Madam, - It is hard to believe the Minister charged with the protection of our environment and heritage believes that the genuine concerns expressed by a large number of Irish citizens and also people from outside our island are a distortion of the debate on the M3 and Tara (Opinion, May 21st).
Having read most of the letters to your paper on the matter I have to say that the majority were reasoned objections by genuinely concerned people and the only distortion that I can see is that the person who should be leading the protest against this cultural atrocity is instead rubber-stamping the process.
The Minister condemns the objectors for not putting their case sooner in the process. Why should the protection of our heritage have to depend on the action of genuinely concerned citizens when we have a Minister appointed for this function?
It is shameful that the Minister is discrediting these people rather than addressing the concerns of his citizens and answering the questions being asked, particularly by young pupils, on the reasons for this destruction of our heritage, as highlighted in the recent letter from a primary school teacher.
Mr Roche says that putting a preservation order on the sites in the Tara/Skryne valley would be an abuse of his powers. He seems to have done this to save the Viking site on the Waterford bypass without any pangs of conscience. Of course it may be just a coincidence that the National Roads Authority had already decided it was preferable to change the route of the road in that instance. Surely the Tara landscape, which is central to our Irishness, is at least as important as the Viking site.
Even at this late stage I plead with the Minister to review the situation. Let the motorway commence, but divert it out of the Tara/Skryne valley by preserving the archaeological sites. This will avoid upcoming legal arguments, when no doubt we will see some real distortion of the argument and the more radical objectors taking up the issue. - Yours, etc, MICHAEL LYNCH, Summerville Avenue, Limerick.
Madam, - Dick Roche's article in last Saturday's edition is a classic case of trying to defend the indefensible. His disingenuous attempt to portray the people who are trying to save the Tara landscape as disseminators of "misinformation, disinformation and downright distortion" is a clear indication of this.
An Bord Pleanála's oral hearing into the M3 motorway lasted for 28 days, the longest ever hearing on a road project. It lasted so long because so many people objected to the proposal. At the start of the hearing the inspector said he expected it to be completed in less than two weeks.
Mr Roche continually refers to the "planning process" as if it were sacrosanct. How, then, does he explain the fact that around the same time the motorway was approved, a golf course proposal for the same area was turned down because of the effect it would have on the Tara area.
How does he explain the fact that An Bord Pleanála has never turned down a motorway proposal? Research shows that An Bord Pleanála rarely turns down any project that has Government approval, and in cases where appointed inspectors may not approve a proposal the board has overruled them. How can An Bord Pleanála be seen as independent in light of this information?
Mr Roche also says: "It is worth recalling the facts". It is obvious he knows very little about what has happened throughout the process. I suggest he reads the Route Selection Report, produced in 2001, which assessed all of the route options.
This shows that, in terms of consultation, twice as many people who completed questionnaires favoured the route east of the Hill of Skryne and not the route through the Tara-Skryne valley.
The report also states that in terms of archaeology, built heritage, flora, fauna and habitats, landscape and visual effects, air quality and noise levels, the route east of Skryne was considered the best option.
Finally, he says that nobody challenged the decision in court. Ordinary people do not have the resources to challenge the State in these cases. It is prohibitively expensive for people to take a case to the High Court and put their homes and livelihoods at risk while, on the other hand, the State uses our money to fight against us. During the 28 days of the oral hearing, the State paid for a senior counsel, a junior counsel and a solicitor to sit there and defend the powers that be from the ordinary people. - Yours, etc,
BRENDAN MAGEE, Meath Roads Action Group, Bellinter, Co Meath.
Madam, - I was not surprised at Dick Roche's decision on the M3 motorway. When I met him a few months ago I expressed my concern at the damage a motorway through the Tara/Skyrne valley would do to the landscape and our national heritage. He answered: "Sure, we had the same trouble over the Glen of the Downs with the N11".
I immediately formed the view that this man was not suitable as Minister of the Environment. - Yours, etc,
EDMOND A KENNY, Roundwood, Co Wicklow.