Vincent Salafia
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
@Sue wrote:
But why would there be a war, Chris? :rolleyes: The democrats on this forum will undoubtedly now accept that a proper and legal decision has been taken on the M3, after due consideration by the impartial instruments and institutions of the state. Due process has been followed to the letter. The minister for the environment naturally accepts the logical and considered outcome.
That may or may not be so in Irish law, but Due Process, in European law, however, requires public consultation, independent assessment and an opportunity to review the decision. There was no public consultation or independent assessment and no opportunity exists to have the decision reviewed, except in the courts. The majority of the public are against the route, independnet reports show the NRA has dumbed down the significance of the site, and the EU is already reviewing the situation. The Irish Government have until Sept 2 to repsond to the Reasoned Opinion sent by the Commission, in which it states that an EIA should have been performed before the decision to demolish the site was made. The Opinion also condemns the NDP 2007-2013, which is what the M3 is now being built under, for lack of public consultation and environmental impact assessment. Now that’s a war worth watching.
Tara ruins must be preserved, says report
http://www.eveningecho.ie/news/bstory.asp?j=188196080&p=y88y9666x&n=18819668921/08/2007 – 2:27:43 PM
Newly discovered 2000-year-old ruins at the ancient Hill of Tara must be fully preserved because of their unique size and character, a US academic today said.
State archaeologists began excavation work on the prehistoric Lismullen structure earlier this month claiming it was under threat from adverse weather.
But Dr Ronald Hicks of Ball State University, Indiana, argues it is part of a larger ancient ritual complex and must be preserved in situ.
Controversy has surrounded the site since the ruins were uncovered by workers during construction work on the controversial M3 motorway last April.
TaraWatch, which is demanding the site be preserved, has called on the Government to halt excavation until An Bord Pleanála rulesif a fresh planning application for the road project is needed in light of the find.
“This independent reportproves the national monument is much more significant and substantial than the National Roads Authority have reported,†campaigner Vincent Salafia said.
“In light of this report, the minister should halt the demolition works until An Bord Pleanála concludes its current deliberative process.â€
Dr Hicks previously endorsed the nomination of Tara to the World Monuments Fund Listand issued an earlier report about the area’s archaeological significance.
In this latest report, he argues Lismullen is comparable to ceremonial enclosures found at Tara and other royal sites in Ireland, but is twice as large as any other.
He added the structure was part of a larger complex.
The site’s discovery came just a day after the then Minister for Transport Martin Cullen turned the sod on the €850m road project.
The semicircular enclosure, which lies across the northbound lane of the proposed motorway, is 80 metres in diameter and dates from between 380BC and 520BC.
It is thought to have been some kind of ceremonial site.
The discovery was granted National Monument status and all works were halted at the site.
But in one of his final acts of office, former Minister for the Environment Dick Roche used the National Monuments Act 2004 and signed an order of preservation by record, meaning the prehistoric henge would be photographed, sketched and measured before being razed to make way for the motorway.
Mr Gormley maintains he does not have the authority to revoke his predecessor’s decision without a material change in circumstance.
TaraWatch has sent a solicitor’s letter to Mr Gormley demanding the excavation work be stopped, to which it claims no reply has been received.
It argues the 2004 National Monuments Act is contrary to EU law because it did not require a new environmental impact assessment following the Lismullen discovery.
An Bord Pleanála is currently reviewing this matter and a decision is expected within weeks.
If the board rules the road scheme is now different to the one approved in September 2003, it could require a fresh planning application to be lodged, which would lead to huge delays in delivering the motorway.
“The board is deciding whether demolition of Lismullen is a material change to a motorway scheme, and whether it will have a significant effect on the environment,†added Mr Salafia.
“They should consider this independent report in reaching their findings.â€
@Sloan wrote:
New Strategic Infrastructure Development (SID) Cases Week ended: 13th July 2007
Meath County Council
Case reference: 17 EN3001
Case Type: Changes-Local Authority road development
Description: Ministerial Directions on National Monument at Lismullen, County Meath – M3 Clonee to North of Kells Motorway Scheme.
Category: Local Authority Project
Date lodged: 09-07-2007
Applicant: National Roads Authority (Road Authority)
EIS required: No
Status: Case is due to be decided by 12-11-2007From An Bord Pleanala’s website http://www.pleanala.ie/lists/2007/sid/new_sid20070713.htm
I called the Bord today and they said they will have a decision on this next week. The decision will have major ramifications, particularly in light of the fact that the EU Commission sent a Reasoned Opinion to the Irish Government recently, stating that the National Monuments Act is in breach of EIA Directives because it does not give provide for a second stage EIA when there is demolition of a national monument, which was not detected in the original EIA. Here is a copy of a question by Kathy Sinnott to the Commission and their response:
Question to the Commission regarding Tara asked by Kathy Sinnott MEPThe World Monument Fund has just included Tara in its list of the 100 Most Endangered Sites.
I would like to know the current position of the Commission in relation to the road construction work in the area of the Hill of Tara, Co Meath, Ireland, and the general issue of the proposed route for the M3.
Could you also please briefly sketch the history of the Commission’s position and its interaction with the Irish authorities?
Answer from the Commission 10th July 2007
The Commission is only in a position to intervene in a matter of this kind if there is some procedural flaw.
The Commission received a significant number of complaints about the environmental impact assessment (EIA) undertaken for the M3 motorway project in 2003 but, based on the evidence received, was unable to identify any such flaw up to and including the Planning Appeals Board 2003 decision.
However, in a quite separate case, the European Court of Justice has recognised that decisions to approve projects may unfold in more than one stage and that it may be inappropriate to limit the possibility of EIA to an early stage as new circumstances and new factors may arise at the time of a second-stage decision.
In June our attention was drawn to a new decision relating to the M3 project – namely the decision under the National Monuments Act, 2004 to allow the demolition of the Lismullin national monument, which had been discovered in 2007 and was unknown at the time of the original EIA. Our attention was also drawn to the fact that the National Monuments Act made no provision for the possible need for an EIA in respect of such a decision.
As it happened, the Commission already had an infringement procedure open against Ireland for excluding demolition works from the scope of its implementation of the EIA Directive, 85/337/EEC on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment.
On 29 June 2007, the Commission notified a Reasoned Opinion (final warning) to Ireland in relation to the demolition issue. By way of illustration of what the exclusion can mean in practice, the Reasoned Opinion mentions Lismullin (which was not specifically mentioned previously, as it only emerged as an issue in June of this year). It also raises the issue of the compatibility of the National Monuments Act, 2004 with the Directive and takes note of the World Monument Fund listing that you mention.
When the EIA was undertaken for the M3 in 2003, the assessment was on the basis that no national monument lay in the path of the road. The discovery and identification of Lismullin as a national monument in 2007 represents a circumstance that was not – and could not – have been taken into account at the time of the (first-stage) EIA. However, the National Monuments Act, 2004 makes no provision for (second-stage) EIA in relation to decisions allowing for destruction of national monuments that were unknown at the time of a first-stage EIA.
A response is not expected for two months.
I hope that this clarifies the matter for you.
If the Act doesn’t provide for a new EIA, then how did the matter end up with the Bord? A spokesperson there today said that Minister Roche was required under the National Monuments Act 2004 to instruct the roads authority to submit the Directions he gave to the Bord for a determination if this is a material change to the project. The Bord can order a new Environmental Impact Statement, they say. This is clearly the case under Section 14 A of the Act
The problem we have is that Minister Gormley won’t release the Reasoned Opinion sent by the Commission. The Gov press officer is saying they can’t release it. The Commission say they don’t have the power to release it but the local authority does. So much for Gomrley being open and accountable.
What the EU seem to be saying is that a new EIA should automatically be ordered, or possibly that the Minister should have the power to order a new EIA.
Regardless, Gormley should place a Temporary Preservation Order on the site, and preserve the structure until the Bord and the Commission have had a chance to reach their respective conclusions. But clearly he just doesn’t want to rock the boat.
