Madam, - Does "archaeological significance" carry a different meaning in different areas of this little island?
Is the protection of our archaeological heritage - a key commitment under the Valetta Convention and a "key goal of Government" in 1999 - now governed by a new set of criteria, arbitrarily applied?
How is it that An Bord Pleanála can overturn permission for a two-storey house in Co Roscommon because of its proximity to Rathcroghan - "one of the most important archaeological sites in the country" (The Irish Times, July 29th) - and yet give full approval for a four-lane motorway scheme (the M3) to cut through the centre of the 6,000-year-old Tara landscape, including a massive floodlit interchange to be constructed just one kilometre from the Hill of Tara itself?
How is it that the planning inspector in the Roscommon case - citing Rathcroghan's "sensitive landscape of significant archaeological value" - could consider that a two-storey house would be "seriously injurious to the amenities of the area" while his colleague in the M3/Tara case could see no harm at all - no significant impact - in a motorway ploughing through what Meath County Council's own archaeological consultants described as "one of the richest and best known archaeological landscapes in Europe"?
How is it that the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government saw the need to intervene to protect the royal complex of Rathcroghan from a two-storey house development, yet apparently sees no need to intervene to protect the landscape of the royal complex of Tara from a massive motorway development which will not only destroy the integrity of this unique landscape but will also entail the destruction of numerous archaeological monuments in its path?
The Roscommon planning inspector spoke of the "examination of alternatives that may potentially be in less sensitive locations". There are viable alternatives to routing a motorway through the Tara-Skryne valley - alternatives that would, it is argued, more realistically and efficiently address the urgent transport and commuting needs of Co Meath while respecting its unique heritage.
Prompted by increased unease and concerns in the county on heritage and transport grounds, Meath County Councillors recently called on the NRA to prepare a full briefing on the implications of the proposed M3. Is it too much to hope that the Government Departments responsible might now intervene, while there is still time, and allow consideration of a viable compromise that would be less costly to the taxpayer and to our heritage? - Yours, etc.,
JULITTA CLANCY, Meath Archaeological and Historical Society, Parsonstown, Batterstown, Co Meath.