Application for Approval of Proposed Road Development PL17 ... · Brú na Bóinne, a megalithic cemetery situated at a bend in the river Boyne. This is a World Heritage Site, one

__________________________________________________________________________

PL17.HA0026 An Bord Pleanála Page 1 of 84

N2 Slane Bypass Road Scheme – Application for Approval of Proposed Road

Development

PL17.HA0026

Appendix I – Report on Cultural Heritage and Landscape and Visual impacts

Inspector - Mairead Kenny

__________________________________________________________________________


CONTENTS

1.0 SITE LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION ……………………..………… 3

2.0 PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT ………………………………………..………. 7 3.0 POLICY CONTEXT ……………………………………………………..…. 8 4.0 ASSESSMENT ……………………………………………..…………………. 9

A – Impacts on route corridor and vicinity …………………………………..…… 9 B - Overview of matters relating to the World Heritage Site………,………….….19 C - Impact on World Heritage Site ………………………………………… …… 33 D – Landscape and visual impacts …………………………………………………42 E – Planning policy …………………………………………………………………59 F - Route selection, alternatives and adequacy of information ……………….. 70

5.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATION ………………………………..80

__________________________________________________________________________


1.0 SITE LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION

The site of the proposed Slane bypass traverses a 3.5km strip of land to the east of the village. The route would cross the Boyne Valley between Slane village and the Brú na Bóinne World Heritage Site. The area is defined by its location within the Boyne Valley. It is an area of spectacular beauty and great cultural importance. The route commences at Cullen Hill to the south of the village, crosses the Boyne to the east of Slane Mills, passes close to Ledwidge Cottage at the N51 and connects with the existing N2 to the north of the village at Mooretown. In broad terms the area north of the river is significantly more elevated than lands to the south. At a micro level the valley itself is steeply sided with a wide valley floor. On entry to Slane from the south the bridge, part of the demesne of Slane Castle and Mill Hill and the village are prominent in view, with the Hill of Slane clearly visible on the skyline. Slane Hill at 158m is the main topographical landmark. Knowth passage cemetery to the east is at approximately 65m. The widespread visibility of the ecclesiastic ruins at Slane Hill make it a dominant and valued landmark. Other hills to the east of the village are Norris Hill and Gallows Hill. To the south where the proposed bypass would commence, Cullen Hill is at an elevation of 96m. The bridge would be positioned at a relatively narrow point in the valley where the valley floor is 160m wide. The land at the south of the river crossing is significantly lower than that at the north (24m versus 40m). The character of the area west of Slane differs from that to the east of the village. The Slane Mills and the village and its estate woodland setting terminates the agricultural valley, which is the setting for Brú na Bóinne. To the west of the existing bridge the more wooded lands combined with large open fields characterise the estate landscapes. At the demesne of Slane Castle a path runs along the south side of the Boyne and the landscape features include the beauty spot known as Maiden Rock. To the east the character is more pastoral and hedgerows define the open field system. For pedestrians the canal towpath is an important route and the Rosnaree Road which runs in an east – west direction south of the river provides access for motorists. The entire area is of exceptional landscape value. Throughout there is a wealth of cultural heritage remains many of which are of international or national importance. The Hill of Slane is perhaps best known as where the first Pascal fire was lit by St Patrick and it is mentioned several times in the Annals of the Four Masters. The hilltop mound is the burial place of a king of the Fir Bolg. There are extensive views from the Hill of Slane and it is a reasonably popular tourist destination. Slane itself is a very attractive estate village centred on four similar Georgian houses , commonly referred to as the crossroads. The village is mainly of two-storey stone buildings many of which are protected structures. As a unit the village is of considerable architectural merit and charm. The village is heavily trafficked and shows little evidence of benefiting from its own heritage or from its close proximity to Brú na Bóinne. The village hotel has recently closed and the Mill Hotel presently operates primarily for private functions. There is limited parking available in the village. A number of buildings, many of them protected structures appear to be under-utilised. In the village centre the signage and traffic lights detract from its architectural character. At Mill Hill which is bounded by

__________________________________________________________________________


the estate walls, safety measures in the form of gantries are highly visible. The existing bridge is a protected structure. Its walls show considerable evidence of reconstruction following the many accidents which have occurred at this location. The present form of the village dates to the 1760s when The Square was laid out with four identical houses. The village is a designated Architectural Conservation Area (ACA). Jebbs Mill is an important industrial building and is the centre of another ACA. The village and the castle are intrinsically linked. The Conyngham family had a long history in the area prior to purchasing new property in 1703. This was added to the castle which they had previously acquired. The present castle largely dates to 1785. It was very badly damaged by fire in 1991 and is once again restored. The demesne contains a number of noteworthy structures including the castle itself, the ruins at Carrickdexter to the west, Ercs Hermitage and landscape features. Amongst the eminent persons involved in its development are Capability Brown, James Gandon, James Wyatt and Francis Johnston. Francis Johnston is responsible for the gothic gates on the Mill Hill which would have been the main entry point to the estate. The demesne wall at Mill Hill is stated to suffer vibration damage from heavy traffic levels. Slane castle and village are best known on a national and international level for the annual concerts which commenced in 1981. There are further plans to develop its commercial potential including through production and marketing of whiskey and through re-development of the courtyard buildings for tourist related purposes. This estate and Beauparc to the west are of considerable importance and form a large contiguous historic landscape along the Boyne. To the east, small elements of former estate landscapes are evident at Janeville and Fennor Houses close to the crossing of the proposed road. Of these Fennor House is the most important building due to the associated features. A derelict lodge associated with Janeville adjoins the N51, opposite Ledwidge Cottage. The floodplains at Crewbane and the prominently sited Crewbane House add to the landscape character. Crewbane House is a simple building and not of particular architectural significance.

The area is remarkable also due to the presence of impressive industrial archaeology. The Boyne Navigation towpath is a popular recreational route. The disused canal is a significant heritage item of considerable tourist potential. Jebbs Mills is a very fine structure, though largely underutilised.

One is reminded of military history by signage located adjacent the Rosnaree Road to the east of the site. This refers to the western flank of the Battle of the Boyne. Ledwidge Cottage home of the World War I poet is a visitor centre located to the north of the N51, east of the village. A military fortification from World War II, a small pillbox, is located close to the crossing point of the bridge. At this location also are river weirs and wooded islands. The prime visitor attraction and the most important cultural heritage is represented by Brú na Bóinne, a megalithic cemetery situated at a bend in the river Boyne. This is a World Heritage Site, one of only 911 such sites in the world. There is one other site in Ireland on that list, Skellig Michael. Evidence provided to the hearing indicates that Brú

__________________________________________________________________________


na Bóinne is in the premier league of World Heritage Sites1. The World Heritage Site contains a core area of 780 hectares. The total area including the extensive buffer zone is 3,300 hectares. The majority of land is in private ownership. Access to the World Heritage Site is from the Brú na Bóinne Visitor Centre located close to Donore. The signposted route from the south along the N2 brings traffic to the centre without passing through Slane village.

Brú na Bóinne is best known for the three main Neolithic passage graves cemeteries at Newgrange, Knowth and Dowth2. Within the World Heritage Site are at least thirty-one and nine possible passage tombs. The construction of these tombs would date to the Neolithic period between 3,800 BC and 2,500 BC and the tombs have parallels in other parts of western Europe. The tombs are the oldest surviving monuments in Brú na Bóinne and they are sited to dominate ridge tops and south-facing slopes.

Newgrange is the best known of the sites and can be visited throughout the year. Its appeal to visitors and its archaeological importance are associated with the alignment of the tomb with the sunrise of the winter solstice. Many visitors only attend the Newgrange tour and indeed Brú na Bóinne is commonly referred to as ‘Newgrange’. The archaeological significance of the site and its interest to visitors also relate to the presence of important megalithic art and the main tumulus in particular has fine carving at the entrance and the interior. The exterior has been partly rebuilt with a quartz wall which increases the visibility of the monument in the landscape.

Knowth is open to visitors only in the spring and summer months. Its interior is not fully accessible to the public due to structural collapse. Although it is less visited than Newgrange, it is not a lesser monument in terms of its archaeological significance. Knowth contains a major tumulus with two internal passage tombs, which are aligned with the sunrise and sunset of the spring and autumn equinox. The main tumulus is surrounded by seventeen other passage graves or satellite tombs. The complex is noted for its large number of decorated stones, which is the largest collection on any one site in western Europe and constitutes 25% of all European megalithic art. The decades of excavations undertaken at Knowth revealed almost continuous occupation of the site from before the tombs and to the present day, apart from a break in occupation in the Late Bronze Age / Iron Age. Knowth is also important for its medieval archaeology. Dowth is not part of the formal tour experience at present and has not been extensively excavated. In total 12 periods are represented at Brú na Bóinne.

Throughout the entire area between Slane village and Brú na Bóinne the Boyne river, its floodplains and steeply sided valley dominate. The agricultural area east of the village is of grass, ploughed earth and crops. The open landscape is interrupted only by hedgerows and occasional farm buildings and one-off houses. Both the grassed escarpment to the north and the shallower slope of the topography to the south as well as the floodplains share an open field pattern. The built features including the grassy mounds of the passage graves and scattered farmsteads appear as small features within a

1 There is no formal ranking of World Heritage Sites. This sentence refers to the opinion of Dr Comer , a world

heritage expert who was present at the hearing.

2 An overview of the archaeological periods is contained in the EIS and in the Brú na Bóinne World Heritage

Site Management Plan.

__________________________________________________________________________


large agricultural landscape. Slane itself does not read as a large village as much of it is obscured by topography and trees. Jebbs Mill which faces down the river is dominant where it is visible. A clear view is obtained for instance from the Battle of the Boyne signpost at Rosnaree Road.

Further to the east along the river valley is the bend in the Boyne, which is famous for its connections with the passage graves. A grassy hill at the bend in the river appears from a distance to be a natural landscape feature but with increased knowledge and on closer inspection it stands out as the main passage tomb at Knowth. From various vantage points Newgrange or Knowth or both are visible from the area east of the Slane. Views to the monuments of Brú na Bóinne are in fact available from as far away as the layby at the N2, just south of the entry point into Slane. From here is a glimpsed view to the main passage tomb at Newgrange. From a position by Fennor Cross and from a field through which the proposed road would cross there are views to the Hill of Slane and to the main tombs at Newgrange and Knowth. There would be views from the residences at Rosnaree to Knowth. Views from the canal towpath to Brú na Bóinne are generally screened by vegetation beside the Boyne.

Despite its high value the landscape is not entirely pristine or perfect. The landscape character is marred by some intrusive elements which detract from its character. There is a windfarm on the distant hills to the north of the World Heritage Site. The windfarm is not a particularly noteworthy feature and does not overly intrude into views from Brú na Bóinne. The Platin cement works is a minor landscape feature throughout a wide area. It is especially evident from the higher ground within the World Heritage Site including the top of Knowth. Looking back towards Newgrange from Knowth the cement plant is prominent in view. It is also visible as a small landscape feature when viewed from the Hill of Slane. When viewed from closer proximity and combined with views to Donore and Drogheda and the M1 bridge it establishes an eastern boundary to this part of the Boyne valley. Drogheda, Donore and environs are quite different in character to Slane village. However in both locations built features dominate. These urban settlements act to enclose the uninterrupted coherent agricultural landscape centred on the Brú na Bóinne.

I have inspected the Boyne Valley between Drogheda and Beauparc a number of times and in different seasons and weather conditions. In the company of Lord Alexander Mount Charles and the reporting Inspector I visited Slane Castle and Beauparc House. I visited Crewbane House in the company of Mr John Rogers. I have taken the tour of Knowth and Newgrange and I made many unaccompanied visits throughout the area. I was present on two days when the applicant undertook a balloon test to demonstrate the visibility of the bridge.

2.0 PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT

The bypass proposed is a 3.5 kilometre Type 2 dual carriageway. At the crossing of the Boyne the bypass is 1.1 kilometres to the east of Slane village, under 600m from the edge of the World Heritage Site buffer zone, 2.3km kilometres from the main tomb at Knowth and over 3 kilometres from the tomb at Newgrange. The route proposed provides for at grade roundabouts at the southern junction of the N2 at Johnstown, at the N51 at Cashel east of Ledwidge Cottage and at the northern junction where the road

__________________________________________________________________________


meets the existing N2 at Slane. At Rosnaree Road the dual carriageway will drop under the minor road, which will be slightly realigned. At the Boyne a 218m long bridge is proposed at 18m above the river level. At the N51 about 700m of the national road will be realigned.

The stated width of the proposed road including verges is 21.5m. The pavement width of the road is 16.5m overall. The centre of the road is marked by a narrow grass strip and a wire rope barrier. Within the verges there is space to accommodate future 2.5m paths or cycleways adjacent the road but none are proposed as part of the scheme.

The design of the bridge incorporates three spans. It is a steel girder bridge the deck of which will be finished with weathering steel, specifically Corten steel. Corten steel is specially treated and has the appearance of uniformly rusted steel. It is a stable material which will not weather further once treated. The deck depth varies and in the centre span is tapered to a minimum of 2.8m approximately. The deck is supported by two sets of piers positioned at either side of the river and in the floodplain. At each end are three tapered concrete piers. The northern abutment is the most significant in terms of its scale and visibility. To the north of the river also is a significant embankment between chainage 1520 and 1720. The embankment to the south of the river is short and the road is in cut under the Rosnaree Road. There are two attenuation ponds in the vicinity of the abutments and there are associated access tracks and fencing.

The southern section of the road is in cut up to chainage 600 and the depth of cutting here is 8m. This area is referred to as Cullen Hill. Between 640 and 940 the road is elevated typically by about 2m above ground level. Then the road is in cut under the Rosnaree Road. North of the bridge and abutments at chainage 1720 the road is in cut up to the N51 roundabout and the depth of cuttings is between 4m and 8m approximately. North of the N51 roundabout the road is at grade for a distance, is then in relatively shallow cut for a short distance and between 10360 and 10880 is elevated.

The scheme proposal is accompanied by detailed landscaping plans. These provide for dense planting of mixed trees and shrubs at the road verges, the abutments and the embankments. At locations close to the N51 roundabout and the N2 northern roundabouts there will be a requirement for noise barriers. The drawings show settlement ponds and standard fencing throughout. Lighting will be required at the roundabouts only.

3.0 POLICY CONTEXT

As a party to the UNESCO World Heritage Convention Ireland recognises the duty of ensuring the identification, protection, conservation, presentation and transmission to future generations of the cultural and natural heritage. Under the Convention a World Heritage Committee was established to create and maintain a World Heritage List. There are 911 listed properties, 704 of which are inscribed as cultural properties.

As a signatory to the European Landscape Convention Ireland as state party recognises landscapes in law as an essential part of people’s surroundings and an expression of the diversity of their shared cultural and natural heritage. Under this

__________________________________________________________________________


convention there is a commitment to establish landscape policies for landscape protection. Integration of landscape into planning policies is required.

The European Convention on the Protection of Archaeological Heritage , the Valetta Convention, defines archaeological heritage as all remains and objects from mankind in past eras, the study of which is relevant to understanding of the history of mankind and its relationship with the natural environment and which are subject to certain forms of research. The convention requires protection of archaeological heritage and scientific approaches to research. It also provides for a role for archaeologists in land use planning.

The European Convention for the Protection of Architectural Heritage, the Granada Convention, defines architectural heritage as including sites which are of conspicuous historical or archaeological interest even if partially built upon. State parties undertake to protect the architectural heritage, undertake inventories and prevent the disfigurement or other damage to the properties. The adoption of integrated conservation policies will be undertaken.

National policy relating to the protection of archaeology is presented in Frameworks and Principles for the Protection of Archaeological Heritage. Archaeology and Development : Guidelines for Good Practice for Developers aims to be a more practical guide. The NRA publication Guidelines for the Assessment of Archaeological Heritage Impacts of National Road Schemes refers. Mitigation by avoidance is the preferred strategy and every effort should be made to achieve avoidance and preservation in situ where feasible. Government Policy on Architecture 2009-2014, Towards a Sustainable Future : Delivering Quality within the Built Environment states government commitment to protection and management of a high quality sustainable environment, including in the case of public procurement projects.

The Regional Planning Guidelines for the Greater Dublin Region 2010 - 2022 provide a strategic policy context limiting the size of Slane. It indicates that small towns and village are to be managed in line with the ability of local services to cater for growth and to avoid pressure on services and creation of potential for commuting.

The Meath County Development Plan 2007-2013 is the most significant document in terms of landscape management in the rural hinterland of Slane. Slane is designated as a key village on the settlement hierarchy, below which are villages and graigues. A Landscape Character Assessment is incorporated in the development plan and was also published as a separate document. By variation of the plan adopted on 7th November 2011 a map showing listed views was incorporated.

A proposed Local Area Plan for Brú na Bóinne was recommended by DEHLG as measure to protect the World Heritage Site and is incorporated as an objective in the county development plan. No draft plan is yet available. The Slane Local Area Plan designates listed views and ACAs which are relevant to this report and also indicates a line for the route of the bypass. The Boyne Valley Management Plan is out of date and in any case does not have a vital role in land use planning. The Brú na Bóinne World Heritage Site Research Framework poses a range of issues to be researched.

__________________________________________________________________________


Slane at the Crossroads published in 2008 is a framework plan for the village which was commissioned by Slane Community Forum with funding from Meath County Council. It identifies the bypass as the largest single issue for the village. It proposes landscaped buffer zones and other landscape and street enhancement measures.

4. ASSESSMENT

This assessment relates solely to landscape, visual and cultural heritage impacts, which are considered under the following sections:

A – Impacts on route corridor and vicinity

B - Overview of matters relating to the World Heritage Site

C - Impact on World Heritage Site

D – Landscape and visual impacts

E – Planning policy

F - Route selection, alternatives and adequacy of information

G - Conclusions.

A – Impacts within and in vicinity of route corridor This section mainly concerns direct and indirect impacts on cultural heritage which arise within and close to the defined study area, excluding the World Heritage Site. The focus is on the direct impacts on known and potential archaeological sites, which I consider are the most significant impacts arising. I refer also to impacts within and close to Slane village and to impacts on architectural heritage. The indirect impacts on Brú na Bóinne, the site of the Battle of the Boyne, the Hill of Slane and the demesne of Slane Castle are described elsewhere.

Archaeology

This section is structured as follows :

General adequacy of archaeological investigations undertaken

Description of known impacts within the study area – direct and indirect

Significance of archaeological impacts

The potential for significant discoveries during the construction phase and

Recommendation for further investigations prior to decision.

General Adequacy of Archaeological Investigation The applicant’s submission notes measures taken to avoid known archaeological sites through route selection and avoidance of known upstanding archaeological remains. Avoidance of previously known sites is the main mitigation measure. This was achieved

__________________________________________________________________________


through desk based sources during the constraints study and route corridor selection studies and site inspection during the route corridor selection. Thus, Ms O’Carroll states all previously known sites were avoided at design stage.

In terms of the thoroughness of the archaeological investigation I consider that the following are noteworthy:

The study area adopted being 500m from the edge of the proposed road is far in excess of the 50m recommended under NRA Guidelines

Within that zone there is a wealth of information and resources from on-going and previous research3

Geophysical investigation was undertaken in a number of route planning stages using the same methodology 4

Ms O’Carroll states that the findings confirm the soundness of the methodology 5

Two sites identified in 2005 were subject of archaeological testing

Subsequent analysis of the LIDAR data did not reveal any new sites within the route corridor

DEHLG submissions of 17th February 2010 and 15th November 2010 and to the hearing endorse the strategy

DEHLG concludes that it is satisfied with the assessment to date.

I consider that the archaeological investigation of the selected route is generally satisfactory. Whether it is sufficient to enable the Board to be satisfied that the selected route is the optimum in terms of archaeological impact is a broader matter, which is addressed elsewhere. In addition, notwithstanding the generally thorough approach to investigation of the route there remains considerable uncertainty regarding impacts. These matters and the concept of preservation by record are all addressed below. I conclude that the level of archaeological assessment undertaken for the selected route exceeds normal practice and accepted guidance as set out by the NRA.

3 These include the LIDAR study of the Boyne Valley, the results Dr Conor Brady’s studies of lithic scatters

and Dr Helen Lewis’ palaeo-environmental study. Lithics are prehistoric worked flints and are collected

through visual inspection of the ploughzone. Dr Brady’s research is based on the systematic collection and

recording of lithics and covers a large territory within and adjacent the Brú na Bóinne.

4 Scan mode followed by full survey when an anomaly is identified

5 Of relevance are the findings at McGruder’s Cross and HC86 and HC87 which are stated to give confidence in

the methodology

__________________________________________________________________________


Known impacts – direct and indirect Ms O’Carroll’s evidence to the hearing updates the information presented in the EIS and in the further information received by the Board. At the time of writing the EIS only three sites within the study area were on the RMP and none of those was within the road corridor. As a result of investigations undertaken as part of the scheme four additional sites are now placed on the RMP. In total within the road corridor are 12 heritage constraints which will be directly impacted, including areas of archaeological potential. These sites are of varying significance and include a portion of the old Dublin to Slane road from the 18th century, a number of townland boundaries and the sites of four buildings. Moderate negative impacts typically is envisaged in the case of these sites. Significant or potentially significant negative impacts arise at the sites described below. No profound impacts are recorded. HC86 and HC87 These sites were not known from the desk study, were uncovered through geophysical testing and have been subject of test excavation. The results for HC87 are inconclusive. HC86 is known to be an early medieval enclosure. Ms O’Carroll states that these may form part of a complex and notes that they have been included on the RMP since the EIS was written. In terms of whether this complex may overlie additional earlier remains Ms O’Carroll acknowledges that in an area such as the Boyne Valley where lands have been favourable for cultivation, multi period sites would be likely. The applicant describes the direct impact on sites HC86 and HC87 as ‘significant, negative’. HC91 comprises four fields which will be traversed by the proposed bypass. It is an area of potential prehistoric settlement known from Dr Brady’s research. The concentration of lithics recorded in these fields is high in an Irish context but low in terms of the immediate area. This is a potentially significant negative impact. HC82 is an area to the north of the river where during field walking by the project team lithics were noted. This site has been known about since the Route Selection Report. There is a potentially significant negative impact. HC 88 is the floodplain which is recognised as being of archaeological potential. No invasive investigations have taken place. As above there is a potential for physical sites and a potentially significant negative impact. HC95 is an area of archaeological potential identified through geophysical surveying. There is a potentially significant negative impact. Indirect archaeological impacts Apart from the indirect impact on a tree stand Ms O’Carroll’s presentation to the hearing identified only the indirect impact on the World Heritage Site which is discussed elsewhere. In summary there is a known significant negative impact on an early medieval site, which may be multi-period. There are potentially significant negative impacts sites of archaeological potential, which could reveal prehistoric sites and / or well preserved remains in the wetland at the river.

__________________________________________________________________________


Significance of Archaeological Impact The full significance of archaeological impacts arising within the route corridor will be understood only through intrusive investigations. Thus while the applicant attributes a significance to the archaeological impact, it is in the context that there are uncertainties regarding the nature of the actual sites. The archaeological impact is acknowledged to be negative in the case of individual sites. The perceived significance is described as slight, moderate or significant in some cases, but no impact is perceived to be profound. The information presented by the applicant rates sites as of international, national, regional or local importance. It is this information which might change once excavation commences as sites or potential sites might be revealed to be of higher importance than previously considered. The significance of any site or find in this area is amplified by its proximity to Brú na Bóinne. Dr Clinton noted Dr Brady’s comments regarding the lack of upstanding monuments to the south of the river and himself suggests the possibility that the area to the south of the river may have been devoted to utilitarian purposes. That is speculative. It is however a fact that there is relatively little known of the archaeological landscape6 including the sites and activities needed to support the population which built the passage graves. The density of lithics finds along the route corridor is high on a national level, though relatively low compared with land closer to the megalithic tombs. These finds may be an indication of prehistoric settlement sites. Although acknowledging negative including some significant negative impacts, the applicant’s case is that impacts were minimised at route planning stage and that through excavation there will be a positive residual impact. Ms O’Carroll’s submissions on these matters includes the following points:

The preferred archaeological strategy remains avoidance

This refers in the first instance to avoidance of upstanding monuments

Sites are continually in a process of slow degradation

This is especially true of sites which lack a surface expression perhaps due to destruction during the medieval period or agricultural practices

Without development and excavation some of these sites might never be found and the knowledge base is lessened

Avoiding one impact through redesign often leads to another impact and all development cannot be stopped

After full excavation there is a positive contribution to the knowledge base and the residual impact is positive.

6 There was some discussion at the hearing regarding the terms archaeological or cultural landscapes, terms

which Ms O’Carroll described as being somewhat interchangeable and neither of which are defined in law.

__________________________________________________________________________


Ms O’Carroll’s conclusion in relation to the positive residual impacts was not accepted by a number of observers. For instance Dr Clinton stressed that preservation in situ remains best practice and queried the likelihood of a licence for excavation being withheld in the event of a significant find during the construction phase. I consider that Ms O’Carroll’s argument is generally reasonable. Although there is increasing use of non-invasive archaeological methods, excavation remains a basic research methodology, undertaken for both development related and pure research. Subject to adequate time and resources for excavation and post-excavation work I accept Ms O’Carroll’s point based on current understanding of the nature of the sites. If a site noteworthy of designation as a national monument were discovered the impact level would be likely to increase to profound and the strength of Ms O’Carroll’s argument regarding positive residual impact is decreased in my opinion. However, I would query if there was adequate consideration of avoidance of archaeological sites or potential sites. The need for avoidance is stressed in the NRA Guidance. The avoidance strategy occurs in the Constraints Study and Route Selection stages (section 5.8.1 of guidance refers). However the guidance also refers to avoidance at the EIS stage stating in section 5.1 that ‘once a preferred route has been determined, it may still be necessary, where feasible, to amend the design in order to avoid or reduce identified impacts or to adopt mitigation …’

There is a high density of archaeological sites in the wider area and early stage decision making did succeed in routing the scheme through the apparently least sensitive area in terms of direct impacts. The Route Selection Report was finalised in June 2005. The geophysical surveys undertaken in 2005 and 2006 highlighted potential sites and evidence from Dr Brady’s research on lithics would have been emerging at that time also. The geophysical surveys however are not mentioned in the Route Selection report and it is not clear that they were highly influential in the selection of the ‘B’ routes. While there is mitigation through avoidance, I consider that there could have been reconsideration of the route options as more evidence emerged, particularly given the short timescales involved. Thus, while noting Ms O’Carroll’s comments regarding other sites possibly arising if different routes were investigated, I am unconvinced that it has been demonstrated that this route is optimum in terms of avoidance of archaeological impact.

Ms O’Carroll did comment during the hearing on the matter of minor route adjustment to avoid impacts on sites HC86 and HC87, but this was deemed unviable7. My understanding is that this would involve adjustment of the line of the route but staying within the same study area. Known monuments and sites of archaeological potential within the route are impacted by the development, that cannot be avoided at this stage. The potential for significant discoveries during the construction phase The consequence of the above depends on the significance of the sites, to which I now return. In the written and verbal submissions comments have been made in relation to the potential for additional significant discoveries, the protection of such monuments and the difficulties associated with re-routing an approved road scheme. Inevitably

7 Site HC 86 is known to extend further westwards and moving the road east of Limekiln Hill would increase

visibility from the WHS.

__________________________________________________________________________


reference has been made to Lismullin. I present below a summary of the issues arising and some comments regarding how the likelihood of such situations can be minimised. The Lismullin site is one of a number of sites of national importance discovered during road construction in recent decades. It was not unknown prior to approval of the M3. However, it was during the construction phase that the full extent and significance of the site became known, it was accorded national monument status and subsequently the complete excavation of the site was authorised and undertaken. There are various arguments within the public realm and presented at the hearing which are not of relevance to this application. The main relevance of the Lismullin case to this application is that it highlights the uncertainty of the practice of archaeological investigation. Both the applicant and DEHLG acknowledged that uncertainty will remain pending full excavation. However Mr Keegan stated that while there is always the possibility of substantial previous undetected archaeology, based on the geophysical evidence and testing done to date, he would expect more evidence to be available if a major site such as Lismullin was to be encountered. The Board is in the position of having to consider the proposed development without full knowledge of the significance of the archaeological impact.

In the context of minimising the likelihood of a similar occurrence, the matter of what further investigative work might be undertaken prior to a grant of permission was briefly discussed at the hearing. A number of possible measures were suggested by Ms O’Carroll. In the event that the Board is disposed to granting permission for the proposed development but has reservations about the level of archaeological information available I recommend that further information be requested. The timescale involved in obtaining this information would be a matter of weeks, though there would be requirements for landowner consent and to allow time for weathering of the ploughed earth. I also recommend that the hearing be re-opened solely to further discuss possible mitigation in the presence of officials with responsibility for archaeological licencing.

Notwithstanding the fact that the procedure undertaken was in line with relevant guidance and is supported by the DEHLG there will be significant negative impacts. The further investigative works outlined below would facilitate decision making process of the Board to take place in the context an improved knowledge base. I have one further comment related to this issue and that is the relevance of the medieval era. The sites impacted by the proposed road include a possible medieval complex. Both the medieval and Neolithic eras were especially referenced at the hearing including by Dr Comer and are mentioned in the World Heritage Site inscription document. However, Ms O’Carroll states that this was based on the knowledge available at the time and that 12 eras are now known. She did not ascribed any particular importance to the medieval era. Mr Keegan agreed stating that medieval enclosures are common and are particularly detectable using geophysical surveys. I consider that it is reasonable to conclude that if the World Heritage Site inscription documents were prepared today there would be a slightly different emphasis. Archaeology - Conclusions The Board is in the position of having to make a decision regarding the archaeological impact of the proposed road scheme in a situation where there are quite extensive lands

__________________________________________________________________________


and a floodplain identified as potential sites. All that can be said is that these are potentially significant negative impacts. There is also a known significant impact on an early medieval site which may be multi period and is adjacent another potential archaeological site (HC86 and HC87). The development site is close to monuments of international importance and there is growing interest in the utilitarian aspects of the Brú na Bóinne societies. It cannot be ruled out that the study area contains a wealth of remains from the populations resident in prehistoric or medieval times in the valley and there are known or potential sites from both eras. Once these findings became evident reconsideration of the route might have been undertaken due to the possible significance of the sites. I make this comment especially in relation to the early medieval enclosure. Nevertheless, I do acknowledge that the investigations undertaken to date and the knowledge base available from other studies are relatively thorough.

I recommend that further information should be requested if the Board is disposed to grant permission. The basis for the recommendation is the proposals outlined by Ms O’Carroll in her original report to the hearing and on her last day of attendance. 1. Completion of the ploughzone analysis at the northern part of the scheme

2. Further work to reconcile the results of geophysical investigations and the lithic

scatters 3. Hand testing of any areas where correlations are noted

4. Phosphate analysis which has not yet been undertaken

5. Further consideration of the LIDAR data 6. Centreline testing or other suitable invasive testing subject to consent 7. Dive survey and metal detecting as outlined in the original submission to the hearing.

Architectural and other impacts Of the range of direct and indirect architectural impacts identified in the applicant’s submissions I consider that the impacts on the following are of most relevance –

Slane village and bridge and mills

The Boyne navigation

The pillbox and the remains at Fennor House

Ledwidge Cottage

__________________________________________________________________________


Impacts on the demesne of Slane Castle, the Hill of Slane and the Battle of the Boyne are considered under the landscape and visual impact section of this report.

Slane Village, Bridge and Mills In terms of cultural heritage, the village is stated to be the major beneficiary arising from the bypass. The benefits would be multi-faceted. The bypass is considered by the applicant and many observers to give rise to a situation whereby a HGV ban can be implemented and gantries on Mill Hill may be removed. The removal of much of the north-south traffic would allow for changes to the phasing of traffic lights and would reduce structural damage. Implementation of other measures to promote an environment more conducive to retailing, tourism and community interactions could follow. In this way the vision for the village as set out in Prof. Geoghegan’s document Slane at the Crossroads could be realised. Arguments presented included comment that a village enhancement scheme should be incorporated as an integral part of the development. It is also noted that the east-west road through the village would experience an increase in traffic levels.

It is clear in my opinion that there would be very significant benefits to the village arising from the potential for very large reductions in traffic levels from north to south. This would benefit the Crossroads, the Mill Hill entrance to the castle and the bridge, all of which are important in terms of the architectural heritage of the area. In overall terms while Slane would remain heavily trafficked along the east-west corridor, the construction of the bypass would open the possibility of substantial benefits to the village subject to further public investment. The removal of HGV traffic from the hill, assuming that were undertaken following opening of the bypass could allow for reinstatement of the primary entrance to the Castle and would make the village more attractive for residential and other uses thus ensuring the protection of the village’s built heritage. An indirect benefit would be likely in terms of increased maintenance and occupation of protected structures if the village became more attractive for business and tourism.

In relation to the bridge specifically the walls have been breached and rebuilt a number of times following collisions. Apart from any structural consequences, appreciation of the character of the bridge and mills in particular would be enhanced by the removal of the ever-present traffic.

I note that some observers and prescribed bodies contend that there would be an adverse impact on the character of Slane Mills ACA. Ms Collins notes that the scheme is 520m from the edge of the ACA and 820m from the east elevation of the mill. In her assessment of the impact she notes that indirect impacts only arise and that especially from ground level the indirect impacts will be mitigated by screening. Ms Collins relies heavily on the Landscape and Visual and repeats its conclusions that the impact on the Mills ACA is medium adverse in the short term and medium neutral in the longer term.

The architectural value of this complex is well described in the Slane LAP extracts from which are provided in section E. It is essentially an eighteenth century landscape with fine views in all directions. The views to the west are particularly singled out but views to the east and south are also considered noteworthy.

__________________________________________________________________________


I do agree with some observers who state that the sylvan setting of the area would be greatly disrupted by the introduction of a high level bridge carrying large volumes of traffic. Views from the actual site and buildings would be impacted as would the views from the existing bridge. There would be views to the proposed bridge from the upper level of the mill buildings, which appear largely unoccupied at present. The commercial potential of the site, which is currently mainly used as a venue for weddings would be most significantly affected in my opinion. The views from the riverside and the tranquillity of the site would be negatively impacted. Jebbs Mills already adjoins a busy road however. In addition while recognising that there is landscape and setting interference and an adverse impact on the landscape integrity, I consider that in terms of the architectural fabric of the area, in principle, a bridge would not be entirely out of character. The height and nature of the bridge however are excessive relative to the eighteenth century village character. The character of the area between the castle, bridge and mills would benefit from less traffic. There is a further discussion on the impact on the ACA in section E. In relation to the impact on the architectural integrity of the ACA at Jebbs Mills I do not consider, on balance, that a refusal of permission is warranted.

Boyne navigation

The canal is part of the more extensive Boyne navigation which dates to the second half of the eighteenth century. The canal is indirectly impacted and Mr Collins assessment of this is negative and low. I consider that this is a reasonable assessment. The main features of architectural or heritage interest including the rock cutting, the locks, lock keeper’s house and other remnants of structures are positioned further to the east and out of sight of the river crossing. Measures to protect the canal liner were detailed during the hearing and are acceptable. Flows from the wetland treatment will be discharged through a siphon under the canal and adequate separation will be maintained. There was discussion at the hearing also in relation to the possible construction phase impacts and future re-opening of the canal. Following this I am satisfied that the proposed road scheme would not interfere with future navigation. The road scheme is acceptable in my opinion in terms of this important aspect of industrial heritage. The visual impacts are discussed further under section D of this report.

Pillbox and features at Fennor House These cultural heritage features are all located close to the crossing point of the bypass at Rosnaree Road. Fennor House is widely visible within the landscape and is of local architectural interest. It is currently vacant and the Heritage Council notes that the proposed road would be likely to discourage its future use as a habitable house. I agree with that conclusion and consider that the road scheme is likely to result in deterioration of that house. The scheme is stated to be only 70m from the house. However, the house itself is not a protected structure and there is no evidence to suggest that such status should be conferred.

The house is mostly of interest for its associated features which include a culvert which is considered to be of regional interest and has been added to the RMP. The applicant’s submission is that there will be an indirect negative impact on the culvert. This culvert is part of the wealth of cultural heritage remains in the area and is identified in the Route Constraints Study. It is not however of national or international significance. It would not appear to be well known in the area and is not accessible to the public or visible from the public realm. There will be no interference with the access to the house and the

__________________________________________________________________________


overall impact is considered by the applicant to be a low negative impact. I conclude that the indirect negative impact arising is acceptable.

There will be an indirect negative impact on the pillbox at Fennor. Ms Collins evaluated this as a low negative impact. The pillbox is part of a network of structures which would have been constructed as a defensive unit during World War II. I would consider that the value of the group of structures is greater than the value of the sum of the individual structures but note that the NIAH listing includes only one pillbox, which is further to the east close to the M1 bridge. The applicant acknowledges that the setting of the pill box will be significantly affected by the bypass and the access road to the attenuation pond. The structure is not presently visible from the public realm or accessible to the general public. The proposed bypass would increase its visibility in the landscape at the cost of detracting from its setting. There was also reference in the hearing to the possible incorporation of a walk along the attenuation pond access road which would connect with the towpath. The access road will be in cut but the boundary treatment will be a standard post and rail fence. The applicant states that the boundary treatment will be designed to minimise views to the north towards the river and the northwest towards the existing bridge and after mitigation the significance of this impact is assessed as negative and the magnitude is low.

I conclude that road scheme would give rise to adverse effects on the pillbox and on Fennor House. However, I consider that the impacts arising are acceptable subject to agreement with the planning authority prior to development of detailed proposals for improvement of the setting of the pillbox.

Ledwidge Cottage and other features of architectural interest Ledwidge Cottage is a well known architectural feature. A protected structure, the interest of the building lies primarily in its historical associations as the birthplace of Francis Ledwidge. It is also an attractive stone structure with strong vernacular character in a rural setting, albeit along the heavily trafficked N51. The setting of the structure will be negatively affected by the provision of a footpath and some minor elements of the scheme. The applicant has clarified that the crash barriers shown in the photomontage are not required. The museum curators indicate that the footpath connection to the village will benefit the visitor experience and they are in the process of trying to secure a bus parking bay for the benefit of visitors.

I conclude that while the setting of the cottage will be affected there will be an overall improvement to the visitor experience. The applicant states that after mitigation the impact is negative and of medium magnitude. Having regard to its main interest being its historical associations, I consider that the development of the bypass and associated roundabout and upgrade to a length of the N51 would not unduly detract from the amenities associated with this building. Negative impacts would be offset by improvements to the visitor experience. I consider that the applicant’s assessment is reasonable. In fact it perhaps overstates the impact. I consider that the impact would be medium, at most, and would that it would be neutral.

Other features of architectural interest include Janeville Cottage and gate lodge. I concur with the applicant’s submissions in relation to these features and consider that the impacts arising, including the demolition of the gate lodge are acceptable subject to mitigation. This would include detailed recording. The Board will note that these impacts

__________________________________________________________________________


are described by the applicant as medium negative. I am in agreement with this assessment. I note that the lodge and gate are at a narrow poorly aligned section of the N51 at a location where road improvement would appear to be warranted regardless of the subject scheme.

In conclusion in relation to the cultural heritage constraints discussed above, and acknowledging the impacts on the pill box, the culvert and Mills ACA, I consider that none of the impacts arising would warrant a significant alteration to the line of the proposed road at this stage. The development is generally acceptable in relation to architectural impacts.

Summary points 1. There is a known significant negative impact on an early medieval site and on sites of

archaeological potential which could reveal prehistoric sites

2. The full significance of these sites will be known only following complete excavation 3. The significance of any finds in the area is intensified by reason of proximity to the

World Heritage Site 4. There is further investigative work which could be undertaken prior to a decision to

grant permission and this is recommended 5. The bypass through reduction in through traffic would benefit the structural

condition of features of architectural merit in the village

6. Potential commercial and community benefits to Slane village are significant, which

would be likely to have positive consequences for the care of its historic buildings

7. In terms of architectural heritage in Slane a medium positive benefit would occur 8. The impacts on the canal are acceptable and in particular construction phase

mitigation and future navigation issues have been adequately considered. 9. The impact on Fennor House, the pill box, Ledwidge Cottage, Janeville Cottage and

the Mills ACA is acceptable 10. Although all suffer from some adverse impact none of these impacts, in my opinion,

would warrant a refusal of permission or revision to the route.

SECTION B – Overview of matters relating to the World Heritage Site This section provides an overview of the context for decision making in this case focusing on the reasons for inscription of the site. This section is especially influenced by the evidence of Dr Comer, an independent witness with particular expertise in the area of the World Heritage List and management of those sites. Dr Comer presented a

__________________________________________________________________________


Heritage Impact Assessment based on ICOMOS guidance and indicated that his perspective in approaching his report was as UNESCO would view matters. He diverted from his brief a few times and offered other advice.

DEHLG acts as state party for the purposes of the Convention. The views of DEHLG are thus of particular importance in this case. Its dual role in the realms of development management and the World Heritage List are noted. DEHLG contributed a number of times to the hearing and a representative was present throughout. The focus of concern for DEHLG was whether the World Heritage Site would be so adversely affected as to result in removal from the list. DEHLG also had considerable interest in any associated UNESCO mission.

I also refer the Board particularly to comments made by archaeologists on behalf of the applicant and others. The submission of ICOMOS is as it is one of three formal advisory bodies to the World Heritage Committee and is the professional and scientific advisor to the Committee on all aspects of cultural heritage. ICOMOS has national and international committees. ICOMOS Ireland was represented at the hearing.

This section is structured to address the following:

The process of inscription and the reasons for designation of Brú na Bóinne

The baseline conditions

The importance of management capacity and possible loss of World Heritage Site status

Information likely to be of relevance to a UNESCO reactive mission

Adequacy of the core and buffer zones

Relevance of some recent archaeological findings.

The process of inscription and the reasons Brú na Bóinne was designated as a World Heritage Site

On application to UNESCO a site may be inscribed as a World Heritage Site if is considered to be of ‘outstanding universal value’. This means that it has a cultural significance which is so exceptional as to transcend national boundaries and to be of common importance for present and future generations of humanity. In addition it is required that to be deemed of outstanding universal value a property must have an adequate protection and management system in place to ensure its safeguarding and meet the test of authenticity or integrity. Authenticity is evaluated in terms of design, materials, workmanship or setting. At the time of inscription of a property the Committee adopts a Statement of Outstanding Universal Value which will be a key reference for the future effective protection and management of the property8. The World Heritage List protects only those properties

8 Paragraphs 49, 51 and 78 of the Operational Guidelines 2008 refer. A complete copy of the Operational

Guidelines is attached to this report.

__________________________________________________________________________


which are the most outstanding from an international point of view.

In accordance with its tremendous status, inclusion on the World Heritage List is obtained only through a slow and complicated nomination process. Dr Comer noted that it is increasingly difficult to obtain World Heritage Site status. Increased documentation is required as part of the application process. The nomination dossiers over the last 20 have become far more elaborate. This is a response to the requirements to establish the outstanding universal value and demonstrating capacity to manage the site to preserve its outstanding universal value. UNESCO recently decided to limit the total number of nominations per annum to 45 and it has prioritised nominations of properties for natural and mixed heritage, properties submitted by states with less than three properties on the list and nominations from state parties in Africa, the Pacific and the Caribbean.

To be considered as having outstanding universal value a property must meet one of more of six criteria specified for cultural properties9. Brú na Bóinne was inscribed as it met three of the six criteria for cultural heritage namely: (i) represents a masterpiece of human creative genius

(iii) bears a unique or at least exceptional testimony to a cultural tradition

(iv) be an outstanding example of a building, architectural or technological ensemble or

landscape which illustrates a significant stage(s) in human history.

ICOMOS in 1992 prepared an evaluation report which lead to inscription of the Brú na Bóinne site in 1993. This referred to:

Criterion (i) The monuments represent the largest and most important expression of prehistoric plastic art in Europe

Criterion (iii) The concentration of the social, economic and funerary monuments at this important ritual centre and the long continuity from prehistory to the late medieval period makes this one of the most significant archaeological sites in Europe

Criterion (iv) The passage grave, here brought to its finest expression, was a feature of outstanding importance in prehistoric Europe and beyond.

The justification for the inscription as set out by the state party in the nomination dossier which lead to inscription was as follows:

The quality and quantity of the collective megalithic art of the area represents a unique artistic and aesthetic achievement which is unequalled in its counterparts throughout the rest of Europe

The monuments of the area display a longevity of settlement whose origins are found in Neolithic settlements which are of great antiquity

9 Paragraph 77 of the Operational Guidelines.

__________________________________________________________________________


The various monuments, particularly the great passage tombs, represent important cultural, social, artistic and scientific developments over a considerable length of time. Nowhere else in the world can one find the continuity of settlement and activity associated with a megalithic cemetery such as that which exists at Brú na Bóinne.

The passage tomb complex represents a spectacular survival of the embodiment of a set of ideas and beliefs which are of outstanding historical significance.

In his presentation Dr Comer stressed that the outstanding universal value of Brú na Bóinne, the factors which qualified it for inscription, are linked not only with the Neolithic monuments but with all of the monuments in the World Heritage Site, which testify to the longevity of settlement and ‘provide the basis for the remarkable statement , “nowhere else in the world can one find the continuity of settlement and activity associated with a megalithic settlement ….” ’.

Dr Comer’s evidence includes the comment that ‘without a doubt, the outstanding universal value attached to Brú na Bóinne is largely attributable to the ambience there’. He also noted that the viewshed to the horizon is what is of concern. The Board should note that the inscription process did not focus on matters of ambience or setting but on the actual monuments and the evidence for continuity of settlement. The applicant’s position is that in considering the outstanding universal value one should revert to the inscription.

If Brú na Bóinne was nominated today Dr Comer has no doubt that there would be no difficulty in establishing by way of comparative analysis that it is unique or exceptional.

The baseline conditions at Brú na Bóinne

Regarding Brú na Bóinne Dr Comer indicated that there is no doubt about the baseline conditions including the heritage value of the landscape and most of the sites and features contained therein. I consider that through his report he has highlighted the relative value of the Brú na Bóinne complex, lest there be any doubt as to the significance on a worldwide scale of the monuments of concern.

In terms of the baseline conditions as assessed under the Heritage Impact Assessment, the site was rated by Dr Comer as ‘very high’. This is the highest level. He stated that if there was a value of ‘enormous’ it would apply. The value of ‘very high’ is attributed on the basis of archaeology, built heritage, historic landscape and intangible heritage associations. In considering the importance of the site Dr Comer referred continually to the landscape setting, its vistas and the ambience created by the totality of sights, sounds and other sensory input. He referred to the possible connections between the Hill of Slane and Knowth and considered that there was a desire to retain unmarred inter-visibility.

The following quotes from his presentation are pertinent :

The landscape within the Brú na Bóinne World Heritage Site is as impressive and evocative as that of any of the premier World Heritage archaeological sites and landscapes and I am absolutely convinced that that includes Machu Picchu, Petra and Angkor. They, like Brú na Bóinne, are among the few that provide truly breathtaking vistas, which produce a sense of awe that undoubtedly played a central role in establishing

__________________________________________________________________________


and maintaining order among the ancient societies that inhabited those landscapes. Because the views from most locations within Brú na Bóinne, particularly at the key monuments, are broad ones that take in many other key cultural features - or, in the case of the River Boyne and the lush, green vegetation that covers surrounding hills, seemingly timeless natural ones - the visitor to the site is able to share this sense of awe.

The experience of seeing the Acropolis in Athens, hovering over the city; the view of Machu Picchu as one approaches along the Inca Trail; or the sudden appearance of Al-Khazna at Petra as one rounds the final corner of the narrow rock canyon called the Siq, all evoke feelings of awe. The landscape at Brú na Bóinne, which some have suggested was usually first seen as one approached along the River Boyne, evokes an emotional response no less intense.

Brú na Bóinne provides an outstanding example of a monumental landscape. What is remarkable ….. is that these features, both inside and outside the World Heritage Site are interrelated and form a continuous history that stretches over approximately six and perhaps seven thousand years. It is against this baseline that any change must be evaluated. In conclusion in relation to the value of the Brú na Bóinne complex its importance transcends national boundaries. That is true of all World Heritage Sites. However, Brú na Bóinne would be considered to be in the premier league of World Heritage Sites. Dr Comer considered that a broad range of matters and a wide geographical area are relevant to the protection of the qualities of the site and I conclude that this argument is more persuasive than the applicant’s position. The importance of management of the site and possible loss of World Heritage Site status

I provide further general comments at this point. Dr Comer referenced the fact that more is expected now in terms of demonstrating the capacity to manage the site in ways that can be relied on to preserve the outstanding universal value for which it was listed. The UNESCO Operational Guidelines revised in 2008 places greater emphasis on management capacity. It also refers to buffer zones which are an added layer of protection for the property. He stated that buffer zones are only one way of protecting the World Heritage Site from intrusion. Also, it does not mean that any development can take place outside the buffer zone. Dr Comer noted that the designation as a World Heritage Site is not a permanent status. DEHLG commented during the hearing that it is now easier to lose the status. Management of Brú na Bóinne is presently primarily exercised through the provisions of the Management Plan and the development plans of Drogheda, Meath and Louth. It may also be inferred that commitment to manage the site will also be demonstrated through the manner in which this application is considered by the Board. For instance DEHLG pointed out it would be useful in the event of a reactive monitoring mission to be able to demonstrate that thorough visual assessment preceded any decision to grant permission for the bypass and that the design of the bridge is carefully considered. In terms of considering the adequacy of information presented and the robustness or otherwise of relevant data, a comment of Dr Comer’s is relevant. He noted that a proposed development is not the same as the actual development. Hence if studies indicating that the development will not give rise to incompatible noise and visual intrusion are subsequently proven to be incorrect and the development does intrude on

__________________________________________________________________________


the experience of being at a World Heritage Site the attenuation of the outstanding universal value of the site might be reconsidered by the World Heritage Centre. In considering the matter of protecting the status of the World Heritage Site, I conclude that the Board should thus be particularly mindful of the need for robust data and methodology.

I refer now to the general issues related to endangerment of the status of the site. Dr Comer noted that with inclusion on the World Heritage List the state becomes bound by a set of policies that can strain and direct what can be done at the site. If activities and developments are judged to degrade the authenticity and integrity of the site they are not permitted. Amongst those are the introduction of incompatible landscape elements, usually new construction, that would introduce noise, degrade the fabric of the site or which are simply incompatible with the experience a visitor would justifiably expect given the character of the site. Dr Comer explained how a site can end up on the list of sites of World Heritage in Danger and described what happens and what issues would occur. There is a process known as reactive monitoring to the World Heritage Centre which occurs in exceptional circumstances. Reactive monitoring would be expected to precede inscription on the List of World Heritage in Danger. Reports of reactive missions are requested to contain information relating to the threat or improvement since the last report, any follow-up to decisions of the WHC on the state of the property and any information on the threat or damage to or loss of outstanding universal value, integrity or authenticity for which the property was inscribed. Following the reactive mission it may be decided that the property has not seriously deteriorated and no further action is required. It may decide to inscribe the property on the List of World Heritage in Danger or it may decided that the property has deteriorated to such a point as to require deletion, if it has irretrievably lost those characteristics which determined its inscription. Cumulative impacts may be a consideration.

The Board will note that the attention of UNESCO has already been drawn to the World Heritage Site and its landscape setting in response to a complaint relating to the proposed waste facility at Carranstown. UNESCO initiated the process of sending a reactive mission to inspect the area and to report on the sate of conservation of the property. That decision was made in the context of failure to notify and to provide requested information including an EIA. The finding in relation to the proposed waste management facility was that there was no threat to the World Heritage Site. DEHLG described the 2004 reactive mission as a ‘yellow card’ noting that it is not intended to receive another. The specific information likely to be of interest to a reactive monitoring missions Dr Comer throughout the hearing made it clear that in his opinion there is likely to be a reactive monitoring mission if it appears that there is a substantial likelihood that the project will proceed. DEHLG was mindful throughout the hearing of the need to prepare for any such mission. In that context it recommended that various assessments and design refinements be undertaken during and after the decision making process. In the event of a reactive mission a consultative process would be undertaken, its purpose being to identify corrective measures if such were deemed necessary and to

__________________________________________________________________________


obtain a full picture of the context. That would include the need for the road, the analysis undertaken of the proposals and the investigation of alternatives as well as consideration of the impact of the scheme. A decision on the continuance or loss of status would be made in the context of a comprehensive body of information.

Having regard to the above it is evident that the resolution of any uncertainties in the body of information available under this application will benefit the work of any future reactive mission. A thorough analysis of the issues in this case would also demonstrate willingness to protect the outstanding universal value of the site. However, if any information is unavailable to a reactive monitoring mission, it could request more details.

In relation to the likely consideration of the development by a reactive mission ‘the lacunae’ identified by Dr Comer and the significance of the impacts are considered later in this report. The lacunae identified were matters which prevented him from reaching final conclusions in his Heritage Impact Assessment and are also matters which he considered would be addressed by any reactive mission. Of these the most deleterious of possible impacts he noted was the matter of follow-on development e.g. at the road junctions and he queried how in terms of timescales of 50 years or more such development could be prevented. Other lacunae identified by him were the extent of visibility of the scheme and the consideration of alternatives including a ban on heavy goods vehicles. Regarding the geographical area of interest, DEHLG noted that Dr Comer’s comments regarding the horizon were a surprise to parties and that the department would now have to consider how that could be accommodated. The applicant’s team including Ms O’Carroll and Mr Flanagan stated that in considering the outstanding universal value one has to revert to the inscription documents. Dr Comer’s approach is not in line with that position as he emphasises matters which were not particularly the focus at the time of listing. I consider that the evidence of the 2004 reactive mission provides some insights and is the best available template for any future reactive monitoring. Section 4 refers to commitments in the original nomination dossier. I particularly note the sentence regarding development plan policies ‘this ensures that further development does not take place in the Core Area and that development in the Buffer Zones does not prejudice the management of the resource (e.g. views, access, archaeology)’. The mission noted that development has taken place both within the core area and the buffer zone and that some of it is intrusive. Its comments however are not restricted to development within the designated site, nor to visual and archaeological impact. Indeed, the purpose of the mission was to assess a proposed development which was some distance from the World Heritage Site. The findings commented upon air emissions which might affect the megalithic art. There was also reference to archaeological impacts in the locality of the proposed development.

A number of parties have commented that the buffer zone has the purpose of protecting the core area, that its extent was carefully considered at the time of inscription and that its purpose was to protect the viewshed from the main monuments. Others expressed an opinion that its area is too limited. The 2004 mission noted the proposed Slane Bypass was to be constructed immediately west of the inscribed site and that this will need to be evaluated for its possible impact. From reading the 2004 reactive monitoring mission

__________________________________________________________________________


report I submit that it is clear that any future mission will consider the visual impact of development beyond the buffer zone. In effect, the arguments in relation to the extent of the buffer zone might be dismissed on the basis that it was the viewshed, not the limits of the designated area, which was of concern to the last reactive monitoring mission. Any future mission will consider any aspect of the proposed development which might affect the outstanding universal value of the site.

Based on Dr Comer’s evidence and the report of the previous reactive monitoring mission, I consider that the following would be amongst the matters of interest to a reactive mission:

- The feasible alternatives to overcome the safety issues in Slane including whether a HGV ban could work and any other options

- The visual impact particularly the setting of the monuments in the core area and views from those monuments

- The extent to which visitor experience is affected by visual disturbance or noise

- The control of follow-on development at roundabouts and the planning policy context

- The local and wider archaeological impact

- Whether the development proposed is a further intrusion into the landscape

- Whether it would be concluded to ‘tip the balance’ and sufficiently degrade the outstanding universal value of the site to warrant listing on the UNESCO List in Danger

- That decision will be taken in the context of a comprehensive body of knowledge.

Dr Comer stated that immediate delisting would be highly unusual. He also noted that the Heritage Impact Assessment presented is intended to begin a dialogue and it is evident also that a reactive mission has similar ethos. It is also clear that DEHLG has given strong commitment to renewed effort to engage with relevant authorities to ensure that appropriate policy measures are put in place and to maintain on-going dialogue with UNESCO. The above sets out the context for the remainder of this report. The ultimate responsibility for the protection of the World Heritage Site rests with DEHLG acting as state party on this matter. The Board however has to have regard to the national and local policies relating to the protection of Brú na Bóinne. Protection of the World Heritage Site is a national objective and the state party is embarking on a programme of extending the number of sites. Thus in carrying out its development management function the Board must have regard to how a decision on this case will be considered by an outside authority, which has control over the continuance or removal of World Heritage Status the protection of which is a national objective. This is one aspect of the task before the Board in balancing the merits and potential adverse affects of the

__________________________________________________________________________


proposal. The Board’s role is of particular relevance in terms of the protection of the setting of the monument to which Dr Comer paid such regard.

Adequacy of the core and buffer zones I turn next to matters related to the extent of the designated World Heritage Site and the adequacy of the core and buffer zones. I address this matter further as it is of concern to many observers. I have already set out my conclusion above that the area considered by a reactive mission will not be limited to the core and buffer zones. I now consider whether it would be premature to grant permission for the proposed scheme pending a review of the core and buffer areas.

The final recommendation of the Brú na Bóinne Research Framework published in 2009 states as follows. The critical setting elements of the Brú na Bóinne World Heritage Site are currently under researched and vulnerable in the face of on-going development pressure. Aspects of this were addressed in the 1989 O’Neill report which formed the basis for the existing World Heritage Site. The rationale and decision making process behind the O’Neill report needs to be re-stated and a robust setting and landscape use strategy put in place to ensure that the living landscape of the World Heritage Site can be managed in a mutually beneficial way.

Objective 15 of the Research Framework specifically identifies a high priority objective of developing a setting and landscape use strategy for the protection and management of the World Heritage Site.

The site comprises a core area and a buffer zone. The core area comprises 780 hectares and the buffer zone is 2500 hectares. At the time of inscription it was considered that : "The core area and buffer zones proposed in the nomination are logical and the latter is broadly enough drawn to ensure that the setting of the site is not prejudiced". The O’Neill report commissioned was pivotal to the setting out of the core and buffer zones and took account of the wider setting of the core area and protection of the line of the winter solstice. The core area contains the main passage graves. The buffer zone is designed to protect the setting and views within, into and from the core area is stated to give protection to the core area. Recent publications of UNESCO refer to the importance and value of buffer zones associated with World Heritage Sites. Arguments presented at the hearing are of most significance on this issue and include the following points:

The core area which exists is minimalist and the buffer is inadequate and should be extended ultimately to the Mattock to the north and eventually to include the Hill of Slane due to the connection with the Kings of Knowth (Dr Clinton)

The area defined was restricted due to concerns regarding property rights (Dr Clinton)

I was involved in designation of the buffer zone and core areas and now consider that a larger area should have been included as our knowledge and appreciation of the significance of the site has been amplified (Prof Eogan)

__________________________________________________________________________


The World Heritage Site has been impinged on the eastern side and any bypass should not impinge on the World Heritage Site and its environment (Prof Eogan)

The bypass would bound the World Heritage Site to the west and this boundary has not been analysed as reasonable, proper or considered (Mr Clancy)

The boundary might expand or contract and the desirability of further extension for all parties involved including landowners is untested (Ms O’Carroll)

The extent of the defined areas does not limit archaeological research (Ms O’Carroll)

The inscription document states that the core and buffer area proposed in the nomination are logical and the buffer zone is broadly drawn enough to ensure that the setting of the site is not prejudiced (Mr Flanagan)

That is the kind of statement that would probably be reviewed at this point in time and a request would be made to clarify and provide a basis (Dr Comer, in response, Day 9 page 101)

There are areas on both the east and west side where the buffer zone could be slightly extended but that it is a complex matter which needs to be researched (Prof Eogan)

The area to the south and the findings at Crewbane are an example of new information which might be considered as an extension (Prof Eogan)

Dr Comer attributed considerable importance to the features inside and outside the World Heritage Site hence it is relevant that recent findings within the line of the road are proximate to and contemporaneous with features of the Brú na Bóinne complex and may form part of the complex (Mr Moore)

The proposed development would result in the World Heritage Site being disconnected from the totality of the wider cultural landscape of the Boyne Valley (ICOMOS)

Increasingly research has identified the need for management or limiting impacts outside buffer zones but within the setting of a World Heritage Site (ICOMOS)

The core and buffer zones were not drawn up in terms of contemporary landscape thinking (ICOMOS)

The UNESCO Convention extends protection not only to the boundary but also to the area required to protect and preserve the amenities thereof (Mr Salafia)

Extension of the buffer zone to the limit of the horizon may not be practicable and that if there are other sorts of agreements that can be reached with communities and

__________________________________________________________________________


organisations to lessen the possibility of introducing large features on the horizon, that would be a good thing to do (Dr Comer)

An alternative would be to define and protect the setting of monuments, protection of viewshed is what is important (Dr Comer)

The Dresden case whereby the development of a bridge resulted in loss of World Heritage Status is quite different as the bridge was routed through the core of the inscribed area ( Mr Ryle , Mr Corish ) and while the location of the bridge will not be considered again, a smaller area might yet be re-inscribed (Dr Comer).

I note the arguments made in relation to the extent of the designated World Heritage Site. The purpose of any extension to the World Heritage Site could be simply to protect the viewshed of the known monuments within the core area, possibly through extension of the buffer zone. However, archaeological discoveries of sufficient relevance and importance might also warrant an extension of the core area. In this regard much was made at the hearing and in written submissions of the archaeological discoveries at Crewbane as discussed below. DEHLG gave no indication of intent to reconsider the area designated but did indicate a need to be more proactive in management provisions such as the management plan and the proposed local area plan. It is not for the Board to make any conclusions on the matter of the adequacy of the core or buffer zones, the resolution of which is a complex task and requires a multidisciplinary approach. However, it would be remiss of me not to outline the arguments and to draw some inferences from the debate. I conclude as follows:

If constructed the road scheme would be likely to define the western limits to any future extension to the World Heritage Site – the eastern limits were already altered in response to construction of the M1

However no such extension may ever arise and on re-visiting the matter of the boundaries any new western limit could be determined to fall well short of the area of proposed road scheme

For the purposes of development management a buffer zone provides clarity

Proper definition and protection of viewsheds and formulation of strong planning policy would have the same affect, albeit subject to regular review

Pending resolution of this matter as recommended in the 2009 Heritage Council publication Brú na Bóinne World Heritage Site Research Framework the development might be considered premature

I do not consider that a refusal of permission for reason of prematurity pending reconsideration of the buffer zone is warranted or reasonable

I make this recommendation in light of the advice of DEHLG set out in section 7.16.1 of the Development Management Guidelines which recommends use of such

__________________________________________________________________________


reasons for refusal only where there is a realistic prospect of a plan or strategy being completed within a specific stated time frame.

Crewbane site - the findings I now focus on a specific matter in the above debate on the core area and buffer zone, that is the archaeological findings at Crewbane. This is particularly relevant if the Board considers that the development is premature pending a review of the buffer zone.

The recently discovered archaeological features at Crewbane lie partly within the buffer zone of the World Heritage Site10. This matter was brought into the application as part of the discussion on the adequacy of the buffer zone. There are two strands to the arguments which arose (i) that the site may be linked with or defensive for Knowth in the early Christian / early

medieval period11 and

(ii) that the lands may have contained a passage tomb.

(i) Possible connections with Knowth

There are clear views from Crewbane to the tombs at Knowth. According to Mr Fenwick, the significance of the findings lies in there being a complex of archaeological features situated on this prominent ridge. Acknowledging the limitations of the investigative work to date Mr Fenwick says that the site requires further investigation and that the monuments have potential to provide significant new insights into the early medieval settlement landscape centred on the nearby royal site at Knowth. The Crewbane site might have guarded a fording point or acted as a defensive outpost to the royal stronghold at Knowth according to Mr Fenwick. The Crewbane souterrain is virtually identical in structural detail to those at Knowth and may be of similar date.

Ms O’Carroll and DEHLG also consider that the site is significant. However, Mr Fenwick’s suggestion that the Crewbane site may not just be linked with Knowth but may be defensive for Knowth in the early Christian or early medieval period is described by Ms O’Carroll as ‘speculative musing’. Prof Eogan expressed a view that the Crewbane findings could probably be considered as part of the extension of the Knowth complex, making this statement in relation to the possible extension of the buffer zone. Further sites are likely to turn up at Crewbane he indicated noting that it is quite clearly an important area which is outside the buffer zone. Ms O’Carroll stated that a change to the limits of the World Heritage Site for such reason could result result in regular changes to the defined area.

Based on the available information I conclude that it cannot be ruled out that the Crewbane discoveries, the significance of which is acknowledged by all parties, is linked

10

I refer the Board to the report of Mr Joe Fenwick archaeologist, which was submitted in response to the

further information request. It outlines details of the site investigation at Crewbane.

11 As outlined in the site description this was a period of importance at Knowth. The royal centre of the high

kings of Ireland in the late sixth or early seventh centuries was at or near the passage tomb at Knowth.

__________________________________________________________________________


with or defensive for later periods of occupation at Knowth. Equally there may be little connection. The knowledge simply is unavailable.

(ii) Possible site of other passage grave

The discussion regarding a possible megalithic tomb being located in the vicinity of Crewbane House arises also from Mr Fenwick’s report which notes the presence of sizeable quantities of large quartz stones and greywacke slabs. Both materials would have been imported from Wicklow and Louth and both are associated with the construction of the megalithic tombs. The majority of the carved stones at Knowth for instance are greywacke. Thus Mr Fenwick states that though the evidence is largely circumstantial, the presence of quartz and greywacke stone raises the compelling possibility of the former existence of a megalithic tomb located somewhere in the vicinity of Crewbane House, perhaps in a prominent position overlooking the River Boyne. Pilgrims travelling downstream would have been informed by the presence of a passage grave that they were about to enter the great cemetery.

I have referred above to the number of passage graves within the World Heritage Site, which is up to 40 in total. The greywacke is found within the souterrain at Crewbane where large slabs act as the structural capstones. It is not known if they contain megalithic art. I noted on inspection that the base of trees near Crewbane House were encircled with quartz.

The question arising relates to the origin of the quartz and greywacke and in this regard Ms O’Carroll noted as follows:

The finding of megalithic art would connect the site with Knowth

A large greywacke slab was found south of the river at Rosnaree at a lower level but there was no art

If there was material surplus to the requirements for building the passage graves it might have been discarded and moved to Crewbane

Equally there might have been a smaller passage grave at Crewbane.

On the basis of the arguments presented I consider that the presence of quartz alone on the site is not of particular interest. This decorative stone would have been a novelty material and the stones are relatively small12. I consider that their possible removal from Knowth perhaps at the time of construction of Crewbane House is a credible reason for the presence of quartz at Crewbane. The presence of greywacke slabs is perhaps more interesting. I am less convinced with the validity of the applicant’s arguments relating to the presence of the greywacke slabs. Their ready availability at Knowth during the medieval period when there was a lot of destruction of large tombs is not in doubt. However, I consider that no clear statement was provided as to why these slabs might have been transported to Crewbane. Either they were transported up from the river level or from Knowth megalithic cemetery, both of which would have involved considerable

12

Ms O’Carroll noted that a house at Rosnaree is faced with quartz.

__________________________________________________________________________


effort. Souterrains can be built in all sorts of ways and would not necessarily have required large slabs. Perhaps in combination with the evidence for quartz there is some substance to the arguments regarding a remnant passage grave. Ms O’ Carroll agreed that this is a possibility. Dr Comer had noted the tomb at Ballincrad which is almost flattened, as was Knowth prior to excavation and reconstruction. In relation to whether the findings at Crewbane warrant that the buffer zone be extended Ms O’Carroll noted that the primary reason for inscription relates to the megalithic art and that the secondary reason is the matter of longevity of settlement, that the sites are protected on the RMP and that extension of the buffer zone for reason of this finding might set a precedent whereby every monument found would require that the buffer zone be extended. Prof Eogan in evidence noted that he had been present at the time of Mr Fenwick’s investigations. He was not particularly focused on arguments relating to the presence of another passage grave at Crewbane and was not conclusive on this matter. It was his evidence that there has been an important archaeological complex discovered and that there is more to be revealed. Prof Eogan’s evidence is that it is ‘quite clear that the Crewbane area should be included for the very good reason that monuments have come to light in that area’. Others argued that if the site had been known at the time of inscription it would probably have been included in the World Heritage Site. I can only conclude that there is considerable merit to this argument, if it is proven to be the site of either a passage grave or contemporary with the royal stronghold at Knowth. No conclusions can be drawn on that matter at present.

The Crewbane site has not been subject of detailed site investigations to date13. Some of the finds are potential sites and the information presented is uncertain and this needs to be borne in mind. However, the general consensus of all archaeological experts is that the site is significant. I do not want to over-emphasise the importance of the findings at Crewbane but to reference them in the context of the arguments relating to the limits of the World Heritage Site. If the site is later proven to be connected with Knowth, that might lead to a westward extension of the World Heritage Site if that matter is to be reviewed in the future. There are others sites or potential sites which could also be discussed in this regard. The critical conclusion however is not in relation to that site but to the concerns, outlined in the Research Framework document as well as in submissions to the application, that if the World Heritage Site were being defined today it would be likely to incorporate a different area. I find that the weight of evidence supports that point. However, I reiterate my comment above in relation to prematurity. I conclude that the none of the uncertainties regarding the limits or extent of the World Heritage Site core and buffer zones can reasonably lead to a conclusion that the Slane Bypass should be refused permission due to it being premature or restricting possible future revision of boundaries.

13

It came to light first in November 2007 when the souterrain was accidentally discovered. That lead to a

preliminary investigation of the site in August 2008 and mapping and geophysical survey on four days in 2010.

The LIDAR survey of the area undertaken in 2007 shows the linear embankment.

__________________________________________________________________________


Section B - Summary points 1. Brú na Bóinne is within the premier league of World Heritage Sites

2. It is of importance for its monuments, including the passage grave cemeteries, the

megalithic art, the evidence for continuity of settlement and its landscape setting 3. Obtaining and retaining World Heritage Site status is increasingly difficult 4. Recent archaeological finds may support arguments relating to the need to reconsider

the area of the World Heritage Site, but should not influence the decision of the Board on this application

5. The core and buffer zones are considered by some experts to be inadequate 6. Protection of viewshed is an alternative to expansion of the World Heritage Site 7. A UNESCO reactive monitoring mission is likely if there is strong likelihood that the

scheme will be constructed 8. A reactive monitoring mission is likely to consider a broad range of issues and the

best reference document is the report of the last mission 9. The proposed road scheme is likely to be considered by a reactive monitoring

mission as a further intrusive element in the landscape 10. The question is whether it would degrade the outstanding universal value of the site 11. In considering that question a reactive mission will consider all aspects of the

proposal including alternatives available and the predicted impacts and would be likely to require detailed information and would engage in a consultative manner to resolve impacts.

C - Impact on the World Heritage Site This section focuses on the impacts of the proposed road scheme on the World Heritage Site. It outlines the position of Dr Comer and DEHLG. It contains comments and conclusions which are supported by other sections of the report. It is structured as follows:

The Heritage Impact Assessment and the significance of the impact

Completing the Heritage Impact Assessment

Management of landscape intrusions

Avoidance of follow-on development

Position of DEHLG.

__________________________________________________________________________


Heritage Impact Assessment The Heritage Impact Assessment is the core element of Dr Comer’s evidence. Its purpose is to discuss ways the proposed development might affect the outstanding universal value of the World Heritage Site, the research and logic behind the assessment, an assessment of the magnitude of impact on the outstanding universal value of the World Heritage Site were the proposed development to go ahead and a list of missing information, lacunae, that might alter the assessment of impact and which would be likely to be requested in the event of a reactive monitoring mission.

Dr Comer described the role of monumental landscapes and how they legitimised and structured society in the past. On visiting Brú na Bóinne the visitor can share the sense of awe which would have influenced and supported aspects of societal status and behaviour. In terms of the potential impact of development on the landscape he noted:

Yet there is an important difference: Here, the material from which the monumental landscape of Brú na Bóinne was constructed was not masonry, it was the earth itself, covered with the lush, green vegetation for which Ireland is renowned. To introduce contemporary elements in that field of green is to lessen, to some degree, the emotional response that it produces . A visitor today would then be deprived of the full understanding of what the landscape meant to the ancient inhabitants of the Bend of the Boyne and how it worked to create and maintain ancient societies. The World Heritage Site has already been subject to adverse impacts arising from development outside the buffer zone and Dr Comer noted the M1 motorway in terms of its visual and aural impacts, the increased number of structures and lights at the Platin cement factory, the stack for the incinerator at Carranstown and residential development which is very visible from within the World Heritage Site and even more so from the Hill of Slane14. The issue he stated is how the traffic problem at Slane can be corrected without further impairing the outstanding universal value that inheres in the World Heritage Site. He noted the limited benefits which arise for the local community and the restrictions imposed by the World Heritage Site. After outlining the twelve periods represented within the World Heritage Site and noting the importance of the Hill of Slane and its connections with Knowth Dr Comer stated What is remarkable about all that is described …. Is that these features, both inside and outside the World Heritage Site, are interrelated and form a continuous history that stretches over approximately 6,000 years. It is against this baseline that change must be evaluated.

14

The Hill of Slane is obviously outside of the World Heritage Site. This is one of a number of references by

Dr Comer to archaeological sites which are outside of the designated area. He noted concern that the

development might impact in a negative way on extremely important sites and landscapes that are outside the

World Heritage Site yet are closely related historically, environmentally, aesthetically and culturally. This type

of comment also needs to be considered in the context of Ireland being a signatory to the Convention.

__________________________________________________________________________


Referring to the previous intrusive development in and near the World Heritage Site and noting that they are extremely regrettable but have not yet marred the outstanding universal value of the site sufficiently to threaten its standing, he stated However, the building of a road near or in a World Heritage Site is among the most problematic of all possible developments because a new or improved road inevitably changes the existing ecological and social dynamics of the area ….. when considering the effects that would arise from the construction of the Slane Bypass, none can be viewed as non-significant. In terms of the degree of impact arising Dr Comer placed considerable emphasis on the possibility of ‘follow-on’ development, which would be stimulated by the road and by improved access to the city. He noted that the reactive mission of 2004 had referenced new development inside and outside the World Heritage Site, some of which it considered was intrusive, which occurred despite the development plan policy to ensure that further development does not take place within the core area and that development in the buffer zones does not prejudice the management of the resource (e.g. views, access, archaeology). Dr Comer’s evidence relating to the scale and severity of impact and the significance of effect or overall impact is:

- Based on the available information the Slane Bypass would constitute a Major Change and therefore a Very Large Adverse Impact if satisfactory assurances that the Bypass will not stimulate new construction in the vicinity of the World Heritage Site cannot be made

- If satisfactory assurances that the development will not stimulate new construction can be made then the development would constitute a Minor Change and thus Moderate / Large Adverse Effect on the condition that the N2 Slane Bypass is visible only from the top of Knowth, or a Moderate Change and therefore Large / Very Large Adverse Impact if the N2 Slane Bypass is visible from several locations within the World Heritage Site15.

As part of the Heritage Impact Assessment report Dr Comer identified lacunae which prevented him from being conclusive in relation to the magnitude of impact of the proposed bypass. These are

Consideration of the entire landscape in terms of viewshed analysis using the LIDAR imagery and calibrated by a balloon test

Any studies or documents relating to the decision not to implement a HGV ban or studies relating to possible adjustment of the tolling system

Any study evaluating the probability of the bypass encouraging further development near the World Heritage Site and how this scenario would be managed

15

Page 25 of Dr Comer’s report shows the scale.

__________________________________________________________________________


Any study concerning the addition of a third stack to the cement plant and how it might affect conditions there16.

Dr Comer departed the hearing prior to undertaking of a balloon test, did not see the revised ZVI based on the LIDAR survey and stated that he had insufficient time to consider the report on a proposed HGV study which was presented on his last afternoon at the hearing. He had expressed considerable interest in the prevailing planning policy context, the noise submissions, the traffic data but acknowledged limitations to his expertise in these areas. Nevertheless aspects of his evidence as presented to the hearing were unambiguous. I consider that this is a reasonable summary of his position in relation to the impacts of the proposed development:

- If there is any possibility of other solutions then these should be studied and implemented as alternatives

- The appearance of the bridge is greatly secondary to the possibility of follow-on development

- The bridge design is relevant only insofar as it can be made to disappear into the landscape, there is no particular issue with the design but reducing its visibility will reduce the level of change

- It is the location is the fundamental problem

- Every step should be taken to make sure that the bridge is not visible from any more locations than possible

- Regarding the scheme itself the presence of moving vehicles would be especially intrusive

- There are gaps in information which prevent the making of conclusive statements

- Depending on assurances regarding follow-on development and the visibility of the scheme, the significance of effect or overall impact is between moderate to very large and negative (very large is the highest point on the scale).

Continuing the Heritage Impact Assessment I attempt now to synthesise evidence which arose in the hearing following Dr Comer’s departure and to continue his assessment based on the information which emerged. Of relevance to this report is the revised ZVI and the balloon test. Later I address planning policies and some of the conclusions of that section are incorporated at this stage. Following the balloon test and related discussion and further submissions including photomontages, I submit that it is clear that the development would have widespread visibility from large parts of the site at Knowth and from the western end of the buffer zone. The latter comprises mainly inaccessible public lands. It would also be visible from

16

This comment reflects concern with on-going incremental landscape changes.

__________________________________________________________________________


Newgrange albeit at a distance of over 3km, which the applicant’s team described as theoretical. Mr O’Leary commented to the hearing on the direction of view for visitors, and the small scale of the scheme as a landscape feature (Day 15, pages 73-77) and concluded in relation to a new viewpoint presented that a low and neutral impact occurs at Newgrange. This had not previously been noted in the applicant’s submissions and the impact on Newgrange was thus increased following the balloon test from the original level of imperceptible. Later in this report I address the limited visual impact arising on Newgrange and note that the visitor on a public tour to Newgrange would not be likely to have views to the road scheme.

In terms of Dr Comer’s Heritage Impact Assessment I consider that it is appropriate, following the balloon test to include Newgrange as another location from which the proposed bypass would be visible. I do not consider however that a great deal of weight would be attributed to this additional view as its contribution to landscape change is very limited and it cannot be reasonably be considered to interfere with the experience of visiting Newgrange.

Dr Comer was primarily concerned about the views from within the World Heritage Site where high visitor expectations should be met. In relation to the outstanding universal value it is views from within the site which are relevant. Obviously views from within the core area are of critical importance.

The view from the top of Knowth was prominent in consideration in the EIS. The balloon test, a revised ZVI and photomontage indicate that the entirety of the bridge will be visible from a large area of the site. A visitor will not have to climb to the top of the tomb to see the road scheme – on the contrary views will be widely available at ground level within Knowth. The balloon test brought this evidence to the fore and some subsequent oral submissions outlined greater concern than heretofore. I consider that the location of the scheme in relation to the view from Knowth is such that it becomes a fairly unavoidable landscape element. This is especially true of the the bridge but also of the cuttings at Cullen Hill and the raised section of the route between 640 and 940 chainage. I refer to Dr Comer’s statement that even if the road had no traffic on it it would be a visual intrusion as it is an incompatible element with what is otherwise a landscape that has enormous archaeological and historical integrity. He was referring mainly to the bridge in this regard.

Following the range of visual representations presented to the Board I consider that the development would be visible from ‘several locations within the World Heritage Site’. The additional impact demonstrated at Knowth would be likely in my opinion to be considered a material factor in the level of change and impact. I do not attribute particular significance to the new information regarding Newgrange. As discussed below the views of DEHLG may differ on this overall point.

The information available since the balloon test shows an increase in visibility of the development across the World Heritage Site. I conclude that on the basis of Dr Comer’s analysis, the balloon test and other submissions, the impact would be at minimum a moderate change meaning a large / very large adverse impact. It is difficult to draw any other conclusion.

__________________________________________________________________________


Other possible landscape intrusions and their management I support Dr Comer’s concerns regarding any possible acoustic impact. This matter is to be considered by the reporting Inspector. I note only that Dr Comer referenced the occasional practice of setting noise standards for sites and that he talked of the importance of tranquillity and a sense of timelessness. I concur that the protection of a very quiet rural ambiance is highly desirable. I have found that on visiting Knowth such conditions can typically be experienced. It is important in terms of the protection of the status of the World Heritage Site that the noise predictions presented by the applicant are determined to be robust. If at a later stage noise intrusions are deemed to have arisen this could initiate further action by UNESCO.

The unavoidably distracting nature of large moving vehicles was considered by Dr Comer to be the most negative aspect of the road scheme. The eye would be distracted by moving objects and in turn the sense of being within a timeless landscape would be difficult to obtain. Insofar as the bridge is visible this negative impact is unavoidable. At early stages at minimum there will also be views of large vehicles on other parts of the road scheme particularly along the raised section of the road but in other locations also. In winter months lighting may be used by vehicles throughout the day and vehicle lights and these would add to the visibility of vehicles. There are currently views from Knowth to moving vehicles on the N2, a point noted by the supporters of the scheme and by the applicant’s witnesses. I agree that even cars are visible moving along the N2 and that HGVs are reasonably noticeable. The impact arising is not comparable in my opinion with the proposed scheme due to the different alignment and distance.

In relation to the proposed landscaping I refer the Board to the EIS and to other discussions and submissions regarding geology. The landscape and visual impact of the development is based on a certain understanding of geological conditions. Various images presented to the hearing show that the proposed landscaping is critical to soften the line of the Cullen Hill cutting and to blend the road into the surrounding landscape and limit views to the road pavement and vehicles. The applicant’s geological investigations must be demonstrated to be thorough. This again is a matter for the reporting Inspector.

Avoidance of follow-on development Dr Comer was especially concerned that the development might give rise to development at roundabouts and other observers noted this scenario as well. His Heritage Impact Assessment conclusions varied considerably depending on whether satisfactory assurances can be given that the bypass will not stimulate new construction in the vicinity of the World Heritage Site. If these assurances could not be given then the development would give rise to a major change and therefore a very large adverse impact, the highest possible impact.

Some fact which emerged at the hearing are:

Dr Comer’s concern was not directed at one-off houses and small agricultural practices which he stated might be viewed sympathetically by visitors

__________________________________________________________________________


There has been very limited progress on the preparation of a Local Area Plan the remit of which appears to address only the actual core and buffer zones and not the wider viewsheds

There is considerable uncertainty regarding what protection the development plan affords in terms of listed views and policy – this is now resolved

There is no protection for existing hedgerows the removal of which would expose more views from the World Heritage Site to the development

There would be more protection arising from a Landscape Conservation Area but this is not proposed, a fact which was queried by Dr Comer

Dr Comer indicated that planning policies should be capable of being monitored and that general statements would not be considered sufficient.

I conclude that there cannot be satisfactory assurances that the development would not give rise to further development of the type which would be intrusive when viewed from the World Heritage Site. The matter of planning policy is discussed elsewhere in more detail. If the Board considers that there are not satisfactory assurances that follow-on development will not occur, then it must also be concluded, based on Dr Comer’s Heritage Impact Assessment, that the development would constitute a major change and a very large adverse impact.

Ms O’Carroll noted that Dr Comer did not conclude that the outstanding universal value would be so reduced as to warrant listing on the endangered sites. DEHLG on the other hand considered that Dr Comer had made it clear that if follow on development could not be prevented that would cause the inscription of Brú na Bóinne to be removed from the World Heritage List. I consider that Dr Comer did not express a definitive opinion either way on this matter. Indeed he indicates that his conclusions are limited by the availability of information. He did make it clear that at the very least the scheme would be considered to be another intrusion on the World Heritage Site. It might be reasonable to make inferences from his evidence but nothing definitive was presented to the hearing. Dr Comer however did give a clear warning that there should be no doubt but that the status of the site is in danger (Day 8, page 195 ). That comment was clearly stated. I consider that his comments have to be considered in the context that the impact arising based on ICOMOS guidance may be of the highest possible level (‘very large’) and to be adverse. The bypass does not traverse lands which are currently zoned for development. It is in a rural area and the policies pertaining are those of the County Development Plan. As such significant urban development as has occurred at Drogheda would not be likely to arise. However, equally I would have to echo Dr Comer’s concerns regarding the manner in which development, some of it considered intrusive, has proceeded despite planning policies being in place. Further, the timescale of consideration is long-term. The provision of the road and roundabouts provides the possibility of follow-on development.

__________________________________________________________________________


Regarding the control of future development I refer to two possible options which the Board may wish to consider. One is the imposition of a ban on use of all roundabouts for access, other than for agricultural purposes and indeed excluding any exempted development provisions. The detail of the law in this area would have to be carefully considered to ensure long term enforcement. Alternatively, the Board might consider whether a sterilisation agreement might be made between the planning authority and landowners. Section 47 of the 2000 Act as amended allows for such agreements and also allows for a relevant prescribed body to join the agreement. In my opinion this appears to be the strongest available mechanism. It is certainly more robust than reliance on development plan policies, which are subject to regular review and interpretation. However, no similar suggestion has been proposed by the applicant’s team and it was not discussed at the oral hearing. The option may have been considered but discounted due to landowner opposition. Certainly if the Board were to consider either option I would recommend that the hearing be re-opened.

Position of DEHLG Before leaving this section I wish to set out in more detail the views of DEHLG. The Department has a particular role in the area of World Heritage and for the most part its interest in the hearing and the submissions referred to the outstanding universal value and how it would be impacted. DEHLG made a detailed initial written submission to the Board, attended all of the hearing and the balloon tests. The initial presentation to the hearing concluded that further information was required in the form of the balloon test and additional imagery and that the bridge design be subject of a peer review process. The planning policy provisions were not the focus of concern.

The Department as state party indicated that it could not countenance any intrusive element that impairs the outstanding universal value of the World Heritage Site and has an aim in the long term to secure the removal of some intrusive elements. At the end of the hearing the Department was of the view that the outstanding universal value would not be significantly impaired by the proposed road scheme. I consider that statement was made in the context of future intentions regarding the undertaking of a proactive approach to the planning policy context. I referred earlier to the comment of DEHLG in relation to Dr Comer’s position on the outstanding universal value. The Department indicated clearly also that it had considerable interest in seeing a resolution to the traffic situation and could not be against development. The Department made a number of specific comments on archaeological impact. In terms of its function within the application process this was an important contribution. I consider that the contribution regarding the setting of the World Heritage Site was perhaps overly focused on consideration of whether it would affect the inclusion on the List, which is its main interest as state party to the Convention. Mr Browner indicated that the Board too should focus on the outstanding universal value, but in my opinion the Board has broader concerns. In terms of the impact on the outstanding universal value Mr Browner considered that the visitor takes in a 360 degree vista and that the view to the west is not the reason that the site is visited. The archaeologist from DEHLG commented that there is a negative impact and Ms O’Carroll agreed stating however that there has to be development. The

__________________________________________________________________________


proponents including individual observers considered that the tourists would continue to visit Brú na Bóinne when the scheme is constructed.

Obviously, the primary reason to visit the individual passage graves relates to seeing the tombs and the megalithic art close up. The opportunity to see the art with the naked eye, to enter part of the main tomb at Knowth and to walk amongst the grassy tombs will remain. However, I do consider that matters of setting and ambience are highly relevant to that experience. Seeing the tombs and art in an apparently timeless rural landscape is part of the value of the visit. The displays in the Brú na Bóinne centre attempt to evoke the spiritual and magical qualities associated with the tombs through use of music and description of the events. The matter of ambience may be secondary but is nevertheless critical to the whole experience of Bru an Boinne. DEHLG offered an opinion that the outstanding universal value would not be affected. Based on the available information and taking into account the broad nature of the issues, I do not consider that the Board is in a position to be conclusive on that matter.

Section C - Summary points 1. The balloon test demonstrated widespread visibility of the scheme and resulted in

changes to the applicant’s assessment

2. Dr Comer’s evidence is that the development would constitute a ‘major change’ and therefore a ‘very large adverse’ impact if satisfactory assurances that the bypass will not stimulate new construction cannot be made

3. If the assurances regarding follow on development can be made then the impact

would be a moderate change and therefore a large / very large adverse impact

4. Following the balloon test I do not consider that it is possible to interpret Dr Comer’s assessment of change as being minor and that a moderate or large adverse effect arises

5. My conclusion is that the bypass is visible from several locations and that a moderate change and therefore a large / very large adverse impact arises at minimum

6. Aspects of the scheme which might be intrusive would include the visual impact of

the scheme, views to moving vehicles, noise and particularly development at roundabouts

7. Whether the scheme would result in a determination that the outstanding universal

value of the site is so degraded as to warrant placement on the list of sites in danger is a matter for UNESCO

8. Dr Comer lacked information which prevented him from drawing conclusions about

the impact, but did note that the status of the World Heritage Site is in danger 9. The Heritage Impact Assessment should anticipate the concerns of a reactive

mission

__________________________________________________________________________


10. Control of follow-on development through legal agreements might be investigated by way of further information

11. DEHLG is satisfied that the outstanding universal value would not be affected.

D - Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment

Information relating to the landscape and visual impact of the proposed development was provided in the EIS, the further information response and by way of supplementary tests and imagery presented to the hearing. The applicant’s submissions to the oral hearing include computer animations showing digital scaled imagery of a flyover of the study area, a flyover along the river from west to east and a motorists view from the proposed scheme. A revised ZVI and images of a balloon test undertaken by the applicant during an adjournment of the oral hearing are available for the Board to consider. Animations presented by an observer and by the applicant of the view from Knowth to the road scheme are amongst the noteworthy submissions. The applicant in response provided an animation from Knowth. When considering the imagery the Board should to ensure that the document is being viewed at the appropriate scale. In relation to the package of information before the Board I consider that the information is sufficient for the purposes of the application and for the purpose of EIA.

In commenting below on the landscape and visual impacts I focus on the most sensitive heritage features and the viewpoints identified in the EIS. Due to the wealth of features of architectural and archaeological interest in the landscape discussion inevitably overlaps with other sections of this report.

This section of the report is structured as follows:

discussion of the Boyne Valley as described in the Landscape Character Assessment and the development plan

site context

impacts on Knowth, Newgrange, the buffer zone and the Battle of the Boyne site

visual impacts from other heritage features including the Hill of Slane and the Canal and Jebbs Mill

consideration of terminology, the balloon test and the revised ZVI.

The Boyne Valley Landscape Character Area and the Development Plan The site is centred on the Boyne Valley Landscape Character Area, which covers a large and diverse area. The EIS references the exceptional landscape value and high sensitivity of the richly historical landscape and the low potential capacity of the Boyne Valley area to accommodate new transport routes. To the north is the Rathkenny Hills Landscape Character Area, an area of very high landscape value and high sensitivity where for instance Ledwidge Cottage is located. The Central Lowlands Landscape Character Area

__________________________________________________________________________


is to the south and includes McGruder’s Cross. The latter two areas are of high sensitivity and have medium capacity to accommodate road infrastructure.

The Boyne Valley Character Area is described in the development plan as an exceptional landscape of international importance. The Meath Landscape Character Assessment notes that it is characterised by a steep river valley with wide areas of rolling lowlands. It extends from County Kildare to Drogheda. It is described as being arguably the most significant and highly valued landscapes in the county because it contains Brú na Bóinne and also the heritage towns of Trim and Slane. The LCA also contains Navan town. In terms of the description of this large area as set out in the Meath Landscape Character Assessment there is a notable focus on the general vicinity of Slane including Brú na Bóinne to the east and Slane Castle and Beauparc to the west. This description appears to me to confer particular importance to the part of the Boyne Valley located around Slane.

The fact that any particular LCA is made up of a number of individual zones is effectively noted in the development plan policy. It requires an assessment of the particular location of a development. Thus while the policy approach includes consideration of suitability of a LCA for particular types of development it also inherently identifies that some areas within an LCA will be more robust than other locations. The Boyne Valley LCA has low potential capacity to accommodate new transport routes due to the landscape value and high sensitivity. Slane village is mentioned in the context that significant development in and around it would be unsympathetic to the landscape setting. One of the recommendations of the LCA relates to the siting of new development. This should have regard to the narrow nature of views within the area. It is noted that views along its length and across to either side are clear and often uninterrupted. Development on the skyline should be avoided unless demonstrated to have no adverse visual impacts that cannot be mitigated.

The EIS viewpoints include those listed views from 2001 development plan and from the current development plan and some others. The Slane Local Area Plan identifies a number of listed views which are shown on a map at the rear of this report. The development plan views which are legally protected are those shown on Map 5, as amended by variation 13 adopted on 7th November 2011. At the time of writing therefore the listed views which the Board must consider are those which are in the Slane LAP and in the development plan as amended.

Site Context The proposed Slane Bypass is set within a very special landscape. The landscape values derive in large part from the topography of the river valley and the width of the river and its generally unspoilt character. The Boyne Valley is a historic landscape. It has a particularly rich cultural dimension evident in monuments from prehistoric times to the present. It is this wealth of evidence of human actions combined with natural beauty which makes the area remarkable. Virtually all landscapes are shaped by human actions, even those perceived to be the most ‘natural’ of areas. Here, within a few kilometres distance of each other are prehistoric monuments of international significance, an estate village and Castle and in between in an agricultural valley are the canal and mills and the

__________________________________________________________________________


site of the Battle of the Boyne as well as a wealth of features of less significance including former demesne houses and a military fortification.

In determining landscape values, sensitivity and impacts, perception is an important consideration. Landscapes are defined as areas perceived by people. Historic landscapes are defined by people’s perceptions of the evidence of past human activities in the present landscape. Thus, examination of historic landscapes can provide insights into past activities. Nowhere perhaps is this more significant in Ireland than in the Boyne Valley . Here two groups of monuments, themselves of national or international importance, representing different eras are sited in the landscape in a manner which responds to their functions. The industrial features of the canal and mills are clearly connected with each-other and with the river. The passage graves are visible from each-other and are prominently sited to command the bend of the Boyne. Any person viewing this landscape can easily interpret these relationships and the value of the landscape setting is enhanced by this understanding. Based on the above this is clearly a high sensitivity landscape as described by Mr O’Leary. Such landscapes exhibit a strong positive character with valued elements and characteristics that combine to give an experience of unity, richness and harmony and are therefore particularly sensitive to change in general. 17 A number of observers reference the protection of the landscape between the World Heritage Site and Slane Village. These comments are not always presented in terms of the viewshed of the World Heritage Site or the protection of other manmade feature, but instead appear to reflect attribution of an inherent natural landscape value. The canal towpath is an important local amenity route and restoration of the canal as proposed could harness the tourist potential of this area. Visual sensitivity in this area is accordingly high.

Mr O’Leary notes the presence of roads as a landscape feature in the area. Referencing agricultural practices and buildings as well as infrastructure he noted that this is a modern landscape. It was frequently described at the hearing also as a living landscape. There are two existing bridges at Drogheda and at Slane. The landscape is also described by Mr O’Leary and others as containing some elements which may be considered intrusive and undesirable. Typically these are large structures built in the last few decades such as the Platin cement plant. However, recent residential development in Slane also attracted adverse comment. A power line is positioned between the World Heritage Site and the proposed development. I discuss the visibility of these structures further in this report.

In summary in terms of site context this is a historic landscape of exceptional quality and value. It displays a wealth of cultural features and a continuity of settlement from the prehistoric era to the present. Cultural heritage features includes some which are sited in response to the topography. The perception of the landscape and sensitivity to landscape change will vary.

17

Terminology as outlined by Mr O’Leary is recorded on Day 5, pages 70 to 74.

__________________________________________________________________________


Impacts on the World Heritage Site and the Battle of the Boyne The focus of much of the hearing was on the visual impact on the World Heritage Site. This section addresses the significance of the impacts on the World Heritage Site. In undertaking this assessment there is further consideration of whether the scheme might affect the outstanding universal value of the World Heritage Site. Observers differ in terms of their assessment of proximity of the road scheme to the World Heritage Site. The facts are that the bridge is situated just under 600m from the edge of the World Heritage Site buffer zone and that the distance from Knowth to the bridge is in the region of 2.3 kilometres. These are significant distances in one sense but from numerous inspections of bridges in particular from such distances I can only report that at such distances the structures and vehicles thereon are clearly visible. The Board will note that there is similarity between (a) the distance of the proposed scheme to Newgrange and (b) the distance between the existing N2 to Knowth. The generally widespread visibility of some elements of the scheme is not in doubt and is not disputed by the applicant, who was advised from the earliest planning stages by DEHLG to consider this matter.

I separately comment below on views to the World Heritage Site and on views from Knowth, Newgrange and the buffer zone. The entire World Heritage Site is inscribed. The discussion on Knowth and Newgrange in essence describes the impact on the core area. The buffer zone broadly overlaps with the view from the site of the western flank of the Battle of the Boyne. The Board will note that the buffer zone is subject to the same legal restrictions as any other part of the World Heritage Site.

Views to the World Heritage Site During the hearing conflicting comments were made about the visibility of individual monuments of the World Heritage Site in the landscape. For instance one resident of Fennor indicated that while there are clear views to Knowth from his house, visitors do not recognise the tomb in the landscape. Others reference travelling towards the monuments and the views obtained and the pleasure that gives.

I agree that a large proportion of the public would not rapidly recognise the archaeological features in the landscape. For instance, I expect that many members of the public visit the N2 layby and the environs of Slane bridge without identifying the monuments of Brú na Bóinne. The planting at this location partly obscures views down the river. From Slane bridge equally the small scale of the passage grave in the broad landscape is such that it is not a very prominent feature. However, it is clearly visible. Travelling eastward close to the site of the bridge, the main tomb at Knowth would be considered to be a very visible landscape feature in my opinion. As noted previously viewer sensitivity will vary. The sensitivity of visitors to the World Heritage Site will be greater than for business travellers. In addition, once identified I would consider that Knowth and Newgrange become a focal point of the landscape for residents and amenity users. Both Knowth and Newgrange have been noted by observers as being visible from the southern part of the proposed route and from the west of Brú na Bóinne. Newgrange although it is more distant than Knowth is often just as visible as the quartz wall stands out against the green landscape. I agree with observers who consider that the development will result in severance of Brú na Bóinne from the wider landscape setting. There is a significant impact on the integrity

__________________________________________________________________________


of the Boyne Valley. This is relevant to the protection of the character of the LCA. I also agree that Brú na Bóinne would be separated from its wider landscape setting. While I consider that there are many valuable views from the west towards Knowth and from the south towards Newgrange, with the possible exception of the view to Newgrange, these do not appear to be protected under the development plan. In any case, in terms of views from outside towards the core area, I do not consider that there would be likely to be consequences for the outstanding universal value. View from Knowth Dr Comer indicated that greater weight should be attributed to the views from the World Heritage Site than from outside the designated area. I agree that the visitor to the World Heritage Site is likely to have increased expectations once within the environs of the monuments.

The EIS states that the existing panorama of rolling fields and gentle hills is structured by the bend of the river Boyne and that the view provides a timeless pastoral backdrop to the ancient monument. The focus of the EIS submission was on the view from the top of the main tomb. In describing the proposed view the EIS refers to:

Visibility of the road corridor to the south of the river , it would be directly aligned with the viewpoint for 500m and there is potential for traffic to be more prominent when moving and using headlights, mitigated in time by planting

The new bridge would form a significant new feature central to the view but in scale with the vista and is mitigated by distance

Views to the embankments would be mitigated by planting

Lighting would be only partly visible on approaches to the south junction of N2 and the Rosnaree over-bridge

Vehicular lighting would be present along the visible route.

Regarding the visual impact for the viewpoint from the top of Knowth the viewpoint is described as being of high sensitivity as it is from an internationally recognised heritage feature and visitor attraction. The EIS proceeds to describe the magnitude of change as medium, reducing to low in the long term. The significance of change would be high, reducing to medium and would be neutral.

At his initial presentation to the hearing Mr O’Leary18 presented a ZVI entitled ‘ Viewpoint 8 – Knowth Top of Mound : ZVI’. It shows views as if there were no trees or hedgerows in the landscape. Of particular interest are the yellow zones which show what a person standing at the top of Knowth can see in the landscape. This demonstrates that in theory there is widespread visibility to the west. The northern part of the route is largely in a white zone, which means that there is theoretically no visibility to this part of the scheme from Knowth. Even if there were no trees or buildings it would not generally

18

Submissions of 21st February refer.

__________________________________________________________________________


be visible due to the topography. The southern part of the route including the river crossing and Cullen Hill is mainly within an area which is theoretically visible from Knowth. There are large areas to the west of the proposed road which are not visible from the top of Knowth. The red in this drawing represents positions from which the top of Knowth is visible, which are seen to be far more limited in their extent. The entire length of the route is identified as a red zone, but clearly in reality this entire area would not provide actual views. In this regard Mr O’Leary noted that the ZVI does not take into account the fact that much of the road is in cuttings. In relation to the bridge in particular, the applicant’s case is that the visibility of the bridge is not the issue, acknowledging that it is visible. The applicant emphasises the quality of design of the bridge, its appropriate height and the selected materials and detail of its design such as the tapered columns and the planting of the abutments. Others take a very different position, focusing on the manner in which the apparent timelessness of the landscape will be affected. In describing the animation as viewed by a motorist Mr O’Leary described the southernmost section of the road as a curve. The details of the bridge design are discussed in more detail in section F of this report. Mr Hastings was first to produce an animation of the proposed bridge as viewed from Knowth. He noted the limitations to photomontages in terms of their static nature and inability to demonstrate the visual distraction of large moving objects. He also pointed out that while the road is in cutting under the Rosnaree Road and at Cullen Hill it is at grade or elevated between these locations. He referred to the available view from the point at which the road rises above ground level from which location both Knowth and Newgrange are visible along with the Hill of Slane. Some of Mr Hastings submissions show an earlier version of the design of the bridge and should be considered in that context. The applicant’s team also argued that the imagery presented by Mr Hastings lacks a haze, shows excessive levels of rock and appears to show the road a higher level than proposed.

The applicant subsequently produced an animation which is stated to accurately represents the number of HGVs. The applicant’s image incorporates Year 7 planting. I would recommend that the Board consider the implications of both animations as well as the detailed design of the scheme. Mr Hastings’ animation is of interest as it shows the visibility of the scheme in Year 1, before the landscaping matures. However, it may be inaccurate in terms of the extent of rock cutting as discussed elsewhere. It certainly exaggerates the number of vehicles. Mr O’ Leary also considered that the road level presented may be too high. I have no means of drawing conclusions on that matter due to the highly technical nature of the imagery. The animation produced by the applicant’s team incorporates the medium term landscaping and more accurately reflects the vehicle movements as a daily average. Mr Browner refers to the 360 degree vista which is available and considered that by reason of the present application parties to the hearing were overly focused on the view along the valley. I disagree with that position. On site one’s eye is naturally drawn to views along the river valley in my opinion. Apart from the tombs themselves this is the image of interest to the public. The view from Knowth is now legally protected since November 2011. It is referenced as V3a in the text and on the map. The direction of view from Knowth is such that the southern section of the scheme and the bridge will be dominant in views. In terms of visibility of the scheme the bridge will be the most

__________________________________________________________________________


prominent element. That opinion was expressed by a number of observers and the applicant’s team and in the EIS. I consider that the evidence available supports that conclusion.

Mr Browner noted that visitors are drawn to the site to see the monuments and not the views. Mr Hastings noted that the platform is an important part of the tour of Knowth and the vantage point is sometimes used by guides to refer to the broader landscape, the importance of the Hill of Slane and so on. On my own formal tour of Knowth the guide pointed only to Newgrange to the east. I consider that the climb to the top of Knowth is a highlight of the tour.

I next provide some comments on specific aspects of the scheme and their visibility: 1. The cutting at Cullen Hill will at minimum be viewed as a notch in the landscape.

Such features occur naturally and would not in themselves be considered unsympathetic with the landscape character. Dense planting of the route as proposed by the applicant is necessary including for the reason that the route is reasonably aligned with the view to Knowth. The applicant has at different times described this road section as being directly in line with Knowth and as a curve. I suggest that the first 500m is best described as a gentle curve, which is broadly in line with Knowth. The applicant’s road level animation appears to show a short view from the road to Knowth. All of the above raises concerns in relation to visibility of vehicles travelling along the elevated cutting at Cullen Hill, particularly in the winter months when trees are bare and headlights more frequently used. The EIS acknowledges a high significance of change in the short term.

2. The dispute regarding Cullen Hill arises mainly in relation to the geology at that location and implementation of the landscaping proposals. Mr Hastings submission dated February 2011 shows a Year 1 photomontage when viewed from Knowth. In general it is the applicant’s position that Mr Hastings presentations over-estimate the presence of rock in the cuttings. The applicant relies on the screening effect of planting to disguise the presence of the road and visibility of vehicles and states that the significance of change decreases to medium as with the effect of screen planting. At Cullen Hill rock is on average 2 to 4m below ground level according to some of the applicant’s submissions. Although Mr MacGearailt referred to the practice of exposing underlying geology as providing interest, I consider that steep and exposed rock cuttings at Cullen Hill would be entirely unacceptable in this area. It is a matter for the reporting Inspector to advise the Board on geology. I consider that it is critical that the Board is satisfied that competent rock will not be encountered at Cullen Hill.

3. Mr O’Leary and Mr MacGearailt stated in relation to Cullen Hill that weathered rock is present, which will be capable of planting using specialist techniques and that due to lack of competition from weeds there should be rapid growth. This matter is capable of resolution, albeit at a cost. I recommend that if permission is granted this should be addressed by detailed condition ensuring that the landscaping shown is achieved.

4. Mr Hastings suggestion that landscape visibility of the scheme increases with tree

growth is noted. He indicated that a grass planting of the verges only might be more

__________________________________________________________________________


appropriate than the heavy tree planting proposed. The tree planting proposed has the advantage of screening views to the road surface and to vehicles however and in the long term is preferable in my opinion.

5. While it is preferable that the route embankments be heavily planted, I am

nevertheless also of the opinion that the heavily planted road scheme would be highly visible as a large linear element in the landscape. The wide heavy belt of planting would appear as a linear forest in the summer months and would stand out clearly amongst the patchwork of fields which exists. In the autumn months the prominence of the scheme may be increased for a short time due to the colour difference. In winter the effectiveness of screening will be reduced, which will be particularly evident where the planting is on elevated banks e.g. at raised sections including the embankments.

6. I refer the Board to Mr Hastings images which show the Rosnaree over-bridge. The

proposed road level is 38.1 mOD while an unaltered part of the Rosnaree Road climbs to 45m. The applicant notes that while the Rosnaree Road is to be realigned no part of it will exceed the level of the existing road and it will be effectively tunnelled by hedgerows. Mr MacGearailt notes that the visibility of the over-bridge will be very limited when viewed from World Heritage Site. In addition, the applicant’s suggestion during the hearing to prohibit any flexibility in the level of the bridge allows for the level of Rosnaree Road overbridge to be reduced accordingly. I refer the Board to this element of the development. I conclude that it is not a major consideration in the context of the larger bridge over the Boyne.

7. Unlike the actual bridge, the approaches to the Rosnaree over-bridge are to be lit.

The point has been made that the World Heritage Site is not open at night-time. In addition the existing N2 is lit. The applicant has presented images of the development at night-time. The lights on the images are presented in an exaggerated manner for technical reasons. I consider that these images demonstrate that while lighting should be carefully controlled in terms of its luminescence and location, it is not a significant issue.

8. The embankments at either side of the bridge are noteworthy. The total length of

embankments were of concern to Mr Rogers who indicated that they had not been adequately described. I note that the northern embankment is particularly long and high. Mr MacGearailt noted that the embankments would be planted with trees and shrubs to reach 5 to 7m and that their contours would be disguised. I accept that point but also note that planting of the lower ground levels will have little function in screening moving traffic. The Board should note that the photomontages presented by the applicant in some cases fail to include the length of the long embankments, especially from the Rosnaree Road.

9. The northern section of the road contains long lengths above ground level including

a 200m embankment north of the bridge. At this general location also the applicant acknowledges that deep cuttings arise and that rock will be encountered. This is relevant in terms of the view from the N2 south of Slane. In terms of the cultural heritage, the view from the Hill of Slane to the road is perhaps the most significant matter in terms of the visual impact of the northern section of the scheme.

__________________________________________________________________________


10. It is accepted by observers that views of the northern section of the scheme, when considered from the World Heritage Site are not of particular significance. Based on the ZVI and site inspections I agree with that conclusion.

11. Prof Geoghegan noted that it is not desirable that the bridge be seen to sit on the

edge of the valley. The abutments and their representation in photomontages was subject of dispute at the hearing. For accuracy these should be interpreted in the context of the drawings. There were arguments also that planting under the bridge would not grow. I consider that due to its elevated nature there would be sufficient light and I accept the applicant’s arguments that heavy planting at this location is achievable and that it will assist in integration of the bridge with the landscape.

When queried about the most negative facet of the proposed scheme Dr Comer indicated that would be the distracting nature of views to traffic. I had previously come to the same conclusion. This matter was also originally raised by DEHLG. The presence of large vehicles on the bridge would draw more attention to the bridge and would introduce an element of movement into an otherwise still landscape. The traffic movements associated with the proposed development would greatly detract from the sense of experiencing the monumental landscape. The development plan refers to long views along the valley and these too would be interrupted and terminated by a large contemporary feature carrying HGVs. I note that if the scheme is constructed at this location one could not visit Knowth without seeing the bridge and associated traffic. The viewing platform was clearly put in place to allow the visitor to experience the landscape setting of the monument. Coming down from the top of the main tomb appears to generally end the tour, leaving visitors free to explore the site alone. Taking a right turn brings one back to the middle of some of the satellite tombs and to a location where the ambience is particularly special in my opinion. However, on walking towards the satellite tombs to go amongst them, the bridge is positioned directly in the centre of view19. If one opts to take the formal gravel path, then the view shown in image viewpoint 8b is experienced. On visiting Knowth one would not have to seek out a view to the bridge. It would be visible from the top of the mound and from a large proportion of the site south of the main mound.

In relation to the view from the top of Knowth, Mr O’Leary’s assessment of the magnitude of change is that it is medium in the short term (reducing to low) meaning the introduction of elements that may be prominent but necessarily be considered to be substantially uncharacteristic in the context of the view. He noted that there is no alteration to any key element of the landscape the introduction of a new element and that the assessment undertaken is of the entire scheme, not just the bridge or any other single element. The significance of the change would be high changing to medium in the long-term as the impact relates primarily to the new bridge and with the distance involved and the screening and high design standard for the bridge, the impact would be neutral. Mr O’Leary stated that there is no effect on the quality of the view. I have difficulty with Mr O’Leary’s conclusion that the scheme does not constitute “an especially uncharacteristic element”. I note that the EIS acknowledges the timeless

19

This view is shown in a photograph taken by me at the time of the balloon test.

__________________________________________________________________________


quality of the landscape and the contribution made by the rolling fields and the gentle hills and the bend in the river Boyne. I consider that a large linear landscape feature including a high level bridge is uncharacteristic in this context. It is overtly contemporary in terms of its nature and scale and would be out of character with the rolling fields and the pastoral character. The long view down the river which is noted in the LCA is terminated by the proposed bridge. In conclusion, I am not persuaded by Mr O’Leary’s assessment that the magnitude of change is medium. It may be more appropriate to describe the magnitude of change as medium – high. The Board will note however that the significance of the impact is high whether the magnitude of change is medium or high. Table 8.1 of Volume 1 of EIS refers.

There was discussion at the hearing about Mr O’Leary’s description of the scheme as ‘neutral’ and the point was made that if the EPA terminology was applied it would be difficult to describe the impact as neutral. The term neutral under the Landscape Institute guidelines means that the scheme complements the scale, landform and pattern of the landscape / view and maintains landscape quality. The term adverse means that the scheme is at variance with landform, scale, pattern / would degrade, diminish or destroy the integrity of valued features, elements or their setting or cause the quality of the landscape / view to be diminished. On the latter point at least I would consider that even based on the Landscape Institute definitions the impact is adverse. I would also consider that the scheme is at variance with the scale and pattern of the landform.

In terms of whether the impact is neutral or adverse I consider that some of the matters raised by Dr Comer are also of relevance. I cannot reconcile Mr O’Leary’s conclusion with the expectations of a tourist arriving to see the location of past ritual and different ways of life. The presentations in the visitor centre aim to draw the visitor away from their everyday lives. Ms O’Carroll noted that perceptions change over time and that in future road projects may be more favourably perceived. That may well be, it is impossible to say, though I do not consider it likely in all situations. A visitor to Knowth cannot presently experience the landscape of prehistoric times, or anything similar. However, all parties acknowledge that the view of a seemingly timeless pastoral landscape can be experienced. The proposed road scheme would alter that ambience and for that reason also I consider that the impact is more properly assessed as adverse. I now refer further to the extent of visibility from ground level at Knowth. The text of the EIS does not indicate that the development will not be visible from ground level. However, by opting to show this particular elevated view observers perhaps understandably under-estimated the extent of ground level views. In response to a further information request from the Board the ground level photomontage was incorporated. The selected summer view to the bridge was partly screened by a hedge. Following the balloon test a further image was presented by the applicant, which showed an expansive view of the bridge from ground level at Knowth.

Mr Clancy’s comments are relevant in this regard. He outlined that from reading the EIS we are led to understand that the bridge is visible from the top of the tumulus at Knowth and one or two ground level viewpoints within the site and that the bridge is only visible from the top of the tumulus at Newgrange. He states that the balloon tests clearly showed the extent of penetration of the views of the bridge. The balloon test and the LIDAR analysis show that Knowth has its “timeless pastoral backdrop to the ancient monument” corrupted on the entire western side of the complex. He states that the

__________________________________________________________________________


proposed bridge can be seen from every where on this side of the complex including between the main tumulus and the satellite tombs and ground level, which he describes as completely unacceptable. The only thing obscuring the view of the bridge from part of the site is a diaphanous hedge on the west and north-west. I consider that Mr Clancy’s submission as it relates to Knowth reasonably sums up the situation. As I have stated above, there will be widespread visibility throughout much of the site at Knowth and the unavoidable distraction of moving vehicles particularly HGVs will detract significantly from the experience of visiting the World Heritage Site. That is my opinion notwithstanding the infrequency of HGV movements. The scheme will also be visible at minimum as a large landscape feature. I consider that the evidence also indicates that to some extent vehicles or headlights will be visible on the road at times. In relation to the magnitude of change, its significance and whether it is adverse or neutral, the comments made above also apply. In relation to the applicant’s position regarding scale and design of the bridge, these are not the prime considerations in my opinion. I do agree that these are well considered. The scheme is generally acceptable in that regard as outlined later. The issue at stake rather is the location of the bridge and the southern section of the scheme, which I consider are inappropriate and fundamentally unacceptable. The bridge will detract from the experience of visiting the World Heritage Site. I am in no doubt as to that conclusion. HGV movements on the bridge will be visible. Even if they will appear only at a rate of one vehicle per minute they will interfere with the experience. The scale and linear nature of the scheme will make it a very noticeable landscape feature also. If the bridge could be relocated to the west within the ZVI ‘white zone’ the degree of visibility might be considerably lessened. In relation to Mr O’Leary’s analysis it is indicated that the impact significance decreases from high in the short term to medium in the long term. This is based on a ‘low’ magnitude of change in the long term, meaning that in the long term the landscape change is ‘minor loss of or alteration to one or more key elements or characteristics and / or introduction of elements that may not be uncharacteristic in the context. I do not agree that the bridge can be described as other than an uncharacteristic element in the context. I therefore conclude that the long term impact significance remains high.

In relation to Knowth I conclude as follows:

The landscape sensitivity is high, that is not disputed

The scheme is substantially uncharacteristic in the context of the landscape character and it would destroy the integrity of the historic landscape which presents an apparently unsullied and pastoral landscape commanding long views down the Boyne Valley

Distance is a mitigating factor and the scheme and bridge design are reasonably well considered, if poorly located

The scheme does not “destroy key landscape features” which are valued

__________________________________________________________________________


However, it does in my opinion “significantly diminish the quality of the landscape and view”

Those qualities are intrinsically connected to the particular ambience associated with the monumental landscape, its apparently timeless nature and pastoral character and to the long uninterrupted views down the valley

I consider that the magnitude of change is medium – high, thus the impact significance is high,

The impact significant is high in the short term and long term

I consider that the impact is adverse.

Newgrange The situation at Newgrange is very different to that of Knowth. The ZVI and photomontages demonstrate that views from Newgrange to the proposed road scheme are quite limited. From inspection I consider that the of the relationship of the tomb with the river valley is such that one is directed away from the road when visiting Newgrange and stopping to appreciate the landscape setting. Views to the proposed road are available from a very small area within the archaeological site. The viewpoint is an elevated bank which is part of the main tomb and on which a sign refers to prohibition of access. These views are presently partly blocked by a maintenance shed. The balloon test demonstrated clearly that there are no views of the bridge from ground level from within the site and no views from any point of a 12m high bridge.

Some views to the proposed road scheme can be obtained from an adjacent field which visitors would not be encouraged to access and which is not part of any tour. There would also be no particular reason for entering onto the land if visiting the monuments. This is however a location within the core area of the World Heritage Site which will be impacted. I consider that distance is an important mitigating factor. At the distance involved, 3.2km, clarity of vision is lessened and images tend to blend more into the landscape. I noted that the additional 1km distance made a large difference in terms of the visibility of the balloons when compared with their visibility from Knowth. The description of ‘theoretical visibility’ used by the applicant is appropriate. Mr Hasting’s presentation dramatically presented the effect of removal of a single hedgerow in terms of increased visibility. Views 8 and 9 of his presentation on February 22nd indicate the impact of removing a single row of trees within agricultural lands. In both cases the visibility of the bridge is seen to increase so that it becomes a prominent landscape feature if looking in that direction. Again, the distance is a mitigating factor and Mr O’Leary’s rebuttal later noted the absence of haze and the colour of the bridge.

The balloon test altered the applicant’s submission in relation to Newgrange. The impact from Newgrange was described in the EIS as being ‘imperceptible’. Following the balloon test the applicant reassessed this assessment and the impact arising was increased to ‘Low and Neutral’. I agree with this conclusion subject to retention of existing screen hedgerows.

__________________________________________________________________________


In conclusion in relation to the experience of visiting Newgrange I consider that visitors are highly unlikely to notice the presence of the bridge, the embankments or the cuttings. They simply will not be able to access the relevant areas. The views to the river valley setting to the southeast is completely unaffected. At this distance moving vehicles would be noticeable but not to the extent that they would distract the eye in my opinion. Given the limited area from which the scheme would be visible and the orientation, I consider that the development would not affect the experience of visiting Newgrange and would not have a significant impact on valued landscapes in this area. The lack of protection of hedgerow trees is however a serious and general concern in terms of landscape character and in terms of the protection of viewsheds. Battle of the Boyne and the buffer zone These locations may be effectively the same. The western flank of the Williamite forces occupied the area between Slane and Knowth but there is dispute over the actual location of the crossing. The comment in the EIS is that the terrain used by the Williamite forces prior to the Battle of the Boyne includes part of the study area. It was not part of the battlefield but part of the area of operations which extended between Drogheda and Slane. At Rosnaree the river was fordable and the bridge at Slane appears to have been damaged at the time. The EIS notes HC125 as being the crossing point of the forces and is described as an area of national significance and being 404m from the road. During the hearing Ms O’Carroll stated that the crossing point is now understood to be closer to Knowth. Others refer to the crossing closer to the road scheme and cited a contemporary historical account to support this claim. In calling for re-consideration of the route one observer stated that any new route should be formulated with the expertise of a military historian. No witness or observer has claimed any particular expertise on the matter of military history and there were no detailed discussions on this matter.

On the available evidence it is not possible to draw firm conclusions in relation to the location of the battle site and the impacts arising. The site is clearly not directly affected but appears likely to be indirectly affected, the significance of that impact depending on the distance to the road. If the Board is otherwise disposed to granting permission but has concerns about this matter the hearing could be re-opened. As a worst case scenario the site may be impacted in similar manner to the buffer zone. The difference however is that the Battle of the Boyne site has an intrinsic value.

The purpose of the buffer zone was reference by the applicant a number of times. It is not an area of intrinsic archaeological interest but is designated to protect the core area. The buffer zone is not generally visited or accessible and comprises farm lands in private ownership. It is nevertheless subject to the same restrictions as any other part of the World Heritage Site. An additional photomontage presented shows a typical view from the buffer zone. From this position the elevated bridge would constitute a very intrusive structure in my opinion. While it does not break the skyline in the view shown, the structure would appear dominant and intrusive from this distance. It takes up a large portion of the view, the traffic is more visible and more likely to be audible.

I now divert to comment on the electricity power line which crosses the area between the buffer zone and the road scheme. Observers objected to the presentation of the pylon in an image. The presence of the pylon does dilute arguments that the road scheme would interfere with a pristine landscape. However, it would not be appropriate to described

__________________________________________________________________________


the landscape of the World Heritage Site as pristine. The landscape to the east of the World Heritage Site has been subject of many intrusive developments. DEHLG indicated that if there was an opportunity to remove some of the intrusive elements in the long term then that would be its objective. The reference was in relation to Platin. The power line attracted limited adverse comment. It pre-dates the World Heritage Site designation, which might partly explain the limited focus on it as a detracting landscape feature. Perhaps it is perceived as a simple elegant structure, or as a necessary piece of infrastructure, arguments which would also be applicable to a well designed bridge. Arguably, it did not attract a lot of comment because it is reasonably difficult to see.

In general in terms of views from the west of the World Heritage Site, the pylons are visible but in no way dominant in the landscape. One of them is positioned within the viewshed from Knowth along the river valley but is barely noticeable. It does not attract the eye as it has no moving parts, contains slim members and is of similar colour to the skyline against which it set. It does not distract the viewer away from the timeless landscape of the Boyne Valley. Thus I consider that the view to the west from the World Heritage Site is largely unsullied by modern intrusions. The objective of landscape enhancement could be achieved by undergrounding of the cable in the long term. In effect, there is a ready opportunity to create a landscape which appears to be timeless and agricultural and devoid of intrusive elements. In terms of the development management function of the Board I consider that the bridge would constitute an unacceptable intrusion into the landscape of the buffer zone. As such it would be contrary to a number of development plan policies to secure protection of the World Heritage Site.

Other visual impacts I refer below to the visual impacts on the following:

the Boyne Navigation

Jebbs Mill, Slane bridge and the listed views

the Hill of Slane and the integrity of the valley

residential receptors.

The Boyne Navigation There are very limited views available from the Boyne Navigation due to screening by vegetation. On opening of the canal the bridge will be clearly visible and a view from the towpath is presented in the applicant’s photomontage. The applicant’s position is that the bridge level is sufficiently elevated to cross over the valley while allowing the river, canal and the wider landscape to flow underneath in an uninterrupted manner. Other parties considered find that the bridge is overly dominant and crushes the landscape. I consider that there is merit to both arguments. The bridge design seeks to balance the requirements of the wider landscape with the more localised impacts. When viewed from the canal the bridge will be very dominant in visual terms (viewpoints 14 and 7 refer). However, considering the full length of the canal views to the bridge will be intermittent.

__________________________________________________________________________


Due to the scale of the scheme and its dominance in the valley at this location I consider that a high adverse impact arises at the selected viewpoint as the applicant notes. The applicant indicates that in the long-term the significance of the impact reduces to medium and neutral. Mr O’Leary for instance referenced the landscape re-establishment and states that the form of the bridge can be appreciated from viewpoint 14. I am unconvinced that the stated reduction in impact significance will arise. Views along the canal, and indeed along the river and the Rosnaree Road including views to the main monuments will be seriously interrupted and in my opinion the impact remains high and adverse in the long-term at both viewpoints 7 and 14.

Jebbs Mill and Slane bridge From these vantage points the bridge would dominate views. Views are listed under the LAP but not the development plan. The existing views give an impression of the river valley beyond as trees and fields can be seen beyond the position of the bridge and road. Newgrange is visible in places. The bridge shortens the view along the river, eliminates the view to Newgrange and introduces a large structure and moving traffic. The bridge and mills are already negatively affected by traffic levels at the N2. I generally accept the applicant’s conclusions that the impact significance in this case is high in the short and medium term. As part of the viewpoints from the mill and bridge encompass views to the road verges there will be a reduction in the magnitude of change and impact significance as the vegetation matures. I do not agree that the impact on the ACA is neutral. In that regard I refer to the LAP descriptions of its eighteenth century landscape character. In the long term summer views in particular will have less significant impact as the magnitude of change reduces to medium on maturation of planting. At minimum a long term medium adverse impact results in my opinion.

The Hill of Slane and the integrity of the valley In relation to the view from the Hill of Slane I consider that the primary concern relates to the views from the two complexes which are visited by the public. One travels towards these monuments with ones back to the road scheme. On entering the graveyard to the left there would be a clear view to the bridge and similar views are available from the rear of that monument and from other areas within the walls of the site. The selected the viewpoint 1 for the photomontages is from a grassed area on the slope. From here a large proportion of the bridge is hidden by the topography. A more important view is shown in the applicant’s submission of 29th March 2011. From one of the two monument groups on top of the hill, the bridge is more generally visible20. A large proportion of the northern section of the route is also visible from the hill. A residential scheme already detracts from views towards the river. The significance of the impact in this case particularly depends on the selected viewing point within the site. This view is quite broad in its scope and I do not consider that there is a particular focus on the river crossing point, However, the full extent of the bridge would visible from parts of the site as well as the road and for this reason I consider that the applicant’s assessment of a long-term medium impact is appropriate. In view of the prominence of contemporary features in the landscape (Platin, the existing N2, the residential scheme and other structures) I agree with the applicant’s conclusion that the impact would be neutral.

20

Photograph taken by me at the time of the balloon test refers.

__________________________________________________________________________


The visibility of the scheme from the Hill of Slane is important in the context of the connection of the World Heritage Site with the wider landscape. This was of concern to observers including ICOMOS who stated that the development would result in the designated area being disconnected from the totality of the wider cultural landscape of the Boyne Valley. Mr Hastings referenced the separation of the World Heritage Site from the Hill of Slane. I consider that both of these points have validity and that the issues arising relates to the need to reconsider the buffer zone or viewshed. I also consider that there is a convincing body of information to show that the area between Slane and Brú na Bóinne is of exceptional cultural heritage and landscape value. By reason of the importance of the matter of continuity of settlement in terms of the inscription and purely in terms of landscape and visual impacts, I consider that a grant of permission would be premature prior to determination of the viewsheds of the main monuments of Brú na Bóinne at minimum.

Residential receptors The evidence indicates that a small number of houses will be affected by views to the proposed road scheme. Of particular concern would be the houses at Rosnaree Road at which point the bridge will be very visible and dominant. Clear views from the rear garden or from the interior of the actual houses may arise and a sample view is presented in a photomontage. A photomontage from lands to the rear of Crewbane House is also available for consideration. Views from this direction are to the road cutting at Cullen Hill and the road would be very visible and intrusive. This house does not have windows facing onto the road scheme which limits the severity of impact. I consider that all residential properties would experience a permanent adverse impact of high significance, as the applicant’s submission indicates.

Some comments relating to the photomontages, balloon test, terminology and methodology The balloon test offered an opportunity to test the photomontages in terms of the general height and location of the centre of the bridge. This gave further credence to the accuracy of images which had been presented. Mr Hastings evidence at the outset was that he did not consider that any of the images are incorrect in terms of the position and scale of the development. DEHLG expressed satisfaction regarding the high quality presentation of images. The Board will note that the images are best viewed in situ or at least at the correct viewing distance. Images of the balloon test represent the height and not the length of the structure and this should be borne in mind. My only concern in relation to the images presented arises from the original selection of the viewpoints. Any minor deficiencies were rectified by production of more images. I note that the applicant’s submission refers to the different views obtainable from different points on the Hill of Slane. This is true. Equally while there was no difficulty with the original images from Knowth the balloon test did encourage presentation of images from more sensitive parts of the site. Additional images were also presented from the N51 for instance following the visibility test and similarly could have been presented from the layby at the western side of the N2 south of Slane. There are a myriad of possible locations and a limit to the resources and results arising.

__________________________________________________________________________


In relation to the ZVIs presented the Board will note that the inclusion of the LIDAR data significantly reduces the area of visibility. It was noted in the hearing that the ZVI represents images from two points effectively, thus a large number of ZVIs could be produced showing different visibility patterns21. The Board is referred also to the manner in which photography necessarily produces an image which is less dominant that reality, a point also raised during the hearing. Mr Hastings expressed concern with the use of the Landscape Institute terminology. His arguments included that the NRA Guidance even in respect of the assessment of landscape and visual impacts mirrors the EPA terminology. In Mr Hastings opinion if the EPA Guidelines were applied the analysis of most of the visual impacts would be characterised as significant, negative and permanent. He noted that under the EPA Guidelines a significant impact is one which by its character, magnitude, duration or intensity alters a sensitive aspect of the environment and by definition this is extremely unlikely to be neutral. In response to the use of the UK guidance the applicant noted its broader scope and that the EPA allows for use of specific guidance to address particular topics. Use of the Landscape Institute Guidance is in my opinion acceptable and is common practice. The EIS was forthright in describing what the various terms mean. What I would dispute is some elements of the assessment by the applicant, not the selected terminology.

Finally as a general comment I note that there has been no detailed assessment of the quality of the landscape and the viewsheds. I note for example the level of detail available in the Slane Local Area Plan relating to the Mills ACA for comparison. In that document views and the merits and qualities which make the area special are described. There has been no similar assessment to date of the relative merits of the landscape surrounding the World Heritage Site. I think it is indisputable that the area to the west of the World Heritage Site has been relatively well protected, while development pressure has had adverse consequences to the east. Reactive monitoring missions have in the past considered other developments to be acceptable having regard to their individual impact but also to the landscape context and the degree of intrusions. The chimneys at Carranstown waste to energy facility for example were considered acceptable in the context of the Platin development. The proposed development is to be sited in a landscape which has the potential to provide unsullied timeless views of a quality not elsewhere available. In terms of the presentation of the history of the country, the Boyne valley between Slane village and Bru na Boinne potentially provides a unique showcase. It is for these reasons that the greatest level of protection should be applied. Unless the Board considers that there is absolutely no other option in terms of the principle of the scheme and its specific location and that this is conclusively demonstrated, a refusal of permission should issue. Summary points 1. The development is demonstrated to be widely visible from locations within the

World Heritage Site

21

That is not a criticism of the manner of application, it is simply the way the method works and should be

borne in mind when examining the images.

__________________________________________________________________________


2. The development would have a permanent adverse impact on views from Knowth which in my opinion would be of high significance

3. The visual impact arises from the road scheme and from the bridge both of which

are major structures with significant visual impact 4. Traffic movements along the bridge cannot be screened and when considered from

Knowth would distract the visitor and detract from the experience of visiting the site 5. Views from Newgrange will be available but the impact is reasonably described as

low and neutral and would not have a significant impact on visitors experience 6. There are locations to the west of the study area which are demonstrated in a ZVI to

be not visible from Knowth 7. The view from the western flank of the Battle of the Boyne site may be equivalent to

that of the edge of the buffer zone 8. When viewed from parts of the canal towpath and from Slane bridge the road and

bridge dominate and block views to the wider landscape including Brú na Bóinne – a significant impact which is adverse

9. The area to the west of the World Heritage Site contains a significant wealth of

evidence of past human activity and is a valued landscape which is generally unspoilt

10. The development would result in the disconnection of the World Heritage Site from the Hill of Slane and from its wider landscape context and would disrupt the harmony and unity of the historic valley

11. Residential receptors would experience a permanent adverse impact of high significance.

E – Planning Policy The development plan policy provisions are the context for the Board’s decision making. The capacity to manage the landscape setting will also be of considerable interest to any future reactive monitoring mission.

In this section I set out the relevant planning provisions and consider

Whether the existing policies establish a long-term robust planning framework

Aspirations of the community

Whether or not the development complies with prevailing policies.

__________________________________________________________________________


Whether the existing policies establish a robust planning context in the long-term

I refer below to the development plan including policy 8.3.3 and policies to protect views, and to the Slane Local Area Plan, ‘Development at the Crossroads’ and the proposed Brú na Bóinne Local Area Plan.

Development plan policy - section 8.3.3 and the protected views The main policies outlined in the submission of Mr Gallagher and Mr Kennedy are listed out in the oral hearing summary. There are a number of very worthy and appropriate policy objectives relating to landscape protection, Brú na Bóinne and architectural heritage including that of Slane village and surroundings. For the most part however the policies are of a general nature. The provisions of section 8.3.3 differ as they are very prescriptive and specific. Section 8.3.3 sets out development assessment criteria. The policy is referenced on page 8-9 of the EIS, which states that development proposals relating to the protection of the World Heritage Site should be assessed on the basis of a number of matters

There should be no inter-visibility between the development sites and the national monuments of Newgrange, Knowth and Dowth, even from the apex

Existing protected views shall be retained

The development must not negatively affect amenity, views and landscape setting of the National Monuments and screen planting in itself would not be considered adequate mitigation.

The development assessment criteria was referenced in a number of oral hearing and other submissions including those of ICOMOS, Professor Cooney and Mr Clancy. On first reading this policy appears to provide a very clear method of assessing developments within the viewshed of the main monuments. It would appear to be the type of policy which would demonstrate to UNESCO/ICOMOS that there is in place a robust framework to protect the setting of the World Heritage Site. Dr Comer referred to the need for policies to be capable of monitoring. The policy appears to prohibit developments which would be on sites visible from the main tombs, even if extensive planting is proposed. It would appear to preclude further intrusive development of the type noted by the last reactive monitoring mission. It is the only policy measure providing clear and unambiguous criteria for assessment of new development in the context of the World Heritage Site. At the hearing however the applicant stated that these requirements relate only to development within the World Heritage Site. The applicant’s witnesses also commented that the policy is directed towards private development. The matter of inter-visibility was explained in terms of meaning protecting views between the main monuments. The discussion which ensued was of considerable concern to a number of witnesses present including Dr Comer who demonstrated his independence as a witness by questioning the applicant. At the hearing DEHLG noted that there is confusion relating to the interpretation of the policy, which would have to be considered in the forthcoming review of the development plan.

__________________________________________________________________________


Having heard the evidence on both sides I agree with the applicant that this policy is not strictly relevant to assessing this application. The wording of the text is such that it relates only to development proposed within the World Heritage Site. I consider that the limits to inter-visibility between development sites and the main tombs is a worthy objective as it is a clear mechanism for protection of viewsheds. No such policy however is applicable to cases where the site is outside the designated area.

Although section 8.3.3 does not formally apply the Board may wish to consider whether it is under such criteria that the more general policy provisions should be interpreted. The development plan is unambiguous in its commitment to protection of landscape of Brú na Bóinne. In that context in the absence of other specific policy measures the Board may wish to consider application of those principles. The Council’s planning experts acknowledge that these are reasonable criteria which would be normally considered in the assessment of an application. I submit that if section 8.3.3 is applied to the development there can only be a negative assessment of the proposal. There is substantial inter-visibility, not only from the apex of the monuments but also from ground level of Knowth in particular and from areas within the core and buffer zone. The existing views of merit such as the view from Knowth is intruded upon by a large structure which interrupts the long views along the valley, which are noted in the development plan. There is a negative impact on the settings of Brú na Bóinne as acknowledged by Mr Keegan of DEHLG and others and mitigation is heavily reliant on screen planting which will define the line of the route in the landscape. At the hearing also there was discussion about available mechanisms to prohibit hedgerow removal throughout the landscape. It was stated that no tree preservation orders are in place. In places views to the proposed development are screened by only thin hedgerows, the removal of which would greatly increase the visibility of the road scheme. Notwithstanding the broad policy objectives to protect the landscape and the World Heritage Site there are no legal mechanisms in force to prevent removal of every single hedgerow in the valley. Mr O’Leary described that scenario as a very extreme expectation and that it would be very unusual to take that into consideration in the course of an assessment. I agree with his overall comments, which were presented in relation to Newgrange especially, but I also consider that there is an argument that such protection should be afforded to this landscape due to its exceptional value.

The development plan contains a number of worthy but reasonably general objectives relating to the protection of landscape setting , including the setting of monuments and the protection of the resources of the county and the Brú na Bóinne area specifically. Amongst the most specific policy objectives pertaining are:

Ensure sustained protection of landscapes of exceptional value, protect rural character, setting, amenity and archaeological heritage of Brú na Bóinne - HER POL 65

Protect the vulnerable archaeological and cultural landscape and enhance views within and adjacent to the World Heritage Site - HER POL 66

Provide adequate protection of views and vistas that contribute to the appreciation of landscape character – HER POL 85

__________________________________________________________________________


Maintain scenic views and vistas and panoramic views from key vantage points and towards key landmarks and features within the landscape - HER POL 86

Maintain the visual integrity of sensitive and exceptional landscape value areas - HER POL 87.

The above are general policy provisions, which are supported by a specific list of views set out on page 351 of the plan. During the hearing there was considerable discussion about the nature of the listed views as the referenced map 8.6 which was to indicate their direction had not been prepared. Uncertainty regarding the direction of these views has now been overcome and of particular relevance view 3a is clearly marked as the view to the west from Knowth. In addition the location of VP8, VP9 and VP2d is also shown. The latter equate reasonably with viewpoints 19 and 20 of the applicant’s submissions; Mr O’Leary’s assessment of views had included consideration of the views from the previous development plan map. The issues which will be of interest to any future reactive missions will include the availability of measurable policies. The development plan is now shown to contain four different listed viewpoints covering the few square kilometres west of Knowth. It would be desirable in my opinion if these views were considered in more detail, perhaps along the lines of the approach in the LAP. I consider that a policy provision similar to 8.3.3 would be beneficial in addition. Other current plans Development at the Crossroads sets out the community’s vision for the area as articulated by Prof Geoghegan who acted as consultant on the project. The plan contains a strong emphasis on landscape protection and enhancement and contains suggestions which I would assume will be given due consideration by the Council in any review of the Slane Local Area Plan. However, the plan has no statutory footing at present and in my opinion cannot be given significant weight by the Board when considering this application. Slane Local Area Plan This is of interest as it contains a number of protected views which are of relevance to considering this application. The plan also defines the ACAs and sets out policy provisions.

Map 5.3 of the LAP identifies two different groups of protected views. Those which derive from the county development plan include views from Fennor Cross to the Slane Mill ACA. These are not relevant to the current application. One of the views is described as a ‘significant view and vista’. It is a view from the Mill grounds towards the proposed bridge. A view from the existing bridge is also recorded. The directional arrow of that view is towards the Mill buildings but the text indicates that the view from the old bridge down the river is also intended to be protected. The text of the LAP refers to views out from the ACA and notes that the position of the mill complex affords some of the most spectacular views of the Boyne Valley, to the south, east and west. In describing these views the following is relevant:

__________________________________________________________________________


The eastern views from the bridge and mill complex take in the level plains of the valley as it winds its way downstream towards Rosnaree, with the wooded slopes to the north and rolling hills to the south east.

The plan refers to views to the south towards Fennor Castle and to the west which is described as the most impressive of the views from the mill and the bridge. It is stated:

Like the views from the castle towards the mill, this vista towards the west has not changed since the eighteenth century.

The policy for the Mill ACA is:

1. To preserve the character of the area, its natural and designed landscape and built features by prohibiting any development which would have an adverse affect on the buildings or their settings, 2. To protect the landscape setting and the views to and from the complex 3. To require that all works …to existing buildings … by the use of appropriate materials and workmanship.

The policy for the ACA is detailed and in my opinion it sufficiently describes the merits and qualities of the landscape. It establishes a hierarchy for the views indicating those which are most impressive and and sets out the features of the landscape incorporated within the various viewsheds

Proposed Local Area Plan The development plan published in 2007, recognising that the landscape of Brú na Bóinne extends beyond the World Heritage Site, refers to the preparation of a Local Area Plan in respect of areas surrounding and influencing the World Heritage Site, the protection of rural character, setting, historic context and archaeological heritage and ensuring that its scope and extent are sufficient to conserve the specific areas requiring protection. It was intended also to give effect to the Brú na Bóinne Management Plan the objectives of which are incorporated into the development plan. The objective to prepare a Local Area Plan for Brú na Bóinne as well as a Landscape Conservation Area for Tara / Skryne arose from a DEHLG submission to the development plan review. Very limited progress was reported to the hearing on the preparation of a LAP although discussions have taken place. Nothing was available in terms of a brief for the plan or any agreement with the adjacent planning authorities who will also be engaged in the work. Matters related to viewsheds will not be addressed under the LAP but under the review of the development plan. The main purpose of the LAP appears to be related to design guidance for development within the designated World Heritage Site. The lack of progress with the preparation of the LAP was noted by DEHLG who considered that in future they would be more proactive.

The proposed LAP is of relevance to the current application in the following respects

1. Whether it will provide for control of follow-on development and other negative landscape change

2. How a reactive mission would consider a grant of permission in the absence of the above, or other robust planning framework.

__________________________________________________________________________


1. Follow-on development and landscape change

Demonstrating the ability to control follow-on development is a critical matter. The road in itself could facilitate development close to the roundabouts, resulting in significant indirect impacts. This matter should be considered in the long term. Such development would be likely to be widely visible from within the World Heritage Site. The Board will note that the access arrangements at two roundabouts was altered during the course of the hearing.

Observers and the applicant refer to the small scale of Slane and its place in the regional and county settlement hierarchy. I agree that market conditions are unlikely to support large-scale retail units. However, I also note the fairly unanimous concern regarding the impact of a relatively small housing scheme in Slane. Even relatively modest development if inappropriately considered can have a large adverse landscape impact. Dr Comer referred to possible construction of gas stations and take away restaurants. These references perhaps demonstrate his own cultural background. However, pressure for such development may well arise in the context of Slane being a suitable stopping point on a long journey.

In my view the strongest level of control on development is required within this landscape without impeding the reasonable needs of agriculture and local development. This might even require restrictions on agricultural practices and / or development which would be otherwise exempted development. What is proposed by the Council in the form of a Local Area Plan has not only been slowly progressed but appears more narrowly focused than originally envisaged. It will not ensure protection of viewsheds and will not prevent follow-on development arising from the proposed bypass. The LAP is directed to design guidance within the designated area. Dr Comer expressed concern that a more robust mechanism was being put in place to protect Tara, which is not a World Heritage Site, referring to the proposed Landscape Conservation Area. He was very concerned that the strongest mechanisms need to be drawn up particularly to prevent follow on development. In this regard the envisaged LAP is unlikely to provide a solution. A fine grained approach is required in relation to the enhancement of landscape. A detailed assessment of the viewsheds needs to be undertaken and targeted policy responses formulated. The types of policies should perhaps be similar to that set out in section 8.3.3. as this is clear and capable of measurement. These are matters which might be best addressed under a specific plan, perhaps as suggested under contiguous Local Area Plans as suggested by DEHLG. The controls available under a Landscape Conservation Area appear to be also worth considering. In all of this context the aspirations of the rural community must be met and that point was made a number of times at the hearing.

2. Consideration of proposed development by a reactive monitoring mission

In relation to the possible impact on the status of the World Heritage Site, the planning policy framework is of critical concern. At the time of inscription the relevant bodies appeared satisfied with the measures in place. In the interim development has occurred some of has been deemed intrusive. The need for a study of development pressure was

__________________________________________________________________________


outlined by the 2004 reactive mission but does not appear to have occurred. The LAP according to the development plan text was going to address zoning and development in villages amongst other matters. At the hearing Dr Comer made some interventions expressing concern regarding aspects of the applicant’s submissions on planning policy. I consider that a reactive mission would find little comfort in the planning framework available. The adoption of a Landscape Character Assessment in the 2007 development plan was noted by the applicant’s experts as a significant advance. Without specific local policies it appears to me to be of limited value. In parallel there has been slow progress on other measures such as the LAP. Most notably the vision for the LAP appears considerably reduced compared with the statement in the development plan.

In conclusion in relation to the capacity to manage the World Heritage Site, I consider that the development plan is weak in terms of specific policy measures and I am unconvinced that the proposed Local Area Plan will make up all shortcomings. The Slane Local Area Plan is useful for its detailed provisions in relation to the protection of the Slane Mills ACA. In my opinion a grant of permission for another large-scale development in the Boyne Valley is premature pending determination of a statutory plan for the area between village and the World Heritage Site.

The aspirations of the local community I now turn to the matter of conflicts between the community and the controls imposed by the presence of a World Heritage Site. This matter has a number of dimensions as outlined below. Many persons noted repeatedly that the landscape is a living landscape, that it changes and that it must provide for the needs of the community. Consideration of this application brings these matters to the fore. Irrespective of the current proposal there appear already to be conflicts between some requirements of the community and the presence of a World Heritage Site.

The tensions between the local community and the World Heritage Site have been expressed in terms of the existence of dual standards in the planning system, favouring large projects and opposing small residential developments. A number of planning applications were referenced to support the rigorous controls on small-scale development to protect the World Heritage. The Local Area Plan as described to the hearing would focus on development pressure within the World Heritage Site and the design aspects. It would be likely to go some way to resolving matters including providing a better context for consideration of necessary community-led development within the World Heritage Site. On the other hand the majority of the community are not overly concerned with rural development but with improving conditions in Slane. If the proposed bypass, which is supported locally, is seen to conflict with the World Heritage Site then interest in it will diminish. One observer in a closing submission went so far as to state that the area would be better without the listing. For many local residents a refusal of permission would be seen in this light. Another matter arising is the integrated tourist potential of the area. It appears to me that the route selection process undertaken has not addressed the potential for the valley as an integrated tourist zone. I find no evidence that the development has been fully considered in that regard. The evidence suggests that the location of the bypass was not

__________________________________________________________________________


driven by the planning or heritage staff within the Council. I would question how the placing of a dual carriageway in this sensitive landscape between Slane and Brú na Bóinne can benefit the long-term holistic development of its considerable resources. If Slane and Brú na Bóinne are separated from each other by the bypass, can the full potential of either be achieved? In this regard also I find no option but to include that the development is premature pending a Local Area Plan for the wider area.

UNESCO emphasises that local support and benefits should arise from the World Heritage Site designation. There are issues here which the Board cannot resolve. I conclude that the proposed development has not been comprehensively considered in terms of its long-term socio-economic implications. In the event that a bypass is deemed to be necessary a more detailed appraisal of these implications is required and the appropriate mechanism is local plan preparation.

Compliance with development plan policy

I now address whether the development complies with the development plan policies including the requirements set out in relation to Landscape Character Assessment, views, archaeology, architecture and the matter of reconciling conflicting development plan objectives. The Landscape Character Assessment was published in 2007 and incorporated into the development plan. Within the large area covered by the Boyne Valley there are areas which are more robust than others. Under the development plan policy the onus is placed on applicants to consider the design of development and the specific location. Mr Gallagher commented that the Boyne Valley is a single Landscape Character Area. I have commented above on the particular importance apparently attributed to certain parts of the LCA. I consider it would have been beneficial if an assessment had been made of the capacity of specific parts of the Boyne Valley to accommodate development. Support for this position comes from the page 356 / 357 of the development plan which Mr Gallagher quoted. This contains a number of relevant statements:

Most landscape are sufficiently robust to absorb other forms of development whether related to forestry, windfarms, infrastructure …. the LCA does not preclude the granting of permission for this type of development …. the greater the value of the landscape there is a greater requirement to protect these

Although all other landscape areas can absorb each type of development, the design, siting and particular locations within each LCA will strongly influence the assessment and outcome of individual applications.

I would stress the phrase ‘particular locations within each LCA’ which I consider should have been given greater weight by the applicant. I note that in early stages of route planning the landscape around Slane Castle was accorded a higher value than lands to the east. The EIS describes the two zones as having quite different characters. While the applicant broadly considered the relative merits of the landscapes either side of the village, a thorough analysis is not evident from available documents. I am unconvinced that it is demonstrated for instance that a heavily planted road scheme would be less in keeping with the character of the estate demesne. The degree of landscape change in that area would arguably be less due to its existing character. Equally while the applicant’s

__________________________________________________________________________


consideration of the western route rightly pointed to the potential impacts on views from the Hill of Slane, there was perhaps insufficient consideration of the level of existing afforestation and the landscape context within which a heavily planted road might assimilate. I consider that the development plan policy sets a requirement to demonstrate that the scheme is appropriately sited within a particular LCA and that this assessment has not been undertaken to date. I conclude that the proposed development does not comply with the development plan provisions in this regard.

HER POL 85 – 87 refers to the protection of views and vistas, maintenance of views related to key landmarks and maintenance of visual integrity of sensitive areas of exceptional landscape value. I consider that the development including its impact on the Boyne Valley and the views from Knowth must be assessed in the context of those policies. I consider that if the Board was minded to refuse permission for reason of adverse landscape impact particularly in terms of the views to and from Knowth and the disruption to visual integrity of the valley, the basis for such a decision would also be found in those policies. HER POL 66 which relates to the protection of the cultural landscape and to enhance views within and adjacent to the World Heritage Site would also be applicable. In addition, the development is in my opinion contrary to HER POL 113 which refers to the protection of particular views and prospects, four of which are in the vicinity of the scheme. My conclusion is that the development by reason of its nature and location is in conflict with these objectives. HER POL 60 is to seek the preservation in situ of all archaeological sites or objects and their settings. I note that this is qualified in terms of the requirement being at minimum preservation by record. The development would give rise to a negative archaeological impact in terms of direct impact on sites and indirect impact on the setting as acknowledged by Ms O’Carroll. She accepted this in the context of the positive residual impact and the need for the road. If it is considered by the reporting Inspector and the Board that there is a need for a road then it is a matter to determine whether the selected route minimises archaeological impacts (direct and indirect), in the balance of other matters arising in route selection. I refer the Board also to section 5.1 of the NRA guidance on archaeological impacts. Under the heading of EIS this states that once a preferred route has been determined, it may still be necessary, where feasible, to amend the design in order to avoid or reduce identified impacts. I have outlined my opinion elsewhere that there was an opportunity to reconsider the line of the route as knowledge increased about the archaeological impacts; this occurred at the time of discoveries in 2005/ 2006. Not only was the most easterly of the routes selected but in response to geological investigations the route was subsequently moved a further 100m in the direction of Brú na Bóinne. The viewsheds to or from Brú na Bóinne were not defined in terms of their limits, were not described in detail and were not set out as constraints. In conclusion, I am unconvinced that the applicant has demonstrated that all efforts were made to ‘seek the preservation in situ’ of all archaeological sites and to protect setting. I conclude that the development is contrary to HER POL 60.

In relation to the Slane Local Area Plan and the Slane Mills ACA, the Board will note that the view from the mills to the east will be significantly altered by the proposed development and its character radically changed. This listed view is not identified as being of most relevance in terms of the character of the area. Equally, particular status is not accorded to the view from the existing bridge down the river, though it too is a listed

__________________________________________________________________________


view. The LAP gives foremost consideration to the view towards Slane Castle. I consider that the policy in the LAP which seeks to preserve the character of the area is not complied with due to the introduction of a large contemporary structure in the near distance. On the other hand the breach of this policy provision would be limited insofar as the critical views from Fennor cross to the mills, from the castle to the mills and from the mills to the west are not affected. The view from the bridge includes a view to Newgrange in the distance. This would be severed by the proposed bridge but Newgrange is not specifically referenced in the LAP as a landscape feature. The Board may thus wish to consider, in view of the limited impact on the character of the area, aspects of which would not be deteriorated by the development, whether a reason for refusal would be warranted for that reason. On balance notwithstanding my earlier conclusions regarding the adverse visual impact arising, I recommend against any such reason being attached.

In terms of architectural policy I consider that the development does not impact significantly on individual protected structures. It positively impacts on the Slane Village ACA and has no significant negative or positive impacts on the Slane Castle ACA. The main concern in terms of architectural impact is the Mills ACA, to which I now return. The main policy provision relating to ACAs as set out in the development plan is

Development proposals on sites in the vicinity of ACAs will only be permitted where it can be clearly demonstrated that the development will not materially affect the character or integrity of the area.

This policy needs to be considered in light of the discussion above on the Slane Local Area Plan. I have concluded that the proposal negatively impacts on the Mills ACA, but also noted that the most significant of views are not affected at all. In addition, there is a benefit arising from the removal of traffic at the entrance gates. However, I consider that in terms of architectural character the existing bridge is of very sympathetic form, scale and character. The proposed bridge does not have such qualities, its location and scale is intrusive in my opinion when considered from certain positions. I conclude that the development does not comply with the development plan policy but that the breach of policy would not be described as being highly significant.

Finally, I note the report of Mrs Bagnall which certified compliance with the development plan refers only to the infrastructure objective and is silent on the matter of landscape and visual or cultural heritage impacts. Mr Gallagher and Mr Kennedy noted however that the bypass scheme gives effect to and facilitates the implementation of the development plan and will not lessen controls within the Boyne Valley the protection of which is a major corporate objective. The requirements to provide the bypass and protect the World Heritage Site need not be mutually exclusive they consider, noting that the balance between objectives must be considered with relevance to the primacy of human safety. They concluded that the scheme accords with the development plan.

I conclude that the development proposed is contrary to a number of policies contained in the development plan. The reservation of lands for the bypass is an objective of the development plan. It is a matter for the reporting Inspector and ultimately for the Board to balance the development plan objectives, which the planners for the applicant state need not be mutually exclusive.

__________________________________________________________________________


Section E Summary points 1. Planning policies of a very specific nature are required to demonstrate to a reactive

mission that the state party’s intentions regarding protection of the World Heritage Site are reflected in a capacity to manage the site

2. A transparent, measurable and robust long-term planning policy framework to protect the viewsheds and setting of the monuments is required

3. The development would contravene a number of policy objectives regarding

landscape protection, architectural heritage and archaeology including HER POL 66, HER POL 85-97 and HER POL 113

4. The broad location of the scheme has not been assessed in detail as required for the

assessment of applications according to the Landscape Character Assessment

5. The development would constitute a significant intrusion into the viewshed of listed views between the village and the World Heritage Site and would be particularly intrusive in relation to VP3a and VP2d, the location of which has been recently clarified

6. Section 8.3.3 does not apply outside the limits of the designated World Heritage Site 7. It is acknowledge by the applicant however to contain reasonable criteria for

assessment of development 8. If the proposed road scheme were assessed on the basis of section 8.3.3 I consider

that a refusal of permission would be warranted 9. The planning policy pertaining to the Mills ACA exhibits a level of clarity and

sophistication which is not mirrored in policies relating to the World Heritage Site 10. I do not consider that a refusal of permission for reason of impact on the Mills ACA

is warranted having regard to the fact that the prime views described in the LAP are unaffected

11. I do consider that the development is premature pending the preparation of a Local

Area Plan or Landscape Conservation Area for the lands between Slane and Brú na Bóinne

12. The development plan and Slane LAP contain objectives relating to the bypass 13. The matter of balancing of competing objectives is for the reporting Inspector.

__________________________________________________________________________


F - Route selection and bridge design options

The purpose of this section of the assessment is to address some matters related to route selection and bridge design and height. The questions arising relate to

The basis for the decision to go to the east

Whether it is demonstrated that a route to the east of Slane is preferable

Whether the selected option to the east is the optimum route

Whether the bridge design is acceptable. I refer the Board to comments made by Mr Flanagan to the hearing. He noted that the Board is not required to undertake an EIA of alternatives. He stated also that the Board has sufficient information to consider the option of a lower height bridge and that the environmental impacts have been assessed.

In deciding where the balance lies between the acknowledged significant benefits and the overall impact on landscape and cultural heritage, which I consider is negative, the Board may also wish to consider what alternatives may be available. It is for this reason that the foregoing is presented. Basis of decision to consider routes to east Page 4-3 of the EIS states that during the Constraints Study routes to the west were considered but were deemed not to be viable. At the opening of the hearing it was stated that routes to the west were briefly considered in the constraints study stage but dismissed due to the dense concentration of constraints and the more feasible route to the east. In the Route Selection Report of 2005 it is stated that in environmental, engineering and economic terms it was considered from an early stage that a route to the west would be unlikely to compare favourably with routes to the east. The environmental factors of a route to the west, which were considered to have likely negative impacts were Slane Castle and demesne, the Hill of Slane and surrounding ground and the proximity to the village and impact on human beings. Further information on this matter was provided following a request from the Board. In summary the applicant’s case is that this matter has been adequately considered and a western option discounted.

The arguments pursued by observers before and during the hearing included that there was a failure to properly weigh up the options of a route to the west compared with the selected route to the east and that the impact on the World Heritage Site was not properly addressed. Many observers are of the opinion that the area to the west is less sensitive in terms of archaeology, architecture and cultural heritage and object in principle to the general location of the road scheme. In considering this matter the Board is advised that the available information relating to the two broad route options differs substantially. It would be expected that further archaeological investigation of the western route would uncover more archaeological sites or potential sites. I would also note the limits and remit of a Constraints Study Report,

__________________________________________________________________________


which by its nature will be lacking a certain level of detail. However, in the absence of any other report, it offers most guidance on the merits of arguments relating to the decision to discount a possible western route.

I have examined the Constraints Study Report 2002 to determine what level of initial assessment was undertaken of a western route. The Constraints Study Report itself contains a brief discussion of the previous reports. The 1985 report of Molloy Pollock Punch is referenced therein and appears to be the origins of the idea of an eastern bypass. That study was followed by work by Meath County Council involving a visual assessment and a site investigation. A 1990 study by the Council is stated to have identified three routes for a bypass, two to the west and one to the east. The eastern route was deemed more suitable for reasons related to limited impact on the village, land severance and cost. There is no reference in the 2002 or 2005 reports to any studies between 1990 and 2001 during which time, in 1993, the World Heritage Site was inscribed. A 2001 report by Roughan O’Donovan identifying traffic calming measures for the village concluded that the eastern bypass was the ideal long term solution22. The 2002 Constraints Study largely concerns the selected study area to the east of the village. It does however contain some consideration of the area to the west of the village which is identified as an ‘additional area of interest’. Section 5.4 of the Constraints Study Report refers to cultural heritage constraints. It identifies 64 constraints in the study area from desk based research. A description is provided of the prehistoric era and the medieval and post-medieval findings. Apart from the known monuments the report identifies the likelihood that many additional archaeological and historical sites will be identified during further stages of the cultural heritage assessment. In terms of constraints outside the study area the demesne landscape at Slane Castle , the World Heritage Site and the Hill of Slane are included in all of the above descriptions.

I consider that the following are noteworthy:

Neither section 5.4 or in any other part of the CSR contains an assessment of the relative merits of the archaeological, architectural and cultural heritage constraints within the additional area of interest and the study area

There is no discussion of the importance of any archaeological sites within the study area in the context of the proximity to monuments within the World Heritage Site

There is a discussion of the relative merits of the landscapes which deems the area to the west as being of higher value than the area to the east

The report generally lacks adequate consideration of the type of issues raised in Dr Comer’s Heritage Impact Assessment

The landscape and cultural heritage values of the demesne of Slane Castle and the impacts of a major road scheme at that location have not been assessed in detail

22

This was qualified by a recommendation that traffic patterns be further assessed on opening of the Drogheda

bypass.

__________________________________________________________________________


The relationship between the landscape and the archaeological complexes at Knowth and Newgrange are noted but the viewsheds are not identified as constraints.

The conclusions of the Constraints Study Report in relation to cultural heritage is that it should be possible to plan a route such that the important known cultural heritage constraints within the study area are avoided. The conclusions of the overall report also note that there were no objections to look solely to the east of the village for potential bypass routes and that this decision is also supported by previous studies. Subsequently the Route Selection Report of 2005 on page 19 refers to the fact that routes to the west were not considered viable and that an early decision had been made not to investigate routes to the west of the village because they would not compare favourably on economic, environmental and engineering terms. Ms O’Carroll on questioning made it clear that once a decision was taken on the preferred route the assessment of the potential impacts on sites of archaeological and cultural heritage commenced. The decision to locate the route to the east was taken by the roads engineers. Her submission indicates that from an early stage it was recognised that it was desirable to locate the road to the east of Ledwidge Cottage and to the west of Limekiln Hill to minimise visibility from the World Heritage Site. I note the comments of DEHLG relating to the advice given to the applicant to protect the views from the World Heritage Site. There is no evidence from these comments that the Department had a role prior to the decision to opt for an eastern bypass.

Dr Comer indicated in relation to the western route option only that he had been advised that it was discounted for reasons of cultural heritage but also engineering and costs. He acknowledged that he had not been advised of any cultural heritage resources along that route which are of greater significance than the World Heritage Site. However, he did note the presence of the Hill of Slane. The impacts arising from a possible western route option was not within the terms of Dr Comer’s brief. The further information submission was a retrospective attempt to provide more detail on the merits of the two areas of interest. It concluded that an eastern route is preferable. It too was prepared without the benefit of the Heritage Impact Assessment and Dr Comer’s evidence. Ms O’Carroll referred to the increasing awareness of the need to focus on interactions between landscape and archaeology and referenced a seminal conference in 2008 which advanced this area of interest. In addition a reactive mission will want to be satisfied that all feasible options are thoroughly investigated. Dr Comer made it clear that due regard will be given to the safety requirements in Slane. I cannot comment on how a reactive mission would consider the matter of comparative economic costs for the western and eastern options.

I conclude as follows:

The decision to route a bypass to the east of Slane has a long history

The decision was made without thorough investigation of impacts on the World Heritage Site and the associated viewsheds were not defined or described during the process

__________________________________________________________________________


There was consideration of relative merits of the landscapes to the east and west and the demesne landscape was given a higher rating.

Merits of an eastern option I now further explore the question of what the available evidence indicates in terms of the suitability of an eastern route and whether the Board can be satisfied that a route at this location is preferable on the grounds of archaeological, architectural and cultural heritage impacts. This aims also to add to the information base in relation to possible alternatives.

The further information was presented to the Board in 2010. The conclusions drawn in relation to archaeological and cultural heritage are summarised in Table 2.10.7 of the submission, which indicates a total of 12 direct impacts for the western route compared with 8 direct impacts for the eastern route. Similarly Table 2.10.8 provides a synopsis of indirect impacts namely 15 no. for the western route and 2 no. for the eastern route one of which is clearly stated to be the World Heritage Site. Based on a numerical assessment, the case is made that the eastern route is preferable.

The assessment above was subject of significant criticism and a number of points arise:

The level of knowledge for both areas differs particularly in relation to archaeology

The significance of impacts on the demesne of Slane Castle equally are not fully understood

Ms O’Carroll explained to the hearing the assignment of RMP numbers is a random process, in some cases connected groups of monuments are assigned the same number to ensure that the area between the monuments is protected, in other cases monuments are assigned single numbers

This explains why the applicant’s summary tables accord the World Heritage Site an impact of ‘1’, the same as a town land boundary for example

The significance of heritage constraints is not weighted. Ms O’Carroll noted that this is an exercise of a type which is carried out as part of the EIS process and I accept that point. Undue weight should not be attached to its conclusions however. In consideration of the study area and additional area as presented in the further information submission, concerns arising relate to economics, agricultural and ecological impacts, the latter being a local terrestrial ecological impact. In relation to costs I note that parties, including those in favour of the proposed scheme indicate that a further link connecting the N2 with the N51 west would be required in the long-term. Observers have argued that economics should not be considered as there are a large number of unquantifiable intangible costs many of which relate to cultural heritage

__________________________________________________________________________


constraints. Observers have noted that economic considerations should be excluded on the basis that the matter is narrowly considered. Lord Mount Charles’ submission to the hearing addressed one of these impacts and that is the potentially significant costs associated with any development which would adversely affect the economic potential of Slane Castle and demesne. Other unquantifiable impacts arise in relation to the economic vitality of the village and the failure to harness benefits from the World Heritage Site and these matters were referenced by a large number of observers. There are a myriad of impacts which are not easily open to financial costings and I note that many of the unquantifiable costs are related to heritage protection and enhancement.

My conclusion is that, focusing on the impacts pertinent to the remit of this report, it is not clearly demonstrated that an eastern route is preferable to a potential route to the west of the village. I do not consider that the applicant has presented a strong case in this respect. However, neither is it possible to conclude that the western route is more acceptable in terms of architecture, archaeology, cultural heritage and landscape impacts. It would traverse significant constraints including the demesne of Slane Castle, the landscape design of which is attributed to Capability Brown, and would be visible and probably audible from the Hill of Slane. It is possible to conclude that a western route would not have any impact on Brú na Bóinne and the integrity of the associated landscape between Slane, the Hill of Slane and the World Heritage Site. By reason of the particular significance of the World Heritage Sites and the inter-visibility between the World Heritage Site and the road scheme, I am not convinced that the available information demonstrated that a western option is not preferable. However, I would also refer the Board to the opening statements by the applicant which indicate that a western route is twice the length and due to greater costs and reduced benefits is not really open for consideration any further.

The merits of the selected eastern route Having commented above on the decision making process which lead to the preferred option being to the east of the village, I now comment briefly upon information contained within the Route Selection Report in terms of the insights it provides. The Board will note that the selected route aligns reasonably closely with route B set out in the Route Selection Report. The main argument raised by observers in relation to the Route Selection Report focused on a comment on page 138-139 of that report which states: Route A is the closest to the Unesco World Heritage Site of Brú na Bóinne. The point at which Route A will cross the river will have a major visual impact on the river valley as it is probably the most clearly viewed point at which any of the route options traverse the river from Brú na Bóinne, particularly from Knowth, the most westerly of the complex of passage tombs. The present plans for the route at this location put the road in cut to the south of the river, in fill immediately north of the river for a short section and then continuing mostly in cut for the rest of the route. The permanent changes anticipated here with the introduction of a new linear feature would greatly interrupt the existing landscape and impact profoundly on the Boyne Valley Heritage Site. This in itself makes it the least preferred route option. This route would however be least visible from the bridge at Slane and from the village. Mr McGearailt produced a composite map of the main routes studied in the Route Selection Report. This is marked MAP A and is in the pouch attached to this report.

__________________________________________________________________________


This shows the 2005 preferred route B1, the selected option before the Board and route A which was considered under the 2005 report. Mr Rogers agreed that the selected route is not exactly the route referred to in the Route Selection Report and described in the text above, but argued that it is as near as makes no difference.

Throughout the hearing, including in the applicant’s statements, there was frequent comment relating to the critical importance of the bridge as the most important element in the scheme in terms of its landscape and visual impact. The submission of Mr Gallagher and Mr Kennedy noted the importance of the bridge, it is referenced specifically in the development plan, it was subject of considerable interest on the part of DEHLG and others. In relation to Option A the extract from the Route Selection Report states that the point of crossing will have a major visual impact on the river valley as it is probably the most clearly viewed point particularly from Knowth. I agree that there is no significant difference in the point of the river crossing between route A and the proposal before the Board. I refer the Board to the composite map and in the context of examination of that map I again refer to the text in italics above. I note the strong wording used including ‘major visual impact’, ‘permanent changes’, ‘would greatly interrupt the existing landscape and impact profoundly on the Boyne Valley Heritage Site’. I conclude that the Route Selection Report was highly critical of the route which in terms of the bridge crossing in particular is very similar to that now proposed by the applicant.

Before leaving this subject I refer the Board to another relevant extracts from the Route Selection Report on page 152:

‘Although Route A has the largest number of direct impacts on CHCs thus apparently making it least favourable none of these are on what could be considered to be key constraints. However Route A is not considered to be a viable option because of its visual impact on the Unesco World Heritage Site’

I consider that text and comments also in relation to Route E demonstrate a fundamental concern in the Route Selection Study to achieve the optimal solution in terms of minimising impact on the World Heritage Site. It demonstrates a willingness to attempt to weigh and value cultural heritage constraints against each other. It accords primacy to the minimisation of views from the World Heritage Site. I find that in the assessment of the proposed development the applicant has not undertaken a similar approach. I conclude that there is considerable similarity between the current proposal and the Routes A and E which were not deemed acceptable due to impacts on the World Heritage Site. I also consider that the analysis undertaken in the Route Selection Report, through its attempts to weigh impacts was a better approach that that undertaken when comparing the western and eastern routes. This section of my report referring to the Route Selection Report should not be construed as making any further inferences other than those two conclusions.

In considering this matter I also remind the Board at this point that the ZVI presented by the applicant shows that there are significant areas of land to the west of the current scheme where there is no visibility from Knowth. The Board may find it useful to consider the ZVI and the route options drawings together.

__________________________________________________________________________


Bridge design and options The application submissions provide information on four main bridge options ranging from 12m to 36m with the design selected being at a height of 18-21m, revised during the hearing to 18m above the river level. The valley poses significant challenges due to its depth. The two escarpments of different height at 23m on the southern side and 40m on the northern side and a valley floor of approximately 160m wide. The competing sensitivities of the landscape were identified by the applicant as the panoramic views from the World Heritage Site and other elevated locations and the exceptional quality rating of the river valley landscape. The depth of cuttings and embankments resulting will have a significant visual impact in addition.

The EIS and further information submission indicates that two options at 21m and 27m were further developed than the other two options at 12m and 36m. As Mr O’Leary indicated the lower level (12m) bridge was considered to intrude excessively on the local landscape and not necessarily to be of less significance in the wider landscape; it would also give rise to significant cuttings. A medium level bridge was considered to best address the competing landscape concerns. The 200m three span bridge contains long embankments which were considered to be acceptable in the landscape context. The applicant provided significant detail on the approach and principles to the bridge design. In relation to the two higher bridge options studied I would consider these to be overly intrusive on the landscape. I note that as the hearing progressed no parties, not even the applicant promoted the merits of a 27m bridge and having witnessed the balloon test I conclude that this would have been likely to intrude greatly on the skyline. Equally there was no demand for the option of a 18m high extrados design. In terms of minimising wider landscape impacts I consider that the two lower height bridges and the simple span forms presented are preferable to other options. A particular benefit of the balloon test undertaken was that in response to Mr Moore’s request the applicant displayed the option of a 12m high bridge and of the design height at 18m. The applicant has indicated that in the event that the Board considered that a 12m bridge height is required, there are available lands to enable the Board to undertaken that revision without altering the CPO requirements. Mr MacGearailt also indicated that a hybrid design is feasible – that would marry relatively shallow cuttings with the lower level bridge. A 12m bridge is not before the Board and could only be considered if requested by way of further information and subsequently publicised.

In relation to the height of the bridge I note that observers expressed conflicting views some favouring the lower bridge and others indicating that there was no material differences. Mr Hastings commenting on the wider landscape impacts for example considered that there was no material difference. None of the observers expressed particular support for the argument that a lower level bridge would overly dominate the near environment. My own position in relation to the lower height option is as follows:

On entry to the village from the south there is a picture postcard setting containing the Mill the bridge, the town and the valley

__________________________________________________________________________


There will be an almost full frontal view into the cutting to the north of the bridge from this location and the deck level of the 18m bridge would also be very visible

Any increase in the cutting depth at this location would exacerbate this already significant visual intrusion

The balloon test demonstrated that a lower level bridge would benefit the view from layby on the western side of the N2 south of Slane

There is no material difference between the two bridge heights when considered from the World Heritage Site at Knowth

Both options would be clearly visible although the lower level bridge would be marginally less intrusive

The lower level option would be screened from views from Newgrange by the tops of trees

I have already stated that this view is not of particular relevance in determining this application due to the orientation of the site, access issues and distance

Both bridge options would be very intrusive and dominant when viewed from nearby residences at Rosnaree Road and from Slane bridge, the canal and the western buffer zone.

I conclude that there are limited benefits from the lower bridge. In principle, were it feasible, I would favour a single carriageway low level bridge accommodating low levels of traffic and note that proponents of the scheme and others argued that the scheme is excessive. However, my overall recommendation regarding the scheme would not be altered by any such proposal. The location of the road and bridge is the fundamental matter in my opinion. If the Board considers that the location is acceptable, then permission should be granted. The bridge height is a minor detail when compared with the position of the scheme. I now turn to the detailed design issues. In line with national policy on architecture and noting the comments of DEHLG it is obviously a desirable objective to maximise the aesthetic value of any new structure in this exceptional landscape. When asked about his apparent lack of interest in the design of the bridge Dr Comer indicated an interest in terms of if it could be made to disappear. The applicant on the other hand considered that the bridge design, its form and height and materials in particular, combined with the extensive screen planting, were sufficient mitigating factors and that a carefully composed bridge could be accommodated at this location.

I consider that the bridge design proposed would be of simple form and reasonably elegant style. The designer has attempted to minimise depths and bulk where possible and to provide elegant spans and sympathetic proportions. The piers are broken into three tapered columns. The abutments are large but are designed to accommodate soft landscaping. The Board should note that towards the end of the hearing it was necessary

__________________________________________________________________________


to propose a marginal increase in the length of the bridge. I do not consider that the increased length of 16m is a material consideration in the context of the scheme. Dr Comer’s comments regarding the M1 bridge refer. While discussing its intrinsic qualities and noting its popularity he also expressed his opinion that it is inappropriate at this location. Prof Geoghegan referenced the success of the Calatrava bridge in Dublin’s Docklands and considered that a similar approach could be undertaken. DEHLG noted that the Queen Street bridge was less popular. Reference was made to a much loved historic stone bridge in Drogheda town centre, which most would consider is completely out of scale with the townscape. I consider that the topography in itself could accommodate a dramatic design statement. However, I also consider that it is not appropriate that the bridge be designed to be a focal point in the landscape. That would be against the principles required for protection of the World Heritage Site. An overly visible bridge would further detract from the experience of visiting the World Heritage Site in my opinion. This is not a location for a forceful and dominant structure. Therefore, although I do not agree with the applicant’s overall conclusions, I concur with the general thrust of the approach undertaken in terms of the design. Although the scheme is at a relatively advanced stage of design, there is limited detailed design information available. Indeed the applicant on questioning could not clarify whether the proposal would be pursued through design and build, as stated in the EIS, or through direct procurement. An international competition was suggested by one observer. This was considered likely to result in significant delays however. I agree with Mr Browner’s suggestion that a peer review process should be required to finalise the detailed design. The peer review process can commence during the course of consideration of this application. However, unless the Board is definitely disposed to grant permission it would be unreasonable to request that the process be completed at this time. In that regard I take into account my general satisfaction with the design parameters of the bridge and the overall approach. The precedent of a proposed bridge in the centre of Kilkenny centre refers. The design parameters set in the construction contract could thus be agreed to ensure the highest possible standards.

Having regard to the World Heritage Site I consider that the over-riding objective should be to install a bridge which disappears into the landscape while ensuring that from close range it will appear as an elegant and high quality structure. When viewed from close proximity the materials of the bridge will have particular impact. Corten steel is proposed to be utilised thus providing a structurally stable material of soft brown colour and texture for the bridge deck. I consider that this material would be successful as it minimises long distance visual impacts while at the same time providing an industrial character and earthy tones, which would be reasonably sympathetic when considered in terms of the Boyne navigation and Jebbs Mills. I concur with Mr McGearailt that stone cladding might not be a suitable material for the columns. I am unaware of any particularly successful examples of such materials being used in bridge construction and none were presented. I do not agree with Mr Hastings comments that a raw concrete bridge would be more attractive as from a wider landscape perspective it would constitute a more striking feature and be more visible from the World Heritage Site. The Corten steel is treated and stable and would not give rise to a rusty coloured discharge. The tentative suggestion that the concrete piers might be coloured is noted. I conclude that the general

__________________________________________________________________________


thrust of the design of the bridge is acceptable and recommend that it be further progressed by the suggested peer review process. Section F Summary Points I conclude as follows in relation to the options studied:

The evidence suggests that the basis of the decision to provide a bypass to the east of Slane failed to adequately consider the impacts on the World Heritage Site

The viewsheds of the main monuments were not identified as a constraint and there was inadequate consideration of the relative merits of cultural heritage constraints and the sensitivities associated with the World Heritage Site

The eastern route is not demonstrated conclusively to be preferable in terms of cultural heritage constraints

The impacts of the western route are also potentially significant and are not fully understood

The Hill of Slane would be impacted, as well as the character and setting of Slane Castle, the landscape of the demesne of Slane Castle and its economic potential

There is no significant difference between the selected route, particularly the location of the bridge, and one which was discounted in the Route Selection Report for reason of unacceptable impacts on the World Heritage Site

A lower level bridge is not considered to greatly benefit views from the World Heritage Site and could give rise to deeper cuttings

The general design parameters of the bridge are reasonable and can be subject to a peer review process during the application.

__________________________________________________________________________


5. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATION

The development would give rise to significant benefits to Slane village and its cultural heritage. The canal and a number of other cultural heritage resources are adversely affected but none of these impacts would warrant a refusal of permission. I refer here to Ledwidge Cottage, Fennor House, a pillbox, Janeville, the Mills ACA and some other features of regional or local importance. The development would give rise to direct and indirect archaeological impacts. Direct impacts relate to a known medieval site which may be multi-period and to sites of archaeological potential which are indicated by geophysical surveys and lithic scatters. It is difficult to quantify the significance of these impacts but their significance is amplified by reason of proximity to the World Heritage Site. There is further archaeological investigation which could be undertaken at this time to provide further information regarding known and potential sites. Brú na Bóinne is within the premier league of World Heritage Sites and its status as a World Heritage Site is endangered by the proposal. The loss of status would occur if the site is considered to be so seriously affected by the development as to lose its outstanding universal value, for which reasons it was designated. That process would not occur without a reactive monitoring mission which is a consultative process which would consider all aspects of the development including safety and alternatives. In terms of the UNESCO Heritage Impact Assessment criteria I consider that the development would give rise to a moderate change and therefore a large or very large adverse impact. Indirect impacts relate in particular to the setting of the main monuments in the World Heritage Site. The impact on Newgrange is not significant due to orientation of the scheme and the distance. The scheme would be clearly visible from Knowth, would constitute a modern intrusion into an apparently timeless pastoral landscape and would diminish the experience of visiting the World Heritage Site. The development would not be in keeping with the protection of the listed view at this location as its intrinsic qualities would be greatly diminished. The impact is medium to high and adverse. The scheme would greatly interrupt the integrity of the river valley, which is of outstanding quality and would disconnect the World Heritage Site from the historic landscape, which is its hinterland.

The Battle of the Boyne Site was inadequately considered and insufficient information is available.

The impact of the road would be greatly exacerbated if it facilitated follow-on development at the roundabouts. The applicant could be given an opportunity to comment on legal mechanisms such as sterilisation agreements to prevent follow-on development.

__________________________________________________________________________


I consider that it is necessary for the Board to be convinced that it is demonstrated that noise impacts will not arise. I have commented above also in relation to the need for certainty regarding the geology at Cullen Hill and this is an important matter.

I have concluded that subject to further refinement in the form of a peer review, the design and height of the bridge are acceptable. However, I consider that the fundamental matter is the location of the scheme. I consider that there is no substantial difference in the location of the bridge compared with one rejected by the applicant at route selection phase for reason of adverse consequences on the World Heritage Site. The location of the scheme and in particular the bridge is a fundamental matter. I do not agree with the applicant’s reliance on design. The fundamental matters relate to the scale of the route, the distractions caused by moving vehicles and its overtly contemporary nature which would be at odds with the apparently timeless pastoral landscape. I consider that the overall approach in the application fails to build on reasonable conclusions made at route selection stage. In the event that the Board decides to request further information the following might be considered: 1. The applicant is requested to undertake further archaeological investigation as

discussed at the oral hearing on April 1st 2011:

- Ploughzone analysis on the northern side of the river

- Studies to identify any correlation between potential features noted in the geophysical surveys and the lithics surveys

- Hand testing of any sites to determine any features which exist

- Phosphate analysis to identify any further evidence for archaeological features

- Any outstanding examination of the LIDAR survey.

2. The applicant is requested to further progress the detailed design of the bridge. Consultations with relevant prescribed bodies may be undertaken as part of this process. The applicant is advised that the general parameters of the design proposed are acceptable to the Board. The Board however considers that further information on matters of detail including any further consideration of the overall structure, finishes, railings and abutments should be supplied at this time. The applicant is also advised that a finalised design is likely to be subject of further conditions in the event that a consent is issued. That may include some sort of peer review for the final design.

3. The applicant is requested to consider and provide an opinion on any available legal

mechanisms to prevent development at the roundabouts. Two mechanisms should be considered:-

- The attachment of a planning condition precluding any use of the proposed roundabouts, other than for access for agricultural purposes

- The attachment of a planning condition requiring a legal agreement under section 47 of the Planning and Development Act 2000, as amended, providing for the regulation of development or use of land. The applicant is requested to consider

__________________________________________________________________________


the terms of any such agreement including the lands to which it would apply and whether it would be appropriate to join a prescribed authority in this agreement.

The Board is advised in relation to item 1 that this further information will not resolve the uncertainty regarding the significance of sites known as HC86 and HC87. Full excavation of those sites would be subject of licence or ministerial consent and the applicant has indicated that such permission would be unlikely to be forthcoming at pre-approval stage. If all other issues were resolved and the Board was minded to grant permission, it would be more likely that a licence or ministerial consent for further investigation of the site would be forthcoming. In relation to item 3 this matter has not been raised previously and might assist in resolution of concerns relating to future development.

__________________________________________________________________________


6. RECOMMENDATION

I recommend that permission be refused. I recommend a decision order as follows. Brú na Bóinne is set within a unique historic landscape, which is a microcosm for the history of the country and contains a number of features of national and international importance. Brú na Bóinne is of exceptional cultural heritage significance and is on a par with any of the premier cultural heritage sites on the World Heritage Site list. The outstanding universal value of the site is related to the monuments and to their setting. The protection of views from the main monuments is a core development plan objective. Having regard to

(a) The duties of the state as party to the World Heritage Convention

(b) The international importance of the monuments (c) The contribution of landscape setting to the experience of visiting the World

Heritage Site (d) The tranquil and apparently timeless nature of the pastoral landscape (e) The siting of the development within the viewshed of Knowth (f) The nature and extent of visibility of the scheme from the World Heritage

Site, particularly of views of the road and bridge from Knowth

it is considered that the proposed development, which would sever the connection between Brú na Bóinne and the historic river valley landscape in its hinterland would give rise to long-term adverse visual impacts, which would contravene the development plan and would thus be contrary to the proper planning and sustainable development of the area.

The Board considers that the protection of the landscape character and the setting of the main monuments in Brú na Bóinne depends on optimal design and location and concludes that it is not demonstrated that the route selected is the optimum route for a bypass of Slane. In this regard the Board considers that a plan-led approach is required and that building on the work of the Landscape Character Assessment, further assessment of viewsheds and the landscape qualities around Slane is required. The Board noted that there is no mechanism in place to prevent widespread removal of hedgerows between the World Heritage Site and the proposed development and considered that the visibility of the scheme could thus be greatly increased.

__________________________________________________________________________


The Board also considered that it has not been demonstrated that the proposed development would not give rise to indirect visual impacts such as development at the roundabouts. In conjunction with the extent of visual intrusion into the viewshed of the main monuments, the development would result in a major change and therefore a very large adverse impact.

The Board considers that the proposal is therefore premature pending adoption of a long-term planning policy framework to consider viewsheds and development pressures which impact on the World Heritage Site and the formulation of an agreed approach to management of development within and surrounding the World Heritage Site. The Board noted the comments of the previous reactive mission related inter alia to archaeological impacts and to the visual impact of development outside of the World Heritage Site but within the viewshed. The Board considers that in the likely event of another reactive monitoring mission the negative archaeological impact and the negative impact on the setting of the main monument at Knowth will be considered. A mission would also be likely to consider that the development is a further intrusion into the landscape of the World Heritage Site. A mission would balance these factors with the need for the development and the reasonable alternatives available. The Board considers that there is insufficient information available to demonstrate that the development of a bypass at this location is the only means of resolving the traffic problem in Slane. The Board is not satisfied therefore that the proposed development would not give rise to endangerment of the status of the World Heritage Site.

Mairead Kenny Senior Planning Inspector

20th November 2011

Documents

Application for Approval of Proposed Road Development PL17 ... · Brú na Bóinne, a megalithic cemetery situated at a bend in the river Boyne. This is a World Heritage Site, one