changed often since prehistory… Contrary 
to the assertion … that the road will cause a ‘detrimental effect’ on 
the experience of visiting the hill’, I say that the planned road when 
complete will be no more visible than the existing N3 which is closer to 
the Hill.”

[Mary Deevy, Meath County Council Project Archaeologist, affidavit in 
High Court proceedings, 2006, paras. 20 (ii) and (iii)]


1.4.7 Chief archaeologist in the Department of Environment: views on 
Tara landscape

In his advice to the Minister for the Environment in relation to the 38 
sites discovered along the route of the M3 in this section, the Chief 
Archaeologist (in the Minister’s own Department) dismissed the claims in 
relation to the landscape and repeated the phrase constantly used by the 
NRA that the proposed route is “farther away from the Hill than the 
existing N3”. This view of course contrasts strongly with the position 
taken by his own agency [formerly known as Dúchas] in their advice at 
the route selection stage for the M3, and in their objection to a golf 
course application in the Tara-Skryne valley [see para. 1.3. above for 
details on route selection, and 1.5.3 below for details on the golf 
course decision]


· “The landscape through which the route proposed for the M3 passes in 
its current visible form was created in the relatively recent past…. It 
is clear the landscape in the Tara/Skreen area has been altered many 
times in the past. The landscape as it exists today does not resemble 
the landscape as it may have appeared at any period in prehistory. 
Succeeding generations have altered the landscape to suit their 
requirements and in so doing have in many cases removed all visible 
surface representations of the works of their predecessors.
The landscape was not regarded as sacrosanct in the past and it is 
difficult to see what argument is now being presented to justify, on 
archaeological grounds, the freezing in time of its current form.”

· “The construction of the motorway will not impact on the National 
Monuments on the Hill of Tara itself and the proposed route is farther 
away from the hill than the existing N3 and when the motorway is 
completed and landscaped it will not have a major impact on the amenity 
of the National Monuments on the hill.”

[Brian Duffy, Chief Archaeologist, Dept. of Environment, Heritage and 
Local Government, letter to the Minister, 3rd December 2004]


1.5 Failure to take into account existing planning practice and policy
- Meath Development Plan and Golf Course refusal

The environmental impact assessment process failed to reflect and take 
account of existing planning practice and heritage protection policy in 
relation to the Tara archaeological landscape.

While the EIS acknowledged an expanded “zone of archaeological 
protection” around Tara (based on the Discovery Programme research), 
neither this protection, nor protections given in the Meath County 
Development Plan – were given due consideration.

· The inconsistency between the M3 environmental impact assessment 
process and existing planning practice and protections is dramatically 
exemplified in the decision of Meath County Council (July 2003) to 
refuse planning permission for a golf course in the Tara-Skryne valley 
(a decision made just 4weeks before the An Bord Pleanala decision on the 
M3 scheme). Ironically, the refusal of permission for the golf course 
was upheld by An Bord Pleanala in March 2004, just 7 months after the 
same body had approved the motorway without any specific conditions as 
to the Tara area!


1.5.1 EIS statement as to expanded zone of archaeological protection
Using the words of an earlier route selection report, the EIS 
acknowledges existing practice in relation to an expanded zone of 
archaeological protection for Tara. However, this statement stands alone 
in the document and does not inform any of the later discussion.
· “In recent years, largely as a result of the research of the Discovery 
Programme, the extent and number of archaeological monuments known in 
this region has been greatly increased. This in turn has led to an 
expansion of the zone of archaeological protection afforded to Tara to 
encompass not only the hill itself but also an area approximately six 
kilometres in diameter. The Discovery Programme also studied an outer 
zone extending beyond the hill, including an area approximately twelve 
kilometres in diameter that can be seen as Tara’s immediate hinterland. 
The inner zone is recognised as the area of archaeological potential 
observed by the Sites and Monuments Record of Duchas, the Heritage Service…”

[M3 EIS Vol. 4C: Dunshaughlin to Navan, Appendix E (Archaeological 
Report), Para. 3 “Landscape and archaeology”, s. 3.4 ]


[Meath Archaeological and Historical Society]
1.5.2 Meath Development Plan. The landscape and setting of Tara, and its 
significance, is recognised in the Meath County Development Plan which 
seeks to protect the views from Tara and ‘to protect the Hills of Skreen 
and Tara from visually damaging development or proposals that would 
cumulatively erode the landscape quality” [s.2.8.4]



· The Development Plan states at S. 3.6.6 that the area ‘is extremely 
sensitive to all categories of development insofar as it would detract 
from the character appearance and interpretative experience of the 
region’ and that ‘The Hills of Tara and Skreen are particularly 
sensitive to intrusive development’.





1.5.3 Planning practice - Golf course application refused:
The “landscape character”, “interpretative quality and experience” of 
the Tara environs, and the view between the Hills of Tara and Skreen, 
formed the main grounds for the refusal of permission for a golf course 
development in the Tara-Skreen valley in July 2003, decision upheld by 
An Bord Pleanala in March 2004.

[Meath Co. Council Planning Register Ref. NA/30145;
An Bord Pleanála Ref. PL 17.204029]

· It is noteworthy that the initial decision to refuse permission was 
made just
4 weeks before the An Bord Pleanala decision approving the routing of 
the M3 motorway through the valley without any conditions as to the Tara 
section, and the golf course appeal was refused by An Bord Pleanala only 
7 months after the M3 approval, at a time when the debate on the M3/Tara 
issue was raging in the national press!

· It is worth noting also that the Heritage and Planning Division of the 
Department of the Environment objected to the development proposal and 
its concerns were noted in the decisions taken - in contrast to the 
position later taken by the Chief Archaeologist in his advice to the 
Minister concerning the 38 sites discovered in this section of the route 
[see para. 1. 4.7 above]


1.5.3.1 Grounds of refusal for golf course:

The first ground of refusal in the golf course case was the

· “impact on visual amenity especially between the historic heritage and 
archaeological sites of the Hills of Tara and Skreen”.

The proposed development was found to be

· “visually intrusive in this sensitive landscape”,

and one which

· “would detract from the character, appearance and interpretative 
experience of the region






[Meath Archaeological and Historical Society]

1.5.3.2 An Bord Pleanala decision on golf course – extracts [ref. above]

Views, character, appearance and interpretative experience:

· “It is considered that the proposed development, which would be 
visible from and in the direct line of sight between the important 
historic heritage and archaeological sites on the Hills of Tara and 
Skreen, the views from which are protected in the current Development 
Plan and on which are located a number of protected structures, would, 
by reason of its scale and nature, be visually intrusive in this 
sensitive landscape, would adversely impact on the locational context of 
the protected structures and views which are listed for protection in 
the Development Plan and would detract from the character, appearance 
and interpretative experience of the region”


Heritage and Planning Division objections:

· “A report from the Heritage & Planning Division of the Department of 
the Environment dated 3rd, July 2003 notes that the proposed development 
is immediately adjacent to and partially clips the constraint area of 
the….Hill of Tara Archaeological Complex which is subject to statutory 
protection. The Hill of Tara represents one of the nation’s most 
important national monuments and is of international significance. …



“The report states that:



1)“…. the proposed development will have a significant negative visual 
impact on the landscape character of the environs of the Hill of Tara. …



2)“… the view to and from the Hill of Tara and the settlement at Skreen 
are integral to the appreciation of both sites. The proposed 
development, which will be visible from both the Hill of Tara and 
Skreen, will have a negative impact on the views currently enjoyed.



3) “Research in the area continues to reveal more sites of 
archaeological significance in the area





1.5.3.3 Inspector’s Report on golf course appeal (20 February 2004): 
extracts



· “…… It is further submitted [by the appellant] that the proposed 
development will not be unduly damaging to the visual amenities of the 
area. In this regard it is argued that the site and clubhouse buildings 
will be suitably landscaped to reduce the visual impact of the proposed 
development. It is also argued that the traditional field pattern and 
character of the site has been altered by changes in agricultural 
practices and that the traditional field pattern has been lost.”



· “… The site of the proposed development is located within an area 
designated as an ‘Area of Visual Quality’ in the Development Plan. 
Furthermore, the Development Plan states at S. 3.6.6 that the area ‘is 
extremely sensitive to all categories of development insofar as it would 
detract from the character appearance and interpretative experience of 
the region’ and that ‘The Hills of Tara and Skreen are particularly 
sensitive to intrusive development’. S. 2.8.4 of the Development Plan 
seeks to protect the Hills of Tara and Skreen from ‘visually damaging 
development or proposals that would cumulatively erode landscape 
quality. Views from the Hills of Tara and Skreen are also protected in 
the Development Plan.”





Landscape quality and character:



· “…I note that the landscape quality and character of the area in which 
the site of the proposed development does not derive from dramatic 
features that are instantly apparent. In my opinion, the quality, 
character and visual amenities of the area derives from …. the overall 
interpretative experience. Thus, an appreciation of the landscape 
quality and character of the area perhaps involves a slower process than 
would be the case in more visually dramatic landscapes.”



Rich archaeological and historical significance of the area:



· “The area must be appreciated within the context of its rich 
historical and archaeological significance. In this regard, I consider 
that the policies and provisions of Development Plan in relation to the 
protection of the landscape from inappropriate development, the 
protection of views etc. are appropriate….”



· “… The submitted grounds of appeal assert that the traditional 
character of the site has already been altered as a consequence of 
changes in agricultural practices. It is further submitted that the 
proposed golf course will have a parkland appearance and the inclusion 
of a number of local tree species will assist in its integration into 
the landscape mitigating its impact when viewed from local vantage 
points including the line of sight between the Hills of Tara and Skreen. 
… I consider that this argument could perhaps be accepted in the context 
of a landscape with similar physical characteristics, but lacking the 
historic and archaeological significance of this area. However, in the 
current context I do not accept the validity of this argument. …. While 
the appearance of the landscape in the vicinity of the Hill of Tara and 
in the area between the Hills of Tara and Skreen may be changing as a 
consequences of changes in agricultural practices, I consider that these 
changes are of a significantly less dramatic nature and scale than the 
impact associated with the proposed development. As has been stated in 
reports to the planning authority and to the Board from the Heritage & 
Planning Division of the Department of the Environment the Hill of Tara 
represents one of the nation’s most important national monuments and is 
of international significance.”



· “Furthermore, the proposed development will have a significant 
negative visual impact on the landscape character of the environs of the 
Hill of Tara. The views between the Hill of Tara and the settlement at 
Skreen are integral to the appreciation of both sites and the proposed 
development, which will be visible from both locations will diminish the 
views in both directions. In these circumstances, I consider that the 
proposed development would diminish the character and overall 
interpretative quality and experience of the area.”



[Paddy Keogh, Senior Planning Inspector, Report on golf course 
application, 20 February 2004, contained in An Bord Pleanala decision 
Ref. PL 17.204029]


1.5.3.4 Serious questions arise at this point:

· If a golf course could have such an impact, how is it that the M3 
motorway – routed through the valley between Tara and Skreen - was 
considered not to have a significant impact by either the EIS, the 
Planning Inspector or An Bord Pleanala?

· How is it that the Blundelstown Interchange was apparently not 
considered to have a significant impact on the visual amenity of Tara?

· How is it that Duchas/Heritage Service (now the National Monuments 
Service) did not apparently make such a strong intervention in relation 
to the M3 routed through the Tara Skreen valley and failed to make any 
mention of the Blundelstown interchange?

· In the light of the reasons given for the golf course refusal, how can 
the views of the NRA, Meath County Council and the Chief Archaeologist 
in the Department of the Environment be explained?

1.6 Failure to fully assess alternative route options

The environmental impact assessment failed to undertake a full 
assessment of alternative options to the routing of the motorway through 
the Tara archaeological landscape.

1.6.1 Geophysical surveys should have been carried out on all routes:
Given the importance and sensitivity of the landscape, and the limited 
options offered, full geophysical surveys should have been carried out 
on all the route options before selection of the chosen route. In fact, 
limited geophysical survey was only carried out on one route - the 
chosen route B2 – and this survey was only carried out after this route 
was selected as the preferred route. The findings did not inform the 
selection process.
[EIS Vols. 4A, 4C, Appendix E]
· “Geophysical survey was conducted along the so-called ‘emerging 
preferred route’ through the Tara/Skryne valley in 2000. This technique 
provides a cost-effective and non-invasive means of ‘seeing beneath the 
soil’ to reveal the hidden archaeology. The geophysical investigation 
was limited to this ‘preferred’ route and so did not inform the 
selection process”
[Joe Fenwick, archaeologist, NUI Galway, article in Meath Chronicle, May 
2004]
1.6.2 Recommended alternative route not surveyed:
The one route “unreservedly recommended” on archaeological grounds in 
the route selection reports (i.e. route P east of Skreen) was not 
subjected to geophysical survey at any time.
· This deficiency was referred to in the Inspector’s report where he 
stated that, on this basis, one could not “compare apples with apples”, 
the implication being that he did not have the data to assess whether 
the P route would have had less severe impact on the cultural heritage.
1.7 Failure to fully describe the findings of the geophysical survey of 
route B2 (chosen route)
The EIS failed to fully describe and assess the findings of the 
geophysical survey in relation to B2 (chosen route).
1.7.1 Geophysical report and images omitted from EIS:the geophysical 
report and the crucial geophysical images were omitted from the EIS 
volumes (4A and 4C) which contained only a summary of the findings in 
respect of individual sites, as interpreted by the Meath Co Council’s 
consultants.
1.7.2 Geophysical report not advertised to the public. The geophysical 
report was not advertised to the public and the general public was 
unaware that it could be purchased separately from the EIS volumes. The 
Meath Archaeological and Historical Society was not informed, when 
inspecting the relevant volumes prior to making a submission, that this 
report was available for inspection and purchase. In his submission to 
the oral hearing, Conor Newman indicated that he was possibly the only 
person (outside of the developer’s team) who had an opportunity to study 
the geophysical images:
·
· “I am one of the very few people (possibly the only person) on this 
side of the house to have seen the geophysical images. They were not 
included in the Environmental Impact Statement. …. no one with whom I 
have spoken who bought the EIS was informed by Meath County Council/NRA 
that the geophysical report was readily available for purchase as a 
separate volume…If I were a conspiracy theorist, I might have concluded 
that the geophysical evidence was part-buried because it proved so 
spectacularly the enormity of the archaeological dimension to this 
section of the motorway. At any rate, good and all as the interpretive 
drawings are, the data images are absolutely necessary and their absence 
is simply bizarre. Moreover, it completely compromises archaeological 
analysis and assessment of this aspect of the EIS.”
[Conor Newman, director of the Discovery Programme’s Tara Survey, 
submission to M3 oral hearing, Sept. 2002]
1.8 Failure to take due account of findings of geophysical survey
The environmental impact assessment failed to take due account of the 
“spectacular” findings of the geophysical survey which, given their 
potential and their occurrence in this uniquely important area, should 
have led to re-examination of alternate route options, in particular the 
route “unreservedly recommended” on archaeological grounds, i.e. the P 
route east of Skreen (outside the immediate Tara landscape).
1.8.1 EIS interpretation of geophysical findings:
In Vol. 4C, Appendix E (archaeological report) of the EIS (paras. 8 and 
10) the results of the geophysical survey are summarised and 
recommendations are made for their treatment.
· Para. 8.4 (pp. 23-30) stated that 30 sites indicated archaeological 
potential, and that seven of the sites were of “high archaeological 
significance.”
·
· Para. 10 (p. 33-4) stated that “the sites discovered by the survey…. 
demonstrate that archaeological features survive in considerable 
quantity beneath the surface. As in all cases of archaeological 
activity, it would be recommended that these sites, particularly the 
more elaborate ditched enclosures, should be avoided by the road…”. 
Where these sites “cannot be avoided by the road” it is recommended that 
they are “fully excavated.”
1.8.2 Discovery Programme assessment of geophysical survey findings: In 
his submission to the oral hearing, Conor Newman, archaeologist and 
former director of the Discovery Programme’s Tara Survey, described the 
results of the geophysical survey and outlined its limitations:
· “The results are quite spectacular and have more than justified the 
expenditure, both of time and money. They prove what was suspected, 
namely that the valley between Tara and Skreen is chock-a-block with 
archaeological monuments, and interesting and complex ones at that: 
indeed it is a wonder that with such results appearing at regular 
intervals along this route, why was the whole route not surveyed. In 
this sense, the archaeological section of the EIS falls a long way short 
of the amount of preparatory research and survey expended, for example, 
in the case of the proposed motorway near Stonehenge, a monument and 
landscape that is no more or less important…..The geophysical survey 
between Tara and Skreen was carried out in what is called ‘scan mode’. ….

[Conor Newman, submission to M3 oral hearing]

[Meath Archaeological and Historical Society]
Discovered sites the ‘tip of the iceberg’:

· “The technique is quite standard but clearly it has 
limitations…..There is nothing wrong with the geophysical survey as 
implemented, but it would be grossly erroneous to think that we now have 
the full picture. On the contrary, as I said earlier, it simply confirms 
the great density of archaeological monuments in this area because it 
has revealed a little more of the tip of this particular iceberg…..”.



· “They [the monuments and features] could date from virtually any 
period. The only certainty is that they are there, they are big and 
complex and they obviously have a relationship with Tara as prehistoric 
temenos, Early Medieval inauguration site or Medieval manor.”

[Conor Newman, submission to M3 oral hearing]

1.8.3 Conclusion: Given the importance of Tara, the density of known 
monuments, the number and nature of the sites indicated in the 
geophysical survey and the obvious potential for the discovery of more 
sites, the results of the geophysical survey should have led to 
re-examination of the suitability of the preferred route At the very 
least, these results should have been taken into account in the ranking 
of environmental factors for the routes, and the only “unreservedly 
recommended” route from an archaeological perspective (P route) should 
have been equally surveyed.
· “The results of the geophysical survey are little short of 
spectacular. The clarity and detail contained in some of the geophysical 
images is remarkable. It requires little in the way of interpretation to 
appreciate the significance of these new sites and monuments. A number 
of these can be more accurately described as archaeological complexes 
and cover areas between one and two hectares in extent… How then can one 
explain the repeated and consistent assertions of the NRA spokespersons 
in the press, radio and television, that the geophysical survey has 
found only three sites?… There can be little doubt of the unusually high 
concentration of archaeological sites and monuments identified along 
this short stretch of the proposed motorway… Would it not have been wise 
at this stage to reconsider the ‘emerging preferred route’ and look 
again at some of the alternatives and equally viable options?”
[Joe Fenwick, archaeologist, NUI Galway, “The Geophysical survey of the 
M3 toll-motorway corridor”. article in Ríocht na Midhe, Vol. XVI, 2005, 
pp. 9-22]

[Meath Archaeological and Historical Society]

END OF SECTION 1: ARTICLE 3 BREACHES



2. ARTICLE 5: INFORMATION TO BE SUPPLIED BY DEVELOPER

Article 5 and Annex IV
5.3: “The information to be provided by the developer in accordance with 
paragraph 1 shall include at least:
· a description of the project comprising information on the site, 
design and size of the project,
· a description of the measures envisaged in order to avoid, reduce and, 
if possible, remedy significant adverse effects,
· the data required to identify and assess the main effects which the 
project is likely to have on the environment,
· an outline of the main alternatives studied by the developer and an 
indication of the main reasons for his choice, taking into account the 
environmental effects,
· a non-technical summary of the information mentioned in the previous 
indents

ANNEX IV – Information referrred to
1. “Description of the project, including in particular:
· a description of the physical characteristics of the whole project and 
the land-use requirements during the construction and operational phases,
· a description of the main characteristics of the production processes, 
for instance, nature and quantity of the materials used,
· an estimate, by type and quantity, of expected residues and emissions 
(water, air and soil pollution, noise, vibration, light, heat, 
radiation, etc.) resulting from the operation of the proposed project.

2. An outline of the main alternatives studied by the developer and an 
indication of the main reasons for this choice, taking into account the 
environmental effects.

3. A description of the aspects of the environment likely to be 
significantly affected by the proposed project, including, in 
particular, population, fauna, flora, soil, water, air, climatic 
factors, material assets, including the architectural and archaeological 
heritage, landscape and the inter-relationship between the above factors.

4. A description (6) of the likely significant effects of the proposed 
project on the environment resulting from:
o the existence of the project,
o the use of natural resources,
o the emission of pollutants, the creation of nuisances and the 
elimination of waste,
o and the description by the developer of the forecasting methods used 
to assess the effects on the environment

5. A description of the measures envisaged to prevent, reduce and where 
possible offset any significant adverse effects on the environment.”
Summary of Article 5 breaches
The M3 environmental impact assessment (Dunshaughlin to Navan section) 
failed to satisfy the requirements of Article 5 and Annex IV in terms of 
information supplied (and interpretation of the information) in relation to:
2.1 Environmental effects – EIS failed to reflect the route selection 
findings
2.2 Alteration of information in transfer to EIS
2.3 Omission of information
2.4 Alternatives studied – narrow interpretation applied in EIS
Also, having failed to “identify, describe and assess” the effects of 
the M3 on the Tara landscape (as required by Article 3), the assessment 
failed to put forward measures designed to offset the significant 
adverse effects of the M3 on this landscape as required by Article 5


Note: this section is to be read in conjunction with Section 1 (Article 
3 breaches) and the overall failure of the environmental impact 
assessment process to “identify, describe and assess” the effects of the 
M3 on the Tara archaeological landscape
2.1 Environmental effects of alternative route options – EIS failed to 
reflect the route selection findings

Note: The following analysis of the environmental effects of the 
alternative route options is drawn from the submissions of the Meath 
Roads Action Group and the Bellinter Residents Association to the oral 
hearing on the M3. The analysis is based on a study of the Route 
selection reports (2000 and 2001) and the EIS

The route selection report data:
· is not adequately reflected in the EIS
· raises serious questions as to the rationale for the choice of the B route
· was partly altered in transfer to the EIS
[Refs: N3 Navan to Dunshaughlin Route Selection – Archaeology, by Dr. 
Annaba Kilfeather, Margaret Gowen & Co. Ltd [Halcrow Barry, August 
2000]; Dunshaughlin to Navan Route Selection Report, Vol. 1 [Halcrow 
Barry, September 2001]

2.1.1 Routes: Four primary route options (initially 6 corridors and 
finally 10 sub-options) were identified for assessment in this section:
Orange (O): one option (O1) (west of Hill of Tara)
Green (G): three options (G1, G2, G3) (2 between the Hill of Tara and 
the N3 and 1 to west of the Hill of Tara)
Blue (B): four options (B1, B2, B3, B4) (between the Tara and Skryne, 
east of the N3 in part, and crossing back over the N3 c. 1.2km from the 
northern end of the Hill of Tara]
Pink (P): two options (P1, P2) (east of Skryne, 4km from Hill of Tara)

2.1.2 Environmental factors assessed in route selection reports:

Archaeology, Built Heritage, Flora, Fauna & Habitat, Water Quality & 
Subsurface, Landscape and Visual Effects, Air, Noise & Vibration.

Below is an analysis of the data on Archaeology (routes B and P compared)

2.1.3 Archaeology: EIS failed to adequately reflect route selection 
findings:
Preliminary assessments and route selection reports were carried out 
between 1999 and 2001. Para. 1.3 above (Article 3 breaches) summarises 
the warnings contained in the archaeological reports at preliminary 
assessment and early route selection stage in relation to the 
sensitivity of the landscape.

· In effect, the EIS downplayed the landscape, failed to provide full 
information on the alternative route options studied, and failed to 
provide a logical rationale for the chosen route.

Therefore, in this aspect, the EIS was in breach of both Articles 3 and 5
[see also para. 1.3 above]


2.1.3.1 Blue route B1
2001 report, p. 44 – “ The northern section of B1 passes through the 
archaeologically sensitive landscape of a stream valley. The Discovery 
Programme suggests that the valley was the focus for earlier prehistoric 
activity associated with Tara, when the local community was exploiting 
the wetland landscape of the valley. The wet character of the area makes 
it possible that organic material might be preserved here and monuments 
such as fulachta fiadh, which are located in such areas, are also likely 
to be preserved….”



Mitigation: “The affect of this route on the Hill of Tara and on its 
outlying monuments is profound and would have severe implications from 
an archaeological perspective. It is unlikely that cost effective 
proposals to meet the mitigation requirements could be supported for 
this route in this area.”

o Note, para. 6.5.3 of Aug. 2000 report stated: “No mitigation would 
remove the effects of this route on the Hill of Tara or on its outlying 
monuments. It would have extremely severe implications from an 
archaeological perspective.”


2.1.3.2 Blue route B2 [Emerging Preferred Route/chosen route]
2001 report p. 45 - “…..The northeastern end of route B2 follows the 
same proposed line as that of B1 [changed from G1 in Sept. 2000 report], 
and its route and river crossing carry the same archaeological 
implications [see above]. B2 then turns east near the foot of the Hill 
of Tara and joins B3/B4 at Blundelstown, continuing along that route 
with the same archaeological implications. The only unique section of 
the route passes to the north of the Rath Miles ringfort.

Mitigation: “The unique section of this route has no direct additional 
impact on known archaeological sites, and the rest of the route carries 
the same implications as the sections it shares [see above B1]. It 
passes to the north of the Hill of Tara, although not as close as B1 [G1 
in Sept. 2000 report], and its visual impact would be significant 
without mitigation. Intensive field survey would be needed, particularly 
in the area of the northern slopes of Tara Hill.”


2.1.3.3 Blue routes B3 and B4
2001 report, p. 46 - “This combination of routes is perhaps that which 
comes closest to the largest number of known archaeological sites with 
the exception of the Green route options. The starting point of route B3 
coincides with that of Green G2 and Pink P1, with a proposed river 
crossing just north of Ardsallagh House. Route B4 is coincident with the 
less intrusive option of route P2. It follows the same stream valley as 
B1/B2, whose landscape implications have been explained above, but joins 
it further to the north.

Mitigation: “With minor amendments to the northern part of these routes 
it may be possible to avoid infringing the individual monuments and 
avoid damaging historic features within Lismullin Demesne. It remains, 
however, an area of high archaeological potential…,”

2.1.3.4 Pink routes – P1 & P2
2001 report, p. 43 - “These routes are the least intrusive, and, 
archaeologically, have the least impact. As the proposed routes are to 
the east of Skreen they are also the least visually intrusive in terms 
of the Hill of Tara, being screened by the Hill of Skreen for much of 
the route.

“The archaeology around Skreen is generally different from the area 
around Tara. .. It is characterised by medieval rather than prehistoric 
remains, most of which are above ground, and which cluster in clearly 
defined and recognisable groups. There are, however, prehistoric 
monuments in the area… It is likely that more such monuments may turn up 
in the course of any archaeological investigation”…“It is clear that the 
majority of the visible monuments….are medieval in date. They are 
clearly identifiable, and far less likely than the prehistoric 
landscapes in the centre and west of the plateau to produce large 
numbers of sub-surface monuments.”

Mitigation: “From the desk top study, there appears to be no need for 
mitigation in the case of this route. A field survey would be required 
to check for above ground monuments and features but… most of the 
archaeology in this area is well defined and recognisable in the field. 
The route does not come particularly close to, or cross through, any of 
the archaeological features in the area.”


· Clearly, the only viable route archaeologically is Route P, as stated 
by the consultants. However, B2 was chosen.

2.1.4 Summary of environmental effects data – rationale for B route 
questioned

An analysis of the data contained in the Route Selection Report raises 
serious questions about the decision to select the B route as the 
emerging preferred route

Archaeology: the report recommends the P route
Built Heritage: the P route is the least affected
Flora, Fauna & Habitats: P route is the preferred option
Water Quality: no recommendation is made
Landscape and Visual Effects: P route is least affected
Air Quality: P routes have the lowest pollution levels
Noise Levels: P route is best option

· In no environmental category does the route selection report actually 
recommend the B Route

2.1.5 Oral Hearing and Inspector’s Report
The Bellinter Residents and Meath Roads Action Group analysis of the 
environmental effects data was raised during the oral hearing but had no 
impact on the eventual decision

Inspector’s Report, page 466 [cross-examination of Margaret Gowan, 
Consultant Archaeologist by Brendan Magee on behalf of Meath Roads 
Action Group]

· “Mr. Magee asked if she stood over her comment of Route P being the 
only unreservedly recommended route and Ms Gowan said it had the least 
impact. Mr. Magee then asked if she would accept her evidence could be 
construed as biased since it made no mention of another route being more 
viable than what was in the EIS. Ms Gowan said she did not accept it was 
biased at all. She said the EIS was conducted on the EPR and the impact 
assessment was on that. When Mr. Magee said she had produced a report 
which said another route was archaeologically more viable, Ms Gowan said 
that once a route had been selected their task was to assess the impact 
of that route.”

Inspector’s Report, pages 425 & 426 [cross-examination of Mr. Nairn, 
Consultant Ecologist]

· “Mr. Magee said the Route Selection Report showed the B Routes to have 
a higher number of sites affected than the P Routes and asked if his 
statement of the P route being the preferred option still stood. Mr. 
Nairn replied that they would certainly have preferred Route P but he 
and every other consultant accepted the preferred route was a compromise 
between all of the various impacts and was not simply based on one 
specialist's recommendations”.

2.2 Alteration of information in transfer to EIS

Alteration of data in transfer to the EIS – ratings and rankings
Analysis of the data reveals that some of the information contained in 
the route selection report was altered in transfer to the EIS. A number 
of the ratings and rankings used to ascertain the best route option were 
disputed at the oral hearing. The flaws highlighted and agreed were not 
taken into account and re-ranked tables were not issued. Had this been 
done the revised values in the tables would have clearly shown that the 
proposed route was far from the preferred option.

[Meath Archaeological and Historical Society]
The following is extracted from the Bellinter Residents submission to 
the oral hearing.

· “Going on to examine the Assessment Matrix - Scheme Ranking and to 
compare it with the EIS Volume 2, Table 4.2 we can clearly see that many 
of the rankings given to the EPR, Blue Route B2, are incorrect and in 
conflict with EIS and the submissions of a number of consultants & 
sub-consultants. Further there are several instances where the impact 
has been reduced in value in the EIS Volume 2, Table 4.2 vis-à-vis the 
Assessment Matrix - Scheme Ranking (P31)

· “Then if we go on to Table 4.2 in Volume 2 of the EIS we find that 
Route B2 is rated =3rd in the rankings. Again, clearly not the optimum 
route. Again we dispute many of the rankings that you have adopted as we 
have already detailed and were these included at their correct values, 
Route Blue 2 would slip even further back in the rankings.

· “Therefore on the basis of either table it can be clearly seen that 
Route Blue 2 was not the best choice and it is made even less desirable 
when you take on board the correct values for the disputed areas. (P33)

· “In conclusion, it appears to us that there is indisputable evidence 
that the route chosen has not been done on the basis of a fair analysis 
of the impacts and benefits. (P35)

· “It is my opinion that you, Mr Devlin, must ask how such rankings were 
established and expose them for the "sham" that they are. (P35)

· “Moreover it is clearly evident that Dúchas have been misled and 
believe that Route P is the selected option, as evidenced in their 
letter to the Ombudsman of the 28th May 2001 and again in a further 
letter of 5th September 2001 in which it is clearly stated that, 
although they have some reservations, Route P to the east of Skreen is 
the best option of the various routes under consideration.” (P12)

[For Ombudsman’s letter in relation to Duchas, see below para. 3. 9.2 in 
relation to Article 6 breaches]


2.3 Omission of information

2.3.1 Geophysical report and geophysical images of B2 route omitted from 
EIS.
As mentioned in paras. 1.6 and 1.7 above, a geophysical survey was 
conducted along only one of the routes – the chosen route B2 – and this 
was carried out only after the route was selected. The geophysical 
survey identified a wealth of new archaeological monuments and the 
actual report and images are crucial for a proper analysis of the 
findings. However, the EIS only contained a summary of the geophysical 
findings (Vol. 4C), a summary prepared by the EIS consultants themselves 
and based on their interpretation. No opportunity was given to groups 
challenging the routing to study the geophysical images, as the public 
were not made aware of the existence of a separate volume containing the 
geophysical survey and images. [see also paragraph 1.7 above]

2.3.2 Other information omitted
Detailed route selection data as described above (2.1) should also have 
been included in the EIS. The route selection reports were not available 
at the venues where the EIS was on display, nor were they available at 
the public consultations. In fact, very few people actually had an 
opportunity to study the route selection reports at all! [see further 
Section 3 below – Article 6 breaches]

[Meath Archaeological and Historical Society]
2.4 Alternatives studied – narrow interpretation applied in EIS

2.4.1 Scope of EIS narrowed deliberately to avoid major infrastructural 
issues.
In our view, the NRA deliberately reduced the scope and physical extent 
of the EIS assessment in order to avoid major infrastructural issues in 
relation to capacity and proximity to other major roads (e.g. M1, N2 and 
M50 congestion). This deliberate skewing and narrowing of the scope has 
produced a document that, within the normal criteria of the EU, could 
not be remotely construed as representing an EIS.

2.4.2 Rail option should also have been assessed: This is a 63 km road, 
a major investment of c. 700 million euro. In that context, because of 
the extent and scale, its impact on the transport infrastructure should 
have been assessed more thoroughly, and it should particularly have been 
assessed against a rail option. Thus again, the EIA was found wanting.

· “The original brief for the entire project – and consequently for the 
EIS and the environmental impact assessment procedure – was flawed from 
the beginning in that it relates only to roads development. There was no 
provision for the consideration of alternative approaches to the traffic 
and commuting problems, particularly the possibility of reopening the 
rail link between Dublin and Navan. Reopening the rail line would have 
less impact on the archaeological heritage and landscape than the 
construction of two motorways, and would also, of course, reduce 
commuter traffic on the roads and therefore result in less damaging 
effects on the overall environment….Overall transport strategies, and 
alternatives to motorways – such as a reopened rail link – should have 
been studied from the outset, and examination of these options should 
have been included in the EIS.”

[Meath Archaeological and Historical Society submission to
M3 oral hearing, 12 September 2002]

2.4.3 M3 approach to Dublin and connection to M50 flawed:
The M3 is proposed to connect into the M50 by joining the N3 before the 
Blanchardstown Interchange. The NRA capacity figures for the M50 show 
severe under-capacity in respect of this road. This is exasperated by 
the fact that the N3 runs through the vast suburb of Blanchardstown, 
with major routes connecting in to the N3 from this suburb. This is 
already under capacity and has been for some years past.

· “There are 20,000 vehicles queuing a day at the N3 Blanchardstown 
roundabout. They predict that is going to go to 44,000 vehicles a day”
[James Nix, transport consultant, at seminar on M3 organised by MAHS and 
Tara Heritage Preservation Group, 11 June 2005]

· “We can build the M3, we can build motorways here, there and 
everywhere, we are not going to build our way out of the traffic chaos 
we have created. You add lanes to the M50, more cars will join the M50. 
We have to get away from this mentality that roads will solve all our 
problems”

[Derek Wheeler, rail consultant,at seminar on M3 organised by MAHS and 
Tara Heritage Preservation Group, 11 June 2005





[Meath Archaeological and Historical Society]
2.4.4 Sustainable development requirements not taken into account in EIS
Sustainable development is a very important aspect of EU policy and 
should have informed any study of alternatives. However, the EIS failed 
in this regard.

· “Is this going to be a viable solution for this region? Is it going to 
be sustainable? Even if we do deal with the heritage issues and manage 
them correctly, if that has to come about, are we going to have this as 
a solution for sustainable development for this region, or are we just 
going to encourage sprawl out into the countryside, and more 
unsustainable development, and more congestion, and more implications 
for the city of Dublin regarding more cars into the city…. to be catered 
for, when there are other options that obviously have not been considered.”

· “We don’t have in Ireland a transport policy into the future. There is 
no such policy. ….it is appalling that we are going down the road of 
producing motorways that don’t seem to have any reason other than to 
cause more and more development scattered out into the countryside, more 
and more unsustainable developments that are going to lead to huge 
problems for the people that move into this region, and for the people 
in this region that will not be able to transport into Dublin City or 
elsewhere, because of the lack of a sustainable infrastructure…”.

[Duncan Stewart, producer and presenter of “Eco Eye” series (RTE TV) 
chairing seminar on M3 organised by MAHS and Tara Heritage Preservation 
Group, 11 June 2005]


2.4.5 Alternative motorway proposal not considered or assessed
An alternative proposal (combining the M2 and M3 proposals) was 
presented to the NRA on 13th Nov. 2000 by the Bellinter Residents 
Association. This queried the need for two motorways (M1 and M2) less 
than 10 kilometres apart and proposed instead one new motorway between 
the two, with a connection to the M50 away from the Blanchardstown 
Interchange. This proposal was further developed by the Meath Roads 
Action Group and presented by them at the Oral Hearing. Despite having 
many merits as well as moving the road away from the sensitive Tara 
area, this proposal was never seriously studied by the NRA. The MAHS 
supported this proposal in their submission to the oral hearing:

· “The Meath Archaeological and Historical Society is not opposed to 
roads development, or indeed motorways per se, but we are extremely 
concerned for the archaeological and wider cultural heritage. We 
question the need for four motorways to run through Meath - in 
particular we feel that two of the proposed motorways, the M3 and the 
M2, might well have been combined from the outset, or at least combined 
in part, thus minimising the effects on our archaeological and 
historical heritage. …. The need for four motorways and the proximity of 
two of the motorways in particular was not addressed in the EIS and we 
feel it must be taken into account in the overall environmental impact 
assessment.”

[Meath Archaeological and Historical Society submission to
M3 oral hearing, 12 September 2002]

[Meath Archaeological and Historical Society]



END OF SECTION 2: ARTICLE 5 BREACHES
3. ARTICLES 6 and 8 – PUBLIC CONSULTATION/PARTICIPATION

Article 6
1. “Member States shall take the measures necessary to ensure that the 
authorities likely to be concerned by the project by reason of their 
specific environmental responsibilities are given an opportunity to 
express their opinion on the request for development consent. Member 
States shall designate the authorities to be consulted for this purpose 
in general terms or in each case when the request for consent is made. 
The information gathered pursuant to Article 5 shall be forwarded to 
these authorities. Detailed arrangements for consultation shall be laid 
down by the Member States.

2. “Member States shall ensure that any request for development consent 
and any information gathered pursuant to Article 5 are made available to 
the public within a reasonable time in order to give the public 
concerned the opportunity to express an opinion before the development 
consent is granted.

Article 8
“The results of consultations and the information gathered pursuant to 
Articles 5, 6 and 7 must be taken into consideration in the development 
consent procedure”.

Summary of Articles 6 and 8 breaches
3.1 Overall process in breach of EIA requirement for meaningful public 
participation.
3.2 Public consultation sessions not conducive to meaningful public 
participation
3.3 Follow-up meetings with consultants unsatisfactory
3.4 Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) deficiencies
3.5 Oral Hearing deficiencies
3.6 Access to information: general breaches of Article 6
3.7 Access to Route Selection Reports: difficulties experienced
3.8 Access to information on consultations held with statutory bodies

The analysis in the following sections is drawn from the submissions to 
the oral hearing made by three local groups: Bellinter Residents 
Association (BRA), Meath Roads Action Group (MRAG) and Meath 
Archaeological and Historical Society (MAHS). In their submissions all 
three groups recorded deficiencies they experienced – inadequacies and 
inequities in the overall public consultation process and specific 
breaches of the EIA
In the experience of these groups, the M3 environmental impact 
assessment process failed to provide for full public consultation and 
failed to provide for meaningful public participation so as to enable a 
transparent decision-making process, as envisaged in the EIA Directives
Breaches/deficiencies were found at all stages of the process, i.e. in 
the public consultation sessions, the EIS, the Oral Hearing, the 
development consent procedure, and the appeals process

The most common difficulties found related to
· Access to “hard” information
· Insufficient information supplied
· Omission of information and incomplete information
· Access to expertise, advice and resources
· Access to oral hearing
· Consideration given to consultations etc in development consent procedure
· Access to justice/appeals system


[Meath Archaeological and Historical Society]
3.1 Overall process in breach of EIA requirement for meaningful public 
participation.

The public consultation/participation process experienced in this Scheme 
could not be described as “consultation”, let alone meaningful public 
participation aimed at enabling an effective, responsible and 
transparent decision-making process as should be necessary for such a 
lengthy and complex motorway scheme, and as envisaged in Articles 6 and 
8 of the EIA Directives.

3.1.1 Cosmetic exercise: The perception throughout the process was that 
the public consultation process entered into was nothing more than an 
expensive and elaborate cosmetic exercise, a “ticking the boxes” process 
designed to satisfy the letter of the EIA Directives rather than a real 
effort to arrive at the best possible solution in terms of transport 
needs and environmental effects.

Minor matters might be adjusted, and minor concessions made, but key 
decisions made at the very outset – e.g. the decision to route the M3 
motorway through the Tara area, the decision to investigate only 
motorway alternatives, and the decision to route the new motorway into 
the already seriously congested M50 interchange at Blanchardstown – were 
not going to be altered in any way.

These perceptions were confirmed in the decision of An Bord Pleanala to 
approve the motorway in 2003, a decision which attached no specific 
conditions as to the Tara landscape, no conditions as to the 
Blundelstown interchange, and which took no consideration of either the 
necessity for an integrated transport solution or even the difficulties 
of the routing into Blanchardstown.

The fact that An Bord Pleanala was under pressure to implement 
government policy, that this motorway was part of the National 
Development Plan, and that to date An Bord Pleanala had not rejected a 
motorway scheme did not help to inspire trust in the decision-making 
process.

3.1.2 Inequality of arms:
Another major aspect in which the process failed as a means of enabling 
meaningful public participation, was the glaring inequality inbuilt into 
the whole system. This was the longest single-contract motorway in the 
history of the State, necessitating many preliminary studies and a 
massive EIS, yet incredibly, no resources or funding was afforded to 
local groups (all voluntary) with genuine heritage and environmental 
concerns. The members of these groups had to invest considerable 
expense, time and energy in accessing and interpreting vast amounts of 
documentation in order to make their submissions, and in attending daily 
at the lengthy oral hearing, where, again they found themselves in the 
unequal position of having to pit their wits against an array of lawyers 
and experts called in by the developers, in a situation where neither 
the NRA themselves nor the State’s heritage agency were obliged to 
attend or be cross-examined.

3.1.3 Access to justice denied:

The final injustice was the effective denial of a right of appeal, due to

· the prohibitive costs in taking a High Court judicial review action,
· the limited procedural grounds allowed for such an action,
· the limited time available in which to study the extensive documentation,
· the absence of any other means of appealing even part of the motorway 
decision, and
· the locus standi provisions which allowed only people who had made 
submissions to take any further action in the matter.

3.1.4 National issue reduced to a local planning matter – no opportunity 
for wider debate

Tara is Ireland’s premier national monument and the Tara landscape is of 
national and European importance. However, in allowing this landscape to 
be subsumed into a local planning issue, no opportunity was afforded for 
a national debate on the impact of the M3 on this ancient landscape, and 
no real opportunity was offered to the wider public – in Ireland and 
Europe – to give their opinions on the issue. In addition, the 
downplaying of the impacts in the EIS gave many people the false 
impression that there would be no real effect on Tara.

3.1.5 Absence of independent assessment
Where major State infrastructural development is concerned, particularly 
one with potentially significantly adverse impacts on the environment, 
it would surely be preferable to have an independent assessment of all 
the impacts, with full consultation at the earliest stages so as to 
minimise the negative effects and arrive at a more viable solution.

This did not happen. The M3 was part of the National Development Plan 
and that pressure must have informed the whole assessment process.

In addition, there was no independent heritage assessment – Duchas could 
not be seen as independent as it was operating from a Government 
Department, and in any case, its preference for the P route was not 
reflected in the choice of route.

3.2 Public consultation sessions not conducive to meaningful public 
participation:

3.2.1 The public consultation process in this Scheme has been frequently 
referred to by NRA and Meath County Council spokespersons, and others 
involved in promoting the Scheme, and the impression is given:

· that the public – including people outside Meath - were fully informed 
as to all the ramifications and impacts of the routes being proposed, 
including their impact on Tara, in such a way as to enable them to make 
informed submissions

· that the views and submissions of the public were fully taken into 
account by
the Design team, and

· that the route selection decision was informed and influenced by the 
views
and submissions of the public received during this process

[see 3.3.2 below]

It is our contention that this was not the case!




3.2.2 NRA and MCC comments on the public consultation process

Two public consultation sessions were held for this section of the M3



· “An important part of a route selection process is a process of public 
consultation… The first public consultation session for the Dunshaughlin 
to Navan section of the Scheme took place on 15 December 1999, attended 
by approximately 100 people. Thereafter, members of the Design team made 
themselves available to communicate with the public through appointments 
at their offices or by phone or by written correspondence. The issues 
raised in the course of this consultation process were evaluated as part 
of the selection of the preferred route…”
· “A second public consultation process was held over four days from 
22-25 May 2000 at two locations in Meath…. The public consultation 
processes were widely advertised…. The purpose of this second 
consultation process was to inform the public about the Emerging 
Preferred Route and to collect the public’s views, comments and 
contributions thereon…. This round of public consultation generated 
enormous public interest and approximately 750 people attended these 
sessions over the three days. In addition, numerous submissions were 
received in writing.”
[Gerry Murphy, NRA, affidavit in High Court proceedings, 2006]

· “The constraints study and route selection was carried out between 
June 1999 and June 2000. During this period, over 4,000 people attended 
the various consultations on the project.”
[Geraldine Fitzpatrick, NRA, presentation to the
Oireachtas Committee on the Environment, 1 June 2004]

· “A number of main issues have been raised in regard to the M3. One is 
the lack of consultation. Over 4,000 people attended public consultations.”
[Daire O’Rourke, NRA, presentation to the
Oireachtas Committee on the Environment, 1 June 2004]

· “There was a highly publicised process of public consultation prior to 
a final route being chosen and members of the public were given ample 
opportunity to make submissions and express their views…..”
[Affidavit of Gerry Murphy, NRA, para. 21]

3.2.3 Division of communities:
 From the very beginning, the seeming multiplicity of route options in 
the Dunshaughlin to Navan section – of 10 possible options given, 7 were 
routed through the immediate Tara landscape - had the result of dividing 
communities to be affected in this section of the route, thereby 
preventing a meaningful and coherent consensus on the route to be 
brought forward, which might have resulted in a more viable route being 
chosen, involving better protection for the Tara area.

· “The NRA and its colleagues at local level have almost gone overboard 
in respect of consultation in recent years, to the extent that we are 
beginning to think we are undertaking too much consultation. Under the 
system that has been pursued in recent years, route options are made 
public when they have been identified. The public is given an 
opportunity to comment, positively or negatively, on the options. People 
who are affected by four or ten routes may consider that a road will be 
built on their lands, farms, homes or businesses. A significant number 
of people who think the project will land on them start to get into a 
tizzy, despite the fact that just one route will be pursued. The 
emerging view is that we are ruffling many feathers to no great gain. 
The NRA may publicly state that it is considering between six and ten 
routes, but many people prefer to believe in a conspiracy theory 
instead. They are convinced that somebody in a back room has placed in a 
drawer a map that outlines the route that is eventually to be pursued. 
They think that the consultation process is a lot of palaver and of no 
meaning. It is hard to know how we can win. We engage in a very 
extensive level of consultation, if anything.”
[Michael Tobin, NRA, presentation to Oireachtas Committee on the 
Environment, 1 June 2004]


3.2.4 Limited number of consultations:
The NRA failed to adhere to their own guidelines and only held two 
Public Consultations for this section instead of the recommended three 
[this emerged at the oral hearing].

3.2.5 Insufficient information and interpretation supplied at public 
consultations



· The public consultation sessions consisted for the most part of 
displays of maps on which the various route options were marked, 
together with questionnaires for return. Route selection archaeological 
reports or other relevant information were not available at these sessions.

· While junior members of the consultancy teams were available at the 
venues, no independent expertise or advice was available at any time to 
enable a better understanding of the impacts of the Scheme, particularly 
its impacts on heritage. The State Heritage Agency, Dúchas, was not 
present at any of the public consultation sessions and Duchas did not 
attend the oral hearing.

· Crucially, there was no information on the proposed 26-acre 
Blundelstown interchange just 1km from the Hill of Tara. The only 
mention made at the public consultation sessions related to a “possible 
interchange”, and no information was supplied – either in the public 
consultations, the EIS or the oral hearing – as to the impact which this 
interchange would have on the archaeological heritage and the 
archaeological landscape of Tara

3.2.6 Insufficient information was available in relation to the nature 
of the scheme.

Originally, an upgraded N3 road proposal was planned and this was the 
subject of the public consultation process. The proposal was changed to 
a motorway scheme only after all the public consultations had taken 
place. The public was not consulted in relation to this major alteration.

At a later date again the decision was taken to toll the motorway – 
again only after all the public consultation had taken place and the 
route was adopted etc. The public was not consulted in relation to this 
major decision.

· In addition, a section of the chosen route was never part of the 
consultative or planning process. This is a section where they joined up 
two sub-sections as part of the EPR.
[Appendix A1 of the MRAG Submission to the Oral Hearing].

· Also, the Blundelstown Interchange was not displayed or explained – it 
was merely noted as a “possible” interchange

3.2.7 Results of public consultations not taken into account in 
selection of route

Over 4,000 people attended public consultations but the majority of 
respondents to the various route options were against the routes located 
in the Tara/Skryne valley. The evidence for this is contained in the 
developer’s own document, the Route Selection Report. However, this 
opposition was not reflected in the final selection of the route.

· “A total of 293 completed questionnaires were received and the most 
heavily favoured routes were F [ = P route east of Skreen] and A [= O 
route, west of Tara]. In fact the percentage of people whose 1st 
preference was route F or A was at least double that of any other route 
option. This could possibly reflect the number of attendees who live 
immediately adjacent to the existing N3. This is supported by the most 
important impact being identified as “Least impact on people living near 
the selected route”.
[Page 130, Section 9, Consultations: 9.3 Public Exhibition]

3.3 Follow-up meetings with consultants unsatisfactory
During and following the public consultations, a number of groups did 
take the opportunity to meet with various members of the consultancy 
team. These meetings for the most part were frustrating in that the 
group members came away with the impression that their contributions 
might be listened to, and perhaps minor matters addressed, but that they 
were effectively irrelevant to the route selection decision in this 
section – the road was going to go through the Tara landscape one way or 
the other.

Again, no opportunity was afforded for local groups to understand all 
the heritage impacts – there was no opportunity to speak with officials 
from Duchas, no information was available as to the recommendations made 
by Dúchas, and information supplied by developers’ consultants was 
insufficient and could not be seen as independent.


3.4 Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) deficiencies

3.4.1 Excessive costs: The costs of purchasing the entire set of volumes 
was in the region of 700 euro. This was prohibitive for most local 
groups and individuals. In addition, some of the CDs of the EIS were 
found to be defective and the EIS was not available on the Internet

3.4.2 Location and time available to study EIS. Four venues in Meath 
were listed where the EIS could be studied. These were small offices 
open only within limited office hours and not suitable for detailed 
study of the documentation. There was no facility for photocopying at 
these venues and there were no experts available for clarification or 
explanation of the data included in the EIS

3.4.3 Omissions from EIS: Geophysical report and imagesin relation to 
route B2 were not contained in the EIS and the public were not made 
aware of the existence of a separate geophysical report volume. In 
addition, the route selection archaeology reports were not available at 
the venues where the EIS was on show. [see sections 1 and 2 above]


3.5 Oral Hearing deficiencies



3.5.1 Access to oral hearing: The lengthy (28 day) oral hearing was 
located in Drogheda, in a neighbouring county to Meath, i.e. Louth. For 
most people affected along the M3 this would have meant a round trip 
journey of from 30 - 60 miles per day. This factor effectively excluded 
participation by many persons affected and persons genuinely concerned 
about the impact of the M3 on the heritage.

3.5.2 Access to expertise and resources: again no provision was made for 
voluntary groups concerned about the environment

3.5.3 Cosmetic exercise: All through the process, the feeling was that 
the key decisions were already made and no significant alteration could 
be considered. This carried over into the oral hearing – detailed 
submissions were made in relation to the routing through the Tara 
landscape but these were totally ignored in the decision-making process



3.6 Access to information – General breaches of Article 6

3.6.1 Difficulties in accessing “hard” information: Each of the 3 groups 
experienced difficulties in getting “hard” information from Meath County 
Council (MCC) and the National Roads Authority (NRA): while there 
appeared to be a readiness to answer questions it was felt the answers 
obtained were very minimal. Several groups felt that the NRA and their 
consultants were being ‘deliberately obstructive’ in terms of releasing 
information to the public (examples below).

Meath Archaeological and Historical Society: In their submission to the 
M3 oral hearing, the MAHS felt it necessary to refer to the difficulties 
which voluntary groups had experienced and were continuing to experience 
in accessing ‘hard’ information.

· “If public involvement in the environmental impact assessment 
procedure is to be taken seriously, and if a proper assessment is to be 
made, all relevant information in relation to the proposed road 
development, including initial planning and route selection procedures 
and guidelines, experts’ submissions and reports etc., should be made 
available for inspection, as well as the EIS. In practice, voluntary 
groups and individuals usually have to find out for themselves what 
information to ask for, and can in some cases be denied information 
simply because they did not ask for the documentation or report by the 
correct title. This flies against the spirit of the EU Directive. Full 
access to information is essential for the assessment of the likely 
effects of development and no information should be withheld for 
technical or bureaucratic reasons.”
[MAHS submission to oral hearing, September 2002]

Bellinter Residents Association and Meath Roads Action Group: The 
Bellinter Residents Association submission contained 9 pages documenting 
specific examples of the difficulties they had experienced in extracting 
information from Meath County Council and the National Roads Authority 
throughout the process. The MRAG submission also highlighted 
difficulties experienced:

3.7 Access to Route Selection Reports – difficulties experienced

3.7.1 Route selection reports not available to public:
Spokespersons for the developers have stated publicly since the An Bord 
Pleanala decision (2003) that the Route Selection Report “was available 
for inspection”. While technically correct, the fact is that few people 
knew about it as they were not made aware of its existence.

3.7.2 Bellinter Residents: For the Bellinter Residents’ Association, 
it’s existence only came to light when the group pressured the NRA for 
information. The NRA then produced a specially created 50-page document 
titled “Summary of Environmental Impacts (Extracts from Route Selection 
Report) July 2001”.

· “Since this Oral Hearing commenced every “objector” raised the problem 
of getting information from the National Roads Authority and Meath 
County Council.”
· “The first offer of information from the NRA was a 50-page document 
titled: Summary of Environmental Impacts (Extracts from Route Selection 
Report) July 2001. (See Supporting Document No 1.) This was not what was 
asked for, and was seen as an attempt to prevent us getting the 
information requested. In fact, we discovered later that the content of 
this document appeared to have been “edited” and “changed” from the 
original Route Selection Report.
· “Finally, in December 2001, we were advised that the files requested 
were available for inspection. However, inspection of these files 
revealed that all of them ended in April 2000 and there appeared to be 
many gaps in the information. For example, although the motorway is 
proposed to go through the Hill of Tara area, there was no information 
about archaeology”.

[Bellinter Residents Association submission to oral hearing, pages 
37-39; full details of these ‘differences’ can also be found on pages 11 
to 13 of the MRAG submission]

3.7.3 Differences between documents: When the group compared the actual 
Route Selection Report with the “Summary of Environmental Impacts 
(Extracts from Route Selection Report) July 2001”, which was specially 
created for them, they found a number of differences between them. The 
NRA was asked for an explanation for these ‘differences’ but refused to 
give a reason.

3.7.4 Missing information: As well as ‘differences’ between the two 
documents, the Bellinter Residents Association also discovered entire 
sections were missing. The most important of these was, the entire 
10-page section on archaeology. The NRA was well aware that archaeology 
was one of the main planks of our objection, so it can only be assumed 
it was a deliberate attempt to prevent us getting information.

3.7.5 Other missing sections: The Summary Report is titled: “Summary of 
Environmental Impacts (Extracts from Route Selection Report) July 2001”, 
however Archaeology, Water Quality, Land Use and Air Quality, were omitted!



3.8 Access to information - consultations held with statutory bodies

3.8.1 Duchas, The Heritage Service.

Dúchas was the State agency concerned with protection of the heritage 
(at the time of the M3 decision). The Duchas position on the route 
options was of public interest yet it was never published and Duchas 
never appeared at any of the public consultation sessions nor were they 
present for cross-examination at the oral hearing. Rumours on the 
position of Duchas were circulating at the time of the oral hearing and 
one or two groups had accessed some information mainly to the effect 
that Duchas had rejected the western route and had approved the route 
east of Skreen (P). This was indicated to the Bellinter Residents 
Association in a letter from the Ombudsman (3.8.2. below) which was 
raised in their submission to the oral hearing.

To this day (March 2006), the full account has never been published but 
in affidavits to the High Court heard in early 2006, further information 
has appeared as to the Duchas position which indicates that Duchas had 
objected to several of the route options.

3.8.2 Ombudsman’s letter: The Bellinter Residents Association , on 17th 
Nov. 2000, sought the help of the Ombudsman because of failure of the 
Department of Arts, Heritage and the Gaeltacht to respond to their 
questions about the impacts of the Emerging Preferred Route on the Tara 
area . Despite much correspondence over a long period including an 
appeal to the Taoiseach , they had received nothing more than 
acknowledgements. Finally from the office of the Ombudsman in a letter 
dated 5th Sept .2001 the residents received the following response:

“I refer again to the complaint you made to this Office concerning a 
failure on the part of the Department of Arts, Heritage, Gaeltacht and 
the Islands to reply to your correspondence regarding plans by Meath 
County Council in relation to development proposals in your area. I 
regret the delay in dealing with your queries. However at the outset I 
must advise you the National Roads Authority is outside the Ombudsman’s 
remit therefore he would not be in a position to examine the substantive 
issue of your complaint with that body.With regard to your reference to 
Route “P” I must apologise for an omission in section N3 Dunshaughlin to 
Navan Road Improvement Scheme of my correspondence to you of 28th May 
2001. This should have read as follows which I hope will clarify the 
matter for you. Officials from the Department have had ongoing 
discussions with Halcrow Barry, Consultant Engineers and Margaret Gowen 
& Co.,Archaeological Consultants, regarding the proposed route options 
for the above scheme. In addition, the department also received 
archaeological reports, prepared by Margaret Gowen & Co., Archaeological 
Consultants, namely ‘Archaeological Constraints Study-dated 8/10/99’ and 
‘N3 Navan to Dunshauglin Route Selection Archaeology –dated 14/8/00’.

“The latter report ,which is quite detailed,assesses the various route 
options based on a desktop study and details the archaeological 
implications of the routes under consideration. The Archaeological 
Consultants recommends the route which they consider to be ‘the least 
intrusive and archaeologically most viable’. The Route being recommended 
is Route P-running to the east of Skreen (this is Route E on the Halcrow 
Barry Map- Consultant Engineers for the project).

“The report also pays attention to the impact on the Hill of Tara and 
its surrounding landscape. It also states in the report that ‘all routes 
carry with them a high likelihood of disturbing archaeological features, 
given the nature of the landscape and the location of the proposed roads 
within one of the richest archaeological landscapes in the country’. The 
report also points out ‘while the proposed Route P is not without the 
potential to produce archaeological features ,it is the most 
archaeologically viable’. The proposals / reports received have been 
assessed from both the built (archaeology) and natural (nature 
conservation) heritage perspectives.”

· It seems quite clear from the above that Dúchas were misled and in 
fact believed that Route “P” was the selected option.

[cf: Bellinter Residents Association submission, Sept. 2002, pages 
41-43, 45; Appendix No. 9: “note” of meeting between Duchas and Halcrow 
Barry; Appendix No. 14: DO Letter, Ref. 01N31884, 1st July 2002. See 
also pages 17 and 18, and appendices C6 and C7 of MRAG submission to 
Oral Hearing, 2002]



-----------------------------------------------------


4. CONCLUSIONS:

· The M3 Environmental Impact Assessment breached Articles 3, 5, 6 and 8 
of the EIA Directives.

· Tara is a national issue and should not have been subsumed into a 
local planning application

· A fundamental mistake was made in routing a section of the M3 motorway 
through the Tara archaeological landscape. This mistake was compounded 
at every stage of the planning process. This mistake could have been 
rectified.

· Cultural heritage of national and European importance has very limited 
protection when it comes into conflict with State infrastructural 
development proposals. An Bord Pleanala has no remit under the National 
Monuments Acts and the limited protection available at the time of the 
M3 decision has been further reduced by the passing of a new National 
Monuments Act in 2004.


ENDS
Compiled by Julitta Clancy, Asst Secretary, Meath Archaeological and 
Historical Society
With assistance of: Claire Oakes, Bellinter Residents Association and 
Tara Heritage Preservation Group, and John Clancy, M.A.H.S. and Tara 
Heritage Preservation Group. March 2006



Appendix 1
MEATH ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND HISTORICAL SOCIETY

“The Proposed M3 Clonee to Kells Motorway Scheme and the M.A.H.S.”
Appendix to M.A.H.S. Annual Report 2004-05,
Julitta Clancy, Assistant Secretary, Annual General Meeting, 6 April 2005

Contents:
1. Brief history of the M3 proposal (with special reference to Tara section)
2. Summary of MAHS involvement with M3 and related issues 1999-2004
3. Summary of action taken by the MAHS on the M3/Tara issue during 2004-05
4. Addendum

1. Brief history of the M3 proposal (with special reference to Tara section)

1999-2002:

In 1999, Meath County Council signed off on a proposal for improvements 
to the N3
including the bypass of Dunshaughlin and a dual carriageway from Clonee 
to north of
Dunshaughlin. This proposal was later subsumed into an extended 
upgrading covering 63km from
Clonee to north of Kells, as part of the National Development Plan, and 
later again this was
designated as a tolled motorway scheme under a single PPP contract. The 
entire route was
divided into 5 sections for the purposes of environmental impact studies

Archaeological reports and investigations:
Archaeological and other consultants were commissioned to investigate 
and report on the
likely impact of the various routes proposed. In the Dunshaughlin to 
Navan section, 6 routes
were offered (later subdivided into 10), of which 5 went through the 
Tara cultural landscape,
described in several reports as “one of the richest archaeological 
landscapes in Europe.”
The archaeological consultants repeatedly stressed the sensitivity and 
importance of the
Tara/Skryne landscape, and at the end of this process, the only route in 
this section
“unequivocally recommended” by the consultants was the P route east of 
Skryne (outside the
Tara landscape) which was also favoured on several other environmental 
grounds.

Route selected: The B2 route, between the hills of Tara and Skryne and 
including a major 26-
acre interchange at Blundelstown, just 1km from the northern end of the 
Hill of Tara, was
selected. A geophysical survey was then commissioned by Meath County 
Council into this
section, the results of which were described as “spectacular” by several 
archaeological experts,
with over 23 areas indicating possible archaeological remains, some 
quite complex. 7 of these
sites were described as of “high archaeological significance” by the 
consultant archaeologists
employed by Meath Co Council. (The road was later amended to avoid 3 of 
these)

In 2002, the Environmental Impact Statement for the M3 was published, 
containing 17
volumes. It should be noted that the geophysical survey was not included 
in the EIS and
was not advertised to the public. Only a summary and interpretation of 
the geophysical
survey results was included in the relevant volume (4) of the EIS which 
listed at least 37
sites for further investigation, including 2 recorded monuments.

Oral hearing and Board decision: The An Bord Pleanala oral hearing 
commenced in late
August 2002 in the Boyne Valley Hotel, Drogheda. Julitta Clancy, then 
President of the Society,
presented the MAHS submission on 12 September and the hearing itself – 
on the entire M3 route
– continued until November 2002.

2003-2005:The Inspector’s report, comprising over 1,000 pages, was 
delivered to An Bord Pleanala
in late July 2003 and the Board’s decision, granting full approval to 
the motorway, was issued
3 weeks later (August 2003). Of the 10 conditions, none related to 
archaeology, and only one –
relating to a cultural survey of the route - took into account the 
submission of the Meath
Archaeological and Historical Society. However, in the course of the 
hearing the NRA and Meath
County Council committed themselves to providing sufficient funds and 
time for full archaeological
excavations of all sites found along the entire route. (Meath 
Archaeological and Historical Society were
unable to take a judicial review of the Board’s decision due to (i) 
prohibitive costs, (ii) limited procedural
grounds allowed)


Following the Board’s order, and for almost a full year, NRA 
spokespersons stated that only 5 sites were
impacted in the Dunshaughlin to Navan section. This took into account 
the 2 recorded sites and only 3 of the
sites uncovered in the geophysical survey. Further archaeological 
investigation, involving extensive test
trenching, was carried out in March-May 2004. Interim findings published 
in May 2004 indicated 28
archaeological sites in the Dunshaughlin to Navan section, and the 
number was increased to 38 sites in the
final reports published in September 2004. (This figure included only a 
portion of the sites discovered in the
geophysical survey).

Addendum: On May 11th 2005, the Minister for the Environment, Heritage 
and Local
Government issued directions for the excavation of the 38 sites found in 
this section and
excavations commenced in June 2005. A total of 156 sites were confirmed 
along the entire
motorway route and excavations in the remaining sections commenced in 
July 2005. Excavations
commenced in June 2005.


2. Summary of MAHS involvement with M3 and related issues 1999-2004

1999-2000:
MAHS Council members attended consultations on the N2 (Ashbourne bypass) 
and N3 upgrading
proposals and met with residents’ groups, Council engineers, roads 
consultants, local politicians,
Duchas officials and various archaeologists and historians.The 
archaeological implications of the
4 motorway and dual carriageway proposals to be routed through Meath 
were discussed at
numerous MAHS Council meetings, MAHS lectures, Journal launches, Annual 
General Meetings
etc. during the period in question. A sub-committee of the Council, 
chaired by Enda O’Boyle,
was formed to examine and report on the archaeological dimension of 
roads development in the
county.

2001:
In the Spring and Summer of 2001, a delegation of Council members, 
accompanied by Society
Patron, Professor George Eogan, visited a number of archaeological sites 
under excavation along
the M1 Northern Motorway route. In June 2001, the Society hosted a major 
seminar in
conjunction with the Louth Archaeological and Historical Society, which 
focused on archaeological
excavations along the M1 and the archaeological dimension of other 
proposed routes, as well as
the implications of the Code of Practice on roads archaeology.

2002:
Following publication of the Environmental Impact Statement the Society 
hosted a briefing by
NRA archaeologist Mary Deevy who reported on some of the spectacular 
discoveries found as a
result of the geophysical survey carried out on the selected route in 
the Dunshaughlin to Navan
section. On 12 September 2002 the MAHS submission on the M3 was 
presented to An Bord
Pleanala oral hearing, Boyne Valley Hotel, Drogheda by Julitta Clancy. 
The submission was
published in Riocht na Midhe 2003. In October the MAHS co-hosted another 
major public seminar
on the archaeological dimension of roads proposals, including the M3 
scheme, at the Boyne
Valley Hotel, Drogheda

2003-2004:
Following the An Bord Pleanala decision in late August 2003, the 
September meeting of the MAHS Council entrusted Assistant Secretary, 
Julitta Clancy, to represent the Society in relation to the M3 issue, 
and specifically to represent the Council on a committee to be formed 
following a public meeting in Dalgan Park. Several other council members 
and ordinary members took part in the meetings of this committee leading 
to the major archaeological seminar held in Dalgan Park on 13th March 
2004, attended by over 200 people including many MAHS members. (The 
Society formally withdrew its representation from this committee in May 
2004 due to irreconcilable differences).

2004-2005:
At the AGM of the Society on 31st March 2004, the M3 issue was discussed.
Three resolutions were voted on and two of these were passed. The action 
taken by the Council following these resolutions is outlined below.



3. Summary of action taken by the MAHS on the M3/Tara issue, 2004 – 2005

At the AGM on 31st March 2004, two resolutions on the M3/Tara issue were 
passed:
1. “That the MAHS write to the Taoiseach respectfully requesting that 
the section of the proposed M3 motorway which would pass through the 
Tara-Skryne Valley be reconsidered and completed in such a way as to 
preserve the integrity of the Hill of Tara and the valley itself.” The 
resolution further asked that “a copy of such letter be forwarded to 
other relevant government ministers, the National Roads Authority, Meath 
County Council, local politicians and the Meath Chronicle.”

2. “That the MAHS calls for Tara and its unique archaeological landscape 
to be designated a World Heritage Site, and that the MAHS write to the 
Taoiseach and the Minister for the Environment asking them to apply 
formally to UNESCO for such designation.”

A further proposal, to host an information meeting for Meath County 
Councillors and candidates in the June local and European elections, was 
also passed.

Below is a very brief summary of the action taken by the Society in the 
past year in relation to the M3/Tara issue. In addition to the actions 
itemised below, the issue was also discussed at most MAHS Council 
meetings during the year and several Council members gave up a great 
deal of their own time undertaking research, writing and presenting 
papers on various aspects of the issues involved, sharing information 
and attending formal and informal meetings with academics and other 
local groups. Meetings were also held with the NRA project archaeologist 
and several members of the Council were invited to visit some of the 
sites affected on the motorway route. Unfortunately, despite many 
letters, submissions, meetings and appeals over the past two years – 
including appeals by a large number of academics in Ireland and abroad - 
arguments for a reconsideration of the contentious section of the route 
have not been accepted and even our simple requests for a meeting with 
the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government have not 
been acceded to.

One of the most regrettable aspects of the M3/Tara issue has been the 
division it has caused among some of the people and communities in 
Meath, a division which has prevented Meath people from coming together 
to debate, work out and press for a solution which would allow for the 
preservation of this unique part of our heritage as well as delivering 
the much-needed and long overdue transport reliefs.

Throughout our campaign on the M3/Tara issue the Society has often been 
misunderstood and frequently misrepresented. At all times we have sought 
to act constructively and responsibly, seeking to inform and educate 
ourselves, the public, the media, the heritage agencies and our own 
politicians as to the crucial heritage issues at stake, in line with the 
aims of our Society to “preserve, examine, publish and illustrate the 
antiquities, records and traditions connected with the territory of the 
Ancient Kingdom of Meath”. We have never threatened litigation. 
Conscious of the urgent transport problems of Meath, we have also tried 
to be constructive in researching and putting forward suggestions and 
ideas as to how this unique part of our national heritage could 
effectively be preserved in conjunction with effective resolution of our 
transport needs

2004 (April 2004 – December): Outline of principal activities and 
meetings attended

April 4th: meeting with NRA and Co Council officials at which MAHS and 
other local groups, as well as independent archaeologists and 
historians, made presentations

April 27th: The MAHS Council hosted a seminar in the Ardboyne Hotel for 
Meath County Councillors, Urban Councillors and candidates in the local 
and European elections. The seminar was addressed by archaeologists 
Conor Newman and Joe Fenwick and Historian Dr Edel Bhreathnach, former 
members of the Discovery Programme’s Tara Survey. Councillors present 
agreed to propose a debate in Meath County Council following the elections.

April 28th: MAHS submission to the Joint Oireachtas Committee on the 
Environment presented by Asst. Secretary Julitta Clancy. This was 
accompanied by a detailed written submission

May: The Council of the MAHS formally withdrew its representation on the 
committee of the Save Tara Skryne Valley Group due to irreconcilable 
differences. A notice was published in the Meath Chronicle informing the 
public of this decision





May 17th : Society President, John Gavin, and Vice-President, Fr. Gerard 
Rice, sent a formal letter to the Taoiseach reciting the members’ wishes 
as expressed at the AGM, calling for World Heritage Site status for the 
Tara archaeological landscape and urging for a reconsideration of the 
Dunshaughlin to Navan section of the proposed M3. This letter was copied 
to the Ministers for Environment and Transport, all local TDs and 
councillors, the NRA and the Meath Co. Manager. A summary of the 
contents of the letter was published in the Meath Chronicle and the full 
text is reproduced in Ríocht na Midhe 2005. The letter led to a very 
strong editorial in the Meath Chronicle

June 1st: a delegation from the MAHS Council attended a further hearing 
into the M3 held by the Joint Oireachtas Committee on the Environment at 
which the NRA presented their submission in the course of which they 
reiterated their previous statements that 5 sites would be impacted in 
the Dunshaughlin to Navan section.

June: having received the interim report on the archaeological testing 
which had confirmed a minimum of 28 sites in the Dunshaughlin to Navan 
section, the Asst. Secretary wrote to all Meath Co Councillors asking 
for a debate on the M3/Tara issue in the light of this new evidence

July 5th: MAHS council members attended the first Meath County Council 
debate on the M3 issue at which 13 out of the 17 councillors who spoke 
expressed concern over the routing of the motorway through the Tara area 
and called for reconsideration. A vote was taken to invite in the NRA to 
report to them and answer the questions raised. A proposal was also made 
that the Councillors meet with the Ministers for Environment and Transport

August: MAHS members and Tara Heritage Preservation Group met with new 
MEP Mairead McGuinness and brought her on a tour of Tara

September 6th: MAHS Council members attended the second Meath Co Council 
debate on the M3. The MAHS proposal that the Council invite 
archaeologists Conor Newman and Joe Fenwick to brief the councillors 
following the publication of the final report on the archaeological 
testing was agreed to (at a venue outside the Council Chamber)

September 21st: Project archaeologist Mary Deevy briefed the MAHS 
Council on the findings of the archaeological testing and reported that 
38 archaeological sites had now been confirmed in the Dunshaughlin to 
Navan section. The great majority of these sites were previously unknown 
and the figure included only 9 of the 23 possible sites previously 
discovered by the geophysical survey conducted for the EIS

October 1st: MAHS Council members, along with members of the Tara 
Heritage Preservation Group, met with the Co Manager, Mr Tom Dowling and 
Council officials, at which the concerns over the impact of the M3 on 
the Tara landscape were stated, and the issue of the waste site at 
Philpotstown was raised

October 6th: MAHS council members attended the third Meath Co Council 
debate on the M3, to hear the NRA presentation. One Fianna Fail 
councillor read into the record a letter by senior archaeologists and 
historians calling for preservation of the Tara landscape (the letter 
had been forwarded to all councillors by the MAHS). Later in the month 
MAHS council members attended the special briefing given to the Co 
Councillors by the members of the Discovery Programme’s Tara Survey (in 
the Newgrange Hotel, Navan)

October: The NRA and the National Monuments Service were contacted by 
the MAHS in relation to a report received from an MAHS member as to 
damage reportedly done to two of the newly discovered archaeological 
sites in the course of intensive development works connected with the 
waste site at Philpotstown just 1km from the Hill of Tara

November 1st: Letter sent to the Chairman of the Oireachtas Environment 
Committee requesting a further hearing on the M3 in the light of the new 
evidence as to the number of sites to be impacted (which had not been 
raised at the NRA presentation on 1 June)

November 23rd-25th: Several members of the MAHS Council, including the 
President and the Hon. Treasurer, as well as patron Dr George Eogan, 
attended the Dail and Seanad debates on Tara and the M3 which arose out 
of a Labour Party motion in the Dail. The Society had been previously 
invited to brief the Labour Party spokesperson on environment and 
heritage issues, Eamon Gilmore TD.

December 2004: The Chair and members of the Oireachtas Environment 
Committee visited Tara and were conducted around some of the sites to be 
impacted by Professor George Eogan and Mary Deevy, NRA archaeologist. 
The MAHS wrote to the Oireachtas Transport Committee asking for a 
hearing into the M3


2005 (January to April)
January 19th 2005: MAHS Vice-President Fr Gerard Rice and Asst Secretary 
Julitta Clancy made a further presentation to the Oireachtas Environment 
Committee along with Society member Claire Oakes (representing the Tara 
Heritage Preservation Group). A written submission was also handed in. 
Also making submissions that day were Dr George Eogan and members of the 
Discovery Programme Tara Survey, Conor Newman, Dr Edel Bhreathnach and 
Joe Fenwick. Following these presentations, the Chair of the Oireachtas 
Committee, Sean Haughey TD, invited presentations from the Director of 
the National Museum, Dr Patrick Wallace, the CEO of the Heritage 
Council, Michael Starrett, the CEO of the Discovery Programme, Dr Brian 
Lacy and the Chief Archaeologist, Brian Duffy. (The Heritage Council and 
the Discovery Programme accepted the invitation and gave strong 
presentations. However, the Director of the Museum was not permitted to 
attend and the Chief Archaeologist declined the invitation.)

February 1st 2005: Asst Secretary Julitta Clancy made an oral submission 
to the Oireachtas Transport Committee, summarising the main points of a 
detailed written submission outlining the background to the road scheme, 
and putting forward a combination of integrated transport solutions – 
including rail, motorway and bus routes - which would give choice to the 
commuter, greater benefits for the environment and for communities in 
Meath while also preserving the Tara landscape for posterity. The 
delegation included other MAHS Council members and ordinary members of 
the Society

March 2nd, 2005: Letter sent to Chief Archaeologist Brian Duffy re 
Philpotstown waste site and concerns re future commercial and 
residential development in the vicinity of the Blundelstown interchange. 
The letter was copied to the Minister for Environment and others, and 
further letters were sent to the Minister requesting a meeting with the 
Society. [Editor: No reply has yet been received from the Chief 
Archaeologist. Autumn 2005]

Media: During the year, the Asst. Secretary who had been entrusted by 
the Council to represent them in relation to the M3, gave interviews on 
LM/FM radio, RTE Radio, RTE television, Newstalk 106, TV3 and BBC 
Northern Ireland, and letters and items written by Society members were 
published in a variety of papers including the Meath Chronicle, the 
Drogheda Independent, the Irish Times, the Irish Independent, the Irish 
Examiner, the Irish News, the Guardian, the London Independent, Village 
Magazine, the Sunday Tribune, the New York Times and the International 
Herald Tribune

Addendum: May/June 2005. Ministerial directions. On 11th May the 
Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, Dick Roche 
T.D. issued directions (under the National Monuments Amendment Act 2004) 
authorising excavation of the 38 archaeological sites confirmed in the 
Dunshaughlin to Navan section. In total, over 156 sites were discovered 
along the entire M3 motorway route. Excavations commenced in June 2005, 
paving the way for the construction of the tolled motorway to commence 
in 2006.


Dr Pat Wallace, Director of the National Museum of Ireland: Following 
the Minister’s directions, we received (under the Freedom of Information 
Act) a copy of the letter written to the Minister on 16th March 2005 by 
the Director of the National Museum, Dr Patrick Wallace, in his role as 
statutory consultee under the National Monuments (Amendment) Act 2004. 
In the course of his letter Dr Wallace made a strong plea for 
reconsideration of the Tara section of the proposed motorway, arguing 
for an alteration of the route and pointing out the possibilities of 
designating the area as “an archaeological area” as provided in the 
national monuments legislation:

“… I believe Tara and the complex or association of monuments and sacred 
spaces in its surroundings to be the most important of their type in 
Ireland, if not in Europe. Taken together, this group of monuments 
constitute an archaeological and cultural landscape which deserves the 
fullest and most generous archaeological protection. The process of 
evaluation by which the planning authority agreed to the proposed works 
in such a culturally sensitive area seems narrow. This is because it 
chose to confine its deliberation to Tara on the basis of the 
requirements of individual sites and ignored the importance of the place 
as a complex in the first millennium and later when it was as important 
as it was in the Iron Age and before. I would respectfully point out 
that under s. 5. (2)(b) of the 1987 Act you have the power to designate 
important complexes as “archaeological areas”….







“… Tara is a unique cultural landscape, which has a significance for our 
national heritage that extends beyond the sum of its individual 
archaeological components. It is one of a small number of monumental 
complexes that are of more than usual cultural importance from the 
standpoint not only of archaeology but also of history, mythology, 
folklore, language, place-names study and, in the case of Tara, even of 
national identity…… I continue to have a difficulty with this relatively 
small section of the M3, because of what I sincerely believe to be the 
unacceptable degree of negative impact which it will inevitably have on 
the incomparable landscape of Tara and the proximity and scale of the 
proposed interchange at Blundelstown crossroads.”
[from letter of Dr Patrick Wallace to Minister Dick Roche, TD, 16 March 
2005]


Seminar, 11 June 2005: On June 1st, the Society sent a formal petition 
to the European Parliament, and on June 11th, the Society, in 
association with the Tara Heritage Preservation Group, hosted a major 
seminar “The M3 and its Impacts” at Dalgan Park, which was chaired by 
Duncan Stewart (architect and broadcaster) and Michael Reade (LMFM 
radio). The seminar, attended by over 100 people, focused on the 
heritage, development and transport impacts of the proposed M3 and was 
addressed by a wide range of scholars, transport consultants and 
heritage experts, including the CEO of the Heritage Council, Michael 
Starrett, Dr Edel Bhreathnach (formerly of the Discovery Programme), the 
Chair of An Taisce, Frank Corcoran and An Taisce’s heritage officer, Ian 
Lumley. The seminar was also addressed by the director of the 
excavations in the Dunshaughlin to Navan section, Mr Donald Murphy, who 
outlined his methodologies and addressed some of the academics’ 
concerns. Regrettably, neither Meath County Council, the NRA, nor the 
Depts of Environment and Transport, attended the seminar, and only one 
locally elected representative, Cllr. Phil Cantwell, took part. 
(Transcripts of the main papers delivered at the seminar are available 
on request).


March 2006. The MAHS petition to the European Parliament was ruled 
admissible and a detailed document outlining breaches of the EIA 
directives in the M3 Environmental impact assessment process was 
compiled by Julitta Clancy and sent to the Petitions Committee of the 
European Parliament.

ENDS
Julitta Clancy, 6 April 2005 and later postscripts
[Note: the above report on the Society’s involvement with the M3 was 
published in the Society’s Journal, Riocht na Midhe, 2006]


Acknowledgments: Grateful thanks due to: Council of the Meath 
Archaeological and Historical Society and members of the Tara Heritage 
Preservation Group. Special thanks to Dr George Eogan, Dr Edel 
Bhreathnach, Conor Newman and Joe Fenwick (Discovery Programme), to MAHS 
Council members Ann O’Reilly (Treasurer) and Reginald O’Reilly, Fr 
Gerard Rice (Vice-President), John Gavin (President), Seamus MacGabhann 
(Hon. Editor), Oliver Ward (Secretary) and Patrick O’Rourke (Asst. 
Treasurer) and to the dedicated members of the Tara Heritage 
Preservation Group in Co. Meath: Susan Brennan, John Clancy, Martin 
Dier, Brenda Ferris, Tommy Hamill, Claire Oakes, Fr Pat Raleigh, Jimmy 
Rafter, John Rooney and Kathryn Walley.

Compiled by Julitta Clancy, Assistant Secretary,Meath Archaeological and 
Historical Society
Parsonstown, Batterstown, Co. Meath


MEATH ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND HISTORICAL SOCIETY

Petition to European Parliament 1 June 2005 (on line)

Petition No. 546/2005 [543?]

Cultural heritage: Tara and the M3 Motorway (Co. Meath, Ireland)
Environment: Ireland’s Planning and Environmental Impact Assessment Process
Access to Justice in Environmental issues

Subject of petition:
Cultural heritage and public interest.
Threat to a unique archaeological landscape due to proposal for a 
portion of a tolled motorway to run through the landscape. The landscape 
is an essential part of Europe's collective memory. The motorway could 
be altered slightly to avoid the landscape and preserve it for future 
generations. The motorway has gone through the planning process but we 
believe the decision was wrong. However we were unable to appeal on cost 
grounds

Request:
Some initial questions:

1. Can the Parliament consider petitions relating to cultural rights, 
specifically in relation to protection of the archaeological heritage?

2. Can the Parliament consider petitions relating to a motorway proposal 
which has gone through the planning and environmental impact assessment 
process but which will seriously affect a unique part of Ireland's and 
Europe's archaeological and cultural heritage, part of Europe's 
collective memory?

3. Can the Parliament investigate Ireland's planning and environmental 
impact assessment process for State infrastructural projects, 
particularly in relation to (i) access to information, (ii) access to 
funding and resources for citizens and voluntary groups who wish to 
object on cultural grounds, and (iii) access to justice for citizens and 
voluntary groups who wish to appeal but find the costs prohibitive and 
the grounds too restrictive and narrow?

Specific Request:
Our specific request relates to a very important archaeological 
landscape associated with Ireland's premier national monument, Tara. The 
cultural integrity of this landscape (which has been acknowledged by a 
huge body of academic and heritage opinion) is in imminent danger of 
being destroyed due to a short section of a lengthy tolled motorway (M3 
Clonee to Kells) proposed to run through it. The motorway proposal has 
gone through the planning process in 2002 and received full approval in 
August 2003.

The Meath Archaeological and Historical Society is a voluntary society 
which made a submission on the M3 motorway scheme on archaeological 
heritage grounds and made a presentation at the oral hearing in 
September 2002. (The oral hearing/inquiry was conducted by an inspector 
of the Planning Board as part of the EIA process).
We were unable to take a judicial review of the Planning Board decision 
(issued in August 2003) due mainly to the prohibitive costs involved in 
taking an action in the High Court.

Since the decision we have sought to plead with the government and road 
authorities to reconsider this portion of the scheme and alter the route 
in the section running through the cultural landscape of Tara. However, 
despite all appeals, including appeals from over 350 academics and the 
Director of the National Museum of Ireland, Ireland's Minister for 
Environment, Heritage and Local Government issued directions on 11 May 
2005 permitting excavation of 38 archaeological sites in this section of 
the route (most of which sites were not included in the EIS), paving the 
way for the construction to begin on the motorway.

The archaeological excavations are due to commence within the next month 
and will involve the destruction of many sites associated with the Tara 
complex. Construction of the motorway will commence shortly after 
completion of the excavations. This matter is very urgent. We believe 
the landscape can be preserved and the motorway built with variation of 
the route in this section

We ask the European Parliament to urgently

(a) consider our request to examine and discuss this issue and in 
particular our request for a variation of the road scheme to avoid the 
Tara landscape

(b) consider how our cultural heritage is being protected under 
Ireland's planning and EIA processes

(c) investigate Ireland's planning process for State infrastructural 
projects with particular attention as to how the concerns of citizens 
and voluntary groups are being considered and treated: the rights of 
citizens to information and resources and the rights of citizens with 
genuine public interest concerns to appeal decisions without having to 
incur enormous financial costs.

Thank you
Julitta Clancy, Assistant Secretary, Meath Archaeological and Historical 
Society
Parsonstown, Batterstown, Co. Meath
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reply received: Your petition has been sent.
“May we remind you that if you wish to add any annexes to your petition, 
you should send them to: European Parliament Members' Activities 
Division L-2929 LUXEMBOURG”
Annexes sent by post (10 documents)
ENDS

MEATH ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND HISTORICAL SOCIETY
PETITION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT 1 JUNE 2005
Re: M3 MOTORWAY AND THE TARA ARCHAOLOGICAL LANDSCAPE
Additional document March 2006: Breaches of EIA Directives

©Meath Archaeological and Historical Society



///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////


Vercingetorix (Ireland) wrote:

> Muireann,
>
> Thanks for the information.
>
> Unfortunetely, I'm unable to get the first link below to work - that 
> is, the one which I believe probably contains the actual petition text 
> to the European Parliament.
>
> I wonder if the text might appear anywhere else? - or if the link you 
> provided below is just "down" on a temporary basis?
>
> Hope to hear from you again.
>
> ================
>
> */"Dr. Muireann Ni Bhrolchain"  wrote:
>
>     Direct link to the complaint by MAHS (mainly Julitta Clancy).
>
>     
http://community.meath.ie/mahs/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=44&Itemid=52
>
>
>     The link to the petitions in Europe
>     
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/meetdocs/2004_2009/documents/cm/602/602230/602230en.pdf
>
>
>
>
>     >
>     >
>     >
>     >
>
>
> Send instant messages to your online friends 
> http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com/
>