KAMPSAX REPORT

[CARRICKMINES CASTLE COMPLEX AND THE M50: THE ADEQUACY OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT]

Kampsax Report: European Commission, Directorate- South Eastern Motorway, Dublin, Review of EIA…………………………………………………………….…….2

Response by NRA/Dun Laoghaire Rathdown County Council to Kampsax Report on Review of Archaeological Aspects of SEM EIA……………….30

Comments by Department of Environment, Heritage and Local Government on Review of EIA South Eastern Motorway Final Report July 2003……………………………………..…….72

1 European Commission, Directorate-General Regional Policy South Eastern Motorway, Dublin Review of EIA July 2003

Final Report

European Commission, Directorate-General Regional Policy South Eastern Motorway, Dublin Review of EIA July 2003 Report no. 1 Issue no. 1 Date of issue July, 2003

Prepared Julian Munby (Oxford Archaeology), Søren Hinge- Christensen Checked Anne Eiby Approved Raphael Zayat

Table of Contents

2 Background Carrickmines Castle has become the cause célèbre of Irish archaeology, with the proposed destruction of a major archaeological site in circumstances that leave open the question of whether the archaeological loss has been fully mitigated. In a country well-provided with fortified sites of all sizes and ages, this medieval frontier castle on the Pale surrounding the Dublin region has proved to have an archaeology and history rather more impressive than its meagre upstanding remains would have suggested. Despite several years of archaeological prospection to understand and protect the site, the true significance and extent of the site emerged too late to allow for a measured approach to preservation by avoidance or record. And yet this has happened in a country with a mature archaeological profession, a government and road authority fully aware of the needs of archaeology, and committed to proper treatment of sites in road schemes. The project had followed an apparently model trajectory with a decade of investigation and assessment prior to the final abandonment of the site. What went wrong? Carrickmines Castle is now seen to have had a well-recorded history as a frontier defence of Dublin from the 12th to the 17th century, and with buried remains as extensive and rich in finds as the standing remains are minimal. This undoubtedly gives the site a major significance on the national scale. The wider context of the archaeology of the South Eastern Motorway is a continual process of minimising the archaeological risk, so that sites are progressively identified and assessed in order that they can be avoided or the impact minimised, or that other mitigation measures can be carried out. This process starts with the archaeological assessment of route alternatives, and finishes when the last watching brief on construction is completed (and the post-excavation process commences). It began in 1992 and has not yet been completed, and clearly the process has failed in this one instance to achieve what was intended. How did this come about? The narrower issue, with which this report is concerned, is the nature and quality of the archaeological information that fed into the public process of consultation, inquiry and decision-making around the motorway project. Essentially this centres on the production of the Environmental Impact Statement [EIS], and therefore has a narrower timespan of 1992-1997. The Environmental Impact Assessment [EIA] process has clearly contributed to the eventual outcome as have subsequent events, and this report seeks to examine that contribution. Other issues concerning land ownership, rezoning of land, and the raison d'être of the unusually impressive infrastructure requirements at Carrickmines have been raised by various parties, and are being pursued elsewhere. The allegations do not seem to have a direct bearing on the archaeological response to the developing road scheme, and do not require to be addressed in detail. They are also matters that do not raise direct issues of Community law, and this study is restricted to EIA aspects that fall within the Commission's powers of inquiry. The rôle of the European Commission as promoter of environmental standards and provider of financial assistance from the Cohesion fund has given it a dual interest in the Carrickmines affair and led to the July 2002 petition to the European Parliament [Item 28]. 1 This report is a stage in the process of addressing that petition, and other associated complaints.

Requested assignment The purpose of this study is to clarify the following two questions raised by the European Commission in order to be able to fully assess the complaints and to reply the petition at the European Parliament: Can it be reasonably concluded that, in accordance with Article 5(2) of Directive 85/337/EEC, the developer supplied, in the appropriate form laid down in the Irish legislation, the data required to identify and assess the main effects which the project is likely to have on the archaeological heritage at Carrickmines, a description of the measures envisaged in order to avoid, reduce and, if possible, remedy significant adverse effects on the archaeological heritage, and a non-technical summary of this data and this description. To the extent that this is not already covered by the previous question, can it be reasonably concluded that the developer supplied in the appropriate form laid down in the Irish legislation the information specified in Annex III of Directive 85/337/EEC that was relevant and reasonable with regard to, firstly, the description of the archaeological heritage at Carrickmines likely to be significantly affected by the project, secondly, the description of the likely significant effects of the project on this archaeological heritage thirdly, the description of the forecasting methods used to assess the effects on this heritage

1 The papers provided in answer to the petition, by the Irish Government and third-parties, are numbered [1] to [39], and are listed in date order in the Appendix.

3 and, fourthly, a description of the measures envisaged to prevent, reduce and where possible offset any significant adverse effects on this heritage. The conclusions could be supported by comments and observations on any ancillary matters that appear especially pertinent to the questions to be addressed including relevant experience and precedents set by EIAs elsewhere. Points of Clarification: The above questions need to be answered by reference to Directive 85/337/EEC before its amendment by Directive 97/11/EC. The two questions reflect the obligation on the developer to provide, firstly, as an absolute minimum, the data and non-technical summary referred to in the first and third indents of Article 5(2), and, secondly, any additional information specified in Annex III in accordance with Article 5(1). The appropriate form laid down in the Irish legislation is an environmental impact statement (EIS) (Roads Act, 1993). The main relevant document is therefore the EIS published in September 1997. This document makes reference to several archaeological surveys that preceded the EIS. The above questions should be answered on two separate bases: first, on the basis that the EIS is the only document that corresponds to the appropriate form, and thus the only document that can legally inform the decision-making process in so far as developer-derived information is concerned; and, second, on the basis that, provided it does not misinterpret or misrepresent their findings, the EIS can be considered as incorporating by reference any studies or surveys that it explicitly mentions. The standard to be applied should relate to what was ascertainable by the developer at the time of compilation of the EIS, having regard to the then current state of knowledge, sources of knowledge and forecasting methods. A “hindsight” test should not be applied, i.e. the adequacy of the information provided by the developer should not be judged in terms of present day knowledge and forecasting methods. Reasons should be stated for the conclusions drawn. Where a shortcoming is identified, an indication should be given of its relative seriousness. Where a shortcoming is disclosed in relation to the description of and the identification and assessment of effects on the archaeological heritage, and it is considered by the contractor that this had the potential to influence the measures envisaged in order to avoid, reduce or remedy significant adverse effects, the contractor is requested to provide, by reference to practice in comparable cases, observations on the sort of avoidance or mitigation measures that might reasonably have been expected had a more complete description of the archaeological heritage and a more complete identification and assessment of likely impacts on it been supplied by the developer. On the basis of the documentation supplied, observations should also be provided with regard to any additional mitigation measures that have been adopted or proposed by the Irish Authorities subsequent to the original decision approving the motorway construction. The EIS represents the main document to be examined. However, a number of other documents should also be taken into account. These are listed in the attached annex. Background Considerations EIA legislation Directive 85/337/EEC came into force in Ireland on 3 July 1988. The European Communities (Environmental Impact Assessment) (Motorways) Regulations, 1988 gave effect to the Directive for motorway projects. The European Communities (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations, 1989 provided for the incorporation of the Directive into Irish law. The Local Government (Planning and Development) Regulations, 1990 which came into effect on 1 February 1990, set out the detailed requirements for EIA in respect of applications for planning permission and planning appeals and also established procedures for EIA with regard to developments by or on behalf of local authorities [cf. http://www.ncte.ie ]. Directive 85/337/EEC article 5(2) sets out the minimum requirements for information to be provided by the developer: The information to be provided by the developer in accordance with paragraph 1 shall include at least: a description of the project comprising information on the site, design and size of the project, a description of the measures envisaged in order to avoid, reduce and, if poss ible, remedy significant adverse effects, the data required to identify and assess the main effects which the project is likely to have on the environment, a non-technical summary of the information mentioned in indents 1 to 3. 3. Where they consider it necessary, Member States shall ensure that any authorities with relevant information in their possession make this information available to the developer.

4 In Annex III of the Directive a longer description is given of the data that is assumed to be relevant and reasonable to provide:

1. Description of the project, including in particular: a description of the physical characteristics of the whole project and the land-use requirements during the construction and operational phases, a description of the main characteristics of the production processes, for instance, nature and quantity of the materials used, an estimate, by type and quantity, of expected residues and emissions (water, air and soil pollution, noise, vibration, light, heat, radiation, etc.) resulting from the operation of the proposed project. 2. Where appropriate, an outline of the main alternatives studied by the developer and an indication of the main reasons for his choice, taking into account the environmental effects. 3. A description of the aspects of the environment likely to be significantly affected by the proposed project, including, in particular, population, fauna, flora, soil, water, air, climatic factors, material assets, including the architectural and archaeological heritage, landscape and the inter-relationship between the above factors. 4. A description (1) of the likely significant effects of the proposed project on the environment resulting from: the existence of the project, the use of natural resources, the emission of pollutants, the creation of nuisances and the elimination of waste; and the description by the developer of the forecasting methods used to assess the effects on the environment. 5. A description of the measures envisaged to prevent, reduce and where possible offset any significant adverse effects on the environment. 6. A non-technical summary of the information provided under the above headings. 7. An indication of any difficulties (technical deficiencies or lack of know-how) encountered by the developer in compiling the required information. (1) This description should cover the direct effects and any indirect, secondary, cumulative, short, medium and long-term, permanent and temporary, positive and negative effects of the project. With regard to motorway projects, the relevant Irish legislation is the Roads Act 1993, Sections 50 and 51. Background of archaeological legislation and practice Legislation and guidance The framework of the Irish archaeological establishment is well described in the Government's 1999 policy documents Policy and Guidelines on Archaeological Excavation, and Framework and Principles for the Protection of the Archaeological Heritage Department of Arts, Heritage, Gaeltacht and the Islands [Items 14 & 15]. The issue of a Code of Practice between the National Roads Authority and The Minister for Arts, Heritage, Gaeltacht and the Islands in 2000 [Item 22] is relevant for the post-EIS aspects of the affair in demonstrating the commitment of the National Roads Authority [NRA] to archaeological mitigation of the road-building programme. Archaeological rôles A clear understanding is required of the rôles of the various archaeological participants in public archaeology, as they are now generally understood. The Curator is concerned with safeguarding the archaeological interest, irrespective of the financial or business concerns of developers (while mindful of the legal and customary constraints of planning control, such as acting reasonably). They have a primary duty of care to the archaeological resource, and the public which enjoys it. The Consultant Archaeologist is retained by the developer to advise them on archaeological matters. They have a position as mediator between the Developer and the Curator, and as overseer of the Contractors working on sites. They have a primary duty of care to the Developer, within the bounds of professional propriety. The Contractor is retained by the Developer to carry out work by contract as directed by the Consultant Archaeologist. They have a primary duty of care to their employer, though this does not include the unprofessional treatment of archaeological remains, and they must where necessary inform the Curator of relevant matters. Archaeological terms STAGES OF ASSESSMENT: Appraisal: An initial view of the archaeological resource.

5 Assessment: A more considered view of the archaeological resource, often by means of a desk-based assessment (paper survey). Evaluation: Preliminary testing of the archaeological resource in the field by field survey and trenching. Desk-based assessment (paper survey): consideration of readily available sources; available printed maps and printed historical sources. FIELD SURVEY Walk-over: general inspection survey as preliminary investigation of ground features (e.g. ditches, walls etc). Field-walking: systematic walkover of ploughed land to recover surface finds and plot their distribution. Topographical survey: measured survey to produce contour mapping or relief image of ground features Geophysical survey: non-intrusive investigation of below-ground features by electronic methods (e.g. resistivity, ground-penetrating-radar, etc.)

EXCAVATION Test-excavation: excavation of selected array of small-scale test trenches to test for extent and character of archaeological remains (Full) excavation: large-scale trenching or area clearance of a site. Watching Brief (monitoring): observation of contractor’s works for archaeology. Archaeological mitigation (resolution) The best practice for archaeological mitigation as formalised over the last decade consists of a staged approach to resolution of archaeological impacts in a manner that both minimises damage to archaeological deposits and reduces the risk to the developer in finding unexpected significant remains. The sooner that information is made available to the developer the more can the archaeological impact be avoided or minimised by re-design. This process, if properly conducted, can both satisfy the archaeological curator in reducing needless loss or damage to the archaeological resource, and assist the developer in managing the risk to his costs and timetable. The process commences with an appraisal of the archaeology and assessment by means of a Desk- based assessment. This may be amplified by non-intrusive field survey, consisting at the least of a walk-over survey. As a result of the findings at this stage further fieldwork may be recommended, such as field-walking, geophysical survey or topographical survey. The next stage (and this may, where thought critical, need to be in the pre-planning stage) is the evaluation of buried remains through test-trenching. This typically will produce information on the character and distribution of significant deposits, and so provide a guide to what should be avoided or preserved. In practice, archaeological deposits are often regarded as being of sufficient interest only to warrant preservation by record (i.e. in the process of destruction by archaeological excavation and full record), but not to deserve preservation in situ (i.e. remaining buried and undisturbed). The latter is thought to be the best way of sustaining the archaeological resource for future study. Typical considerations in deciding between these will be the quality and rarity of the site, the extent to which the size of the site can allow for proper mitigation, and the need for the development. Thus the destruction of an entire crannog (inhabited island) site with good quality waterlogged remains would be resisted for many reasons and especially if the development was merely a private house. On the other hand the partial loss of a significant site (such as the outer parts of a castle or monastery) might be contemplated where the site was unavoidable and was required for a necessary public work (e.g. road or railway), and full mitigation by excavation were possible and would be funded. The ideal process should identify major obstacles at an early stage, but on rare occasion where highly significant material is recovered that cannot be retained in situ by being covered over, a further option of preservation by physical removal may be contemplated. For a ship or a Roman mosaic this may be a feasible and satisfactory outcome, but for masonry or earthworks it is clearly less effective since a large degree of reconstruction may be required, with some consequent loss of significance. Environmental Impact studies and archaeological fieldwork The archaeological content of an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) would normally include the earlier stages outlined above, i.e. desk-based assessment and some field survey, but not necessarily extend to include intrusive ground investigations. Typically this would be on account of the uncertainty of outcome at the pre-planning or Inquiry stage, when developers may be unwilling to commit outlay on works which may prove fruitless. In any case land may simply not be available through unwillingness of landowners to participate in a process of which they disapprove, or through uncertainty about land-acquisition or recompense for disturbance to farming activities.

6 On the other hand, where the developer is advised of the high risk to the project of uncertainty about the archaeological impact, they may be more than willing to sponsor early ground investigations to reduce the extent of uncertainty (as happens of course with the geotechnical studies required for the engineering). This has sometimes happened at the pre-Inquiry stage as witness two instances in the early 1990s: London, Blackwall Tunnel Third Bore: trial excavations on site of timber wet dock in East India Docks. Channel Tunnel Rail Link (former Mid-Kent Parkway option): trial excavations to determine extent and significance of remains of megalithic monument at Little Kits Coty. Arising from the experience of major infrastructure projects in the last decade, studies of the effectiveness of trial trenching have been developed in the last few years, and a study has recently been published on this (G. Hey and M. Lacey, Evaluation of Archaeological Decision-making Processes and Sampling Strategies (2001). This is of special value for the illustrated examples it gives of sampling practice in the 1990s for linear projects. Although the statistical validity of varied trench arrays is consequently now rather better understood, it is nonetheless the case that it has been good practice since at least the early 1990s to ensure that at the earliest opportunity test trenching takes place in areas of uncertainty and areas believed to be of low potential. Examples where trenching took place on areas of known potential and also on areas of uncertain significance include the A421 and A40 road improvement schemes in Oxfordshire. A critique of Irish archaeological practice was published for the heritage Council in 2001 (G. Lambrick and I. Doyle, Review of Archaeological Assessment and Monitoring Procedures in Ireland). This drew attention inter alia to the varied practice on urban and rural sites, different approaches to historical and topographical research, and shortcomings in the principles and methodology of trial excavations. Assessment of effects in EIS In other EIA studies the view has often been taken that significant effects can only be determined as the sum of significant impacts on significant resources: Significance of Resource + Significance of Impact = Significance of Effect. It follows that the study must determine the importance of the resources (e.g. a scale of very important to not important, or of uncertain importance), and this is of particular concern with archaeology, where some resources may be of little importance, and much may be unknown. The study must also determine the magnitude of impact (e.g. a scale ranging from highly adverse to highly beneficial). The consequent scale of effect may equally range from severe adverse to highly beneficial. This approach was, for example, used from the beginning in the Environmental Assessment of the Rail Link Project in (OAU 1991), and has in course of time become standard practice. This process of assessment is summarised in the following matrix:

Matrix for Assessment of Environmental Effects

Magnitude of Adverse Impact Adverse Impact Negligible Beneficial Beneficial Uncertain Impact (Very High to (Medium to Low) Impact Impact Impact Impact High) (Medium to (High to Very Low) High) Importance of Resource Very Important Severe/ Major Moderate/ Minor Neutral effect Minor/ Major effect Uncertain effect effect Moderate effect effect Important Major effect Moderate/ Minor Neutral effect Minor/ Major effect Uncertain effect Moderate effect effect Moderately important Major/ Moderate Moderate/ Minor Neutral effect Minor/ Moderate Uncertain effect effect Moderate effect effect effect Minor Important Moderate/ Minor Minor/ Neutral Neutral effect Neutral/ Minor Minor effect Uncertain effect effect effect effect Not important Minor/ Neutral Neutral effect Neutral effect Neutral effect Neutral effect Uncertain effect effect

7 Uncertain importance Uncertain effect Uncertain effect Neutral effect Uncertain Uncertain Uncertain effect effect effect

Archaeological reporting in the EIS The archaeological reporting of the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) often takes the form of a specialist study on Archaeology or Cultural Heritage, issued in a separate volume at the same time as the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). Where this is done the EIS would be only one of a series of public documents produced in the pre-inquiry stage. For this reason the EIS would not necessarily contain more than a summary account of the archaeological assessment, leaving the detail to the specialist study, to which a clear reference would be given. For example, at a recent public open day on road proposals for the A303 at the Stonehenge World Heritage Site the specialist archaeological report was available for public examination. The reliance that has to be placed on the EIS alone as opposed to a 'paperchase' through subsidiary documents has recently been subject to a legal ruling in the English courts (House of Lords decision on Berkeley v. Secretary of State for the Environment, and Others, 6 July 2000), where it was stressed that the EIS must be available to the public 'to ensure that the environmental impact of the project shall be included in the public debate and that the decision as to whether consent is to be given shall be adopted on an appropriate basis' [http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld199900/ldjudgmt/jd000706/berk-1.htm]

.

Narrative of events Introduction

The complexity of the Carrickmines situation requires careful consideration of the stages of information gathering for the EIS, and an assessment of the quality of this work. It is also important to understand the way in which the events at Carrickmines developed subsequently to the EIS, and for this reason a chronological account of later events is also provided here (and summarised in Appendix II). As stated at the outset, the first part is the chief concern of this report.

These archaeological studies for the EIS began with the 'Paper Survey' of 1992, and then the 'Intensive Archaeological Surveys' of 1993 and 1996, followed by the 'Additional Archaeological Assessments of 1996-97'. The EIS contained little new information beyond these reports, and they must be seen as preparatory to the Environmental Assessment - and were finally summarised in the EIS, even though they were not explicitly part of the EIS production. Pre-EIS studies (1983-1997) Studies prior to 1992 Carrickmines does not yet figure in standard accounts of Irish castles or medieval archaeology. It was shown by the Ordnance Survey on the first edition 6-inch maps, and briefly mentioned in Lewis's Topographical Dictionary of Ireland, and was of course always known to historians of County Dublin. An account of the history of the castle was published as long ago as 1901 by the Royal Society of Antiquaries of Ireland (Ball 1901), and further details of the remarkably busy history of Carrickmines from the 12th to the 17th century has just appeared (O'Byrne 2003). The castle was closely associated with the Pale surrounding the reduced English settlement of the Dublin region in the late middle ages; its route is better known, and was mapped in the standard textbook passing close by Carrickmines (Barry 1987, fig. 36). From the earliest discussion of the possible route of the motorway there was an awareness of Carrickmines Castle, and in July 1983 P. Healy of An Foras Forbartha Teoranta (The National Institute for Physical Planning and Research) produced a Report on Carrickmines Castle for [Item 33] in response to a request for information from the Dublin Planning Office. Healy drew attention to the important history of the site, and remarked on the notable earthwork features on the site in addition to the single standing remnant. Whilst his report makes a valuable contribution, its emphasis on the north and west sides of the castle complex may have contributed to later misunderstanding of the true extent of the castle. The paper survey (1992) The first appraisal report on the proposed motorway routes was produced by Valerie Keeley Ltd. [VJK], a well-established archaeological practice with much experience of the archaeology of roads.

8 Their Archaeological Survey of September 1992 [Item 1] was a 'Paper survey’ [i.e. desk-based assessment] of the land corridor of the proposed motorway, forming the archaeological input to the feasibility study. It referred to the use of files of the National Museum of Ireland [NMI] and of the Office of Public Works [OPW], cartographic and literary material, and aerial photographs. It noted the site of Carrickmines Castle in the land corridor, with a brief description and historical note, and a circle on the map marking the standing remnant of the castle. The report noted the 'rich archaeological and historical significance of the area', and observed that 7 of the 23 recorded sites lay within the land corridor, concluding that: 'All sites are of archaeological potential and should be avoided by the route'. Comment: This was an entirely adequate gazetteer entry for a Paper Survey, as far as it goes. A systematic cartographic search of readily available printed maps would have revealed that Glenamuck road, next to the Castle, was shown as 'New Road' on Taylor's 1816 map of County Dublin, and that John Rocque's 1760 map of the Dublin region shows an entirely different configuration of roads, while the Ordnance Survey [OS] first edition 6-inch map shows a number of enclosures, including a large rectangular field truncated by the new 1816 road, in which the words 'Castle, site of' are written. This information might not be expected to appear in the report, and might represent a degree of research greater than that expected in an initial 'Paper Survey', but would have been relevant in any subsequent attempt to locate the castle had further search been made at a later stage. In addition to these easily available sources, Ball's 1901 historical account would have been found on a rapid bibliographical search through published indexes. The archaeological information was incorporated into the Consultant's report of October 1992, South- Eastern Motorway Feasibility Study [Item 16], which described and compared the route options. Intensive archaeological survey (1993) Following on from the Paper Survey, the second phase consisted of field inspection by VJK to determine the nature of above-ground evidence and establish in the field the effect of the route. The report on this 'intensive archaeological survey of those areas scheduled to be affected by construction of SER Motorway Scheme' was issued in April 1993 as Archaeological Survey Environmental Impact Study [Item 2]. No further historical or cartographic investigations were mentioned, though it was remarked that estate maps could not be consulted as they were being conserved [these were manuscript, not printed material]. This report drew particular attention to the archaeological potential of Kilgobbin Castle and possible village site, and noted that the County Council had avoided 'many' of the sites. For Kilgobbin Castle it was recommended to move the route and avoid the site, and a series of archaeological mitigations were proposed if this were not possible. For Carrickmines the site was doubtless visited (and the description of the standing remains was partly altered), though it was noted that 'the field in which the remains of the castle is situated is scheduled to be removed by construction. The extent of the original castle and its associated structures is unknown.' The report recommended 'survey and possibly an investigative excavation … for the area of the route in proximity to the castle remains. This would establish if any associated material exists. Full excavation of any such material would then be required.' The map (at Fig. 2, Site 2 Carrickmines Castle) shows a notional circle of potential around the triangle marking the recorded site; about one third of this circle fell within the road limits as marked. A general series of recommendation was given for a full programme of archaeological work before and during construction. The only site-specific recommendations refer to Kilgobbin Castle. Comment: The contrast between the attention paid to Kilgobbin (two pages) as opposed to Carrickmines (one page) is, seen in retrospect, unfortunate, since although Kilgobbin had more extensive standing remains, the potential for buried archaeology on both sites might have been thought to be equivalent. In the context of a report on an 'intensive archaeological survey' dealing with only eleven sites, the opportunity might have been taken to investigate further the historical and cartographic evidence for Carrickmines Castle. Intensive archaeological survey and evaluation (1996) In 1993 the Dublin County Council Development Plan was published, showing the road (in diagrammatic form) passing south of the castle [Item 26, Fig. F]. In November 1993 a further Archaeological Report on Modified Route B and Route A [Item 3] listed, inter alia, Carrickmines Castle. The discovery of a coin hoard was made east of the castle in 1995 (across the road) and acquired by the National Museum of Ireland [Item 38/F2]. Fieldwork on the route options continued, though it was now clear that Carrickmines was affected by all routes. In February 1996 a report on the results of this 'intensive archaeological survey and evaluation' of alternative routes was given by VJK, Archaeological Assessment of Routes A,B and 5 [Item 4]. Specific reference was made to research for the Paper Survey including NMI and OPW files, aerial photographs, cartographic and literary sources, including all early OS and other maps, information on portable artefacts, journals and local histories. This had been followed by field inspection to determine

9 nature of above ground evidence and establish in the field the impact of the route. A Terrain Potential Assessment was now carried out to consider how land-use might affect archaeological deposit survival, and new aerial photography was carried out (reproduced in the report). Mapping of sites shows areas of potential, so that Carrickmines was now an area on the map, not just a circle. The report recognised three Carrickmines sites (lying to the east of Site No. 15 Pale ditch): 16 Cultivation ridges; 17 Cultivation ridges and lynchets; 18 Carrickmines Castle (sites 19 and 20, also cultivation ridges in the townland of Carrickmines Great lay further to the east). No link was made between the Pale Ditch and sites 16 to 18, but the cultivation earthworks identified in aerial photographs were seen as being associated with the castle. Site 17 (on and around the castle) ‘would therefore appear to represent a very interesting preserved medieval landscape and as such is unique within this area.’ For Site 18, there was a longer historical description of the castle, and a reference to Healy’s 1983 report on banks and fosses around the standing remains. The ‘Impact of Route’ section noted that the standing remains were not adjacent to the position marked on the OS map, and that the castle ‘would have extended over a larger area. This and the associated structure and earthworks may have covered a significant area.’ It was further noted that ‘the area of archaeological potential in relation to the sit e has extended significantly on the basis of the results of the archaeological survey’ and that, since the castle will be ‘directly affected by all routes’, ‘ the extent of the original castle and its associated structures must be established.’ The ‘Recommendations’ suggested further topographical and structural survey in site 17 and 18, to inform the need for future archaeological work (which may require full excavation). An architectural survey was called for, and the remains to be protected against damage during construction. There was a general recommendation that all sites should be avoided, and a staged programme of work (before and during construction) was proposed. A special recommendation was made for the Carrickmines Castle Complex (the site being common to all three routes) and three other sites to proceed with non-intrusive surveys in advance of route selection. Comment: The field investigation of the site, and the warnings about the possible extent of the site were admirable, and just as they should have been. Unfortunately, the apparent reliance on the previous Paper Survey and the lack of a full map regression study had led to the supposition (at least on the site mapping) that the castle was limited on the east by the Glenamuck Road. Reliance on previous searches also meant that the 1995 coins hoard did not appear in the report. The apparent lack of curiosity about the route of the Pale ditch (ending only a few hundred metres west of the castle) and its possible relation to the Castle is notable, in showing that while the 'medieval landscape' of the site itself was being addressed, it medieval landscape setting was not being fully considered. Additional archaeological assessments (1996-97) A later report in April 1996, Sites identified in EIS on the Basis of New Maps [Item 5] added no new information for Carrickmines. The same year saw the publication of the route selection report, MCO’Sullivan, South Eastern Motorway Consultants Report on Route Selection [Item 18 &19]. A major opportunity to evaluate Carrickmines Castle came in July 1996 when the Carrickmines- Shanganagh Main Drainage Scheme stripped a 25 m corridor across north side of castle site, adjacent to the stream. The Report on Archaeological Investigation (A Connolly, October 1996 - included as Appendix 1 in [Item 6]) noted the presence of mostly post-medieval features in the areas that had been observed near the castle. Following on from the results of the earlier study of aerial photographs that had revealed the interesting landscape features around Carrickmines, a topographical and geophysical study was now undertaken in Sites 17 and 18. This was reported in October 1996 by VJK, Additional Archaeological Assessment of Routes A and 5 Vol. 1 [Item 6]. Described in the Abstract as ‘the results of a series of archaeological investigations and surveys conducted at selected sites scheduled to be affected by the proposed South Eastern Motorway Route A and 5’, this report now became in effect the final archaeological specialist study prior to the Environmental Assessment. 2 The total number of identified sites on the line of the motorway now totalled less than 30 (the definition of a 'site' is not entirely straightforward, and four or five of them were associated with Carrickmines). For Site 17 the topographic survey revealed a ‘concentrated complex of earthworks which may be associated with the castle remains’, which were plotted in detail (Fig. 25). The field nearest the Glenamuck road had been ‘levelled’ and produced no results (and the survey, which omitted the farmyard, stopped at the road). The earthworks earlier noted by Healy were plotted as feature (c), and

2 Indeed, the EIS §17.2.4 states that the archaeological assessment was carried out in August- September 1996.

10 consisted of five embankments running approximately N-S at the north side of the Castle site. The report on the Geophysical Surveys by GeoQuest [Item 11] noted the existence of an intense pattern suggesting enclosures and a silted ditch in Area 1 (south of farm and west of Glenamuck Road). Apart from possible ditches in Area 4 (west of the castle), Areas 2 (further west) and Area 3 (north of castle) produced few significant anomalies. The Additional Assessment report again referred to the direct impact on the site, and recommended that ‘this significant and extensive complex will warrant excavation’. According to the EIS [Item 17, §17.2.4C] ‘investigative excavations’ were carried out at Carrickmines (Site 17) from 13th to 18th September 1996 (i.e. distinct from the investigations of the drainage scheme in August 1996). The results of these excavations do not seem to be mentioned elsewhere (e.g. in either Item 6 or Item 9). For Site 18 (the Castle) the description was much as in February 1996 (see above), while the Assessment added that access to the castle would be severed by the proposed scheme, and its setting would be affected. The Recommendations suggest that ‘an investigation be conducted within the immediate vicinity of the castle to establish if any foundations or associated features are present’, while the final landscaping details were awaited for specific suggestions. The question of future access to the surviving medieval wall and its presentation was also raised. Comment: This series of operations was an entirely appropriate step in the staged evaluation of the site, though they seem to have been limited by an unstated supposition that the Castle lay under the farmyard (first explicitly stated in the May 2000 archaeological report, [Item 9]), and limited on the east by the Glenamuck Road. There was no discussion of what the survey results might mean for the identification of the site and extent of the castle, and it must be stated again that these results should have prompted a further consideration of historical and cartographic data, especially in the context of a study that comprised less than 30 sites. Since test trenching was apparently carried out as part of this phase, it was especially unfortunate that the opportunity was not taken to test the character of deposits in Site 18, and delimit the extent of the castle. The topographical and geophysics surveys were extended westwards to include Site 16 (between Site 15 Pale Ditch and Site 17) following on from the survey of Site 17 once access to the land was allowed. A few minor earthworks were recorded, but no further features were revealed by Geophysics. This was reported in May 1997, VJK, Archaeological Assessment Topographical Survey Site 16 [Item 7], and GeoQuest for VJK, Geophysical Surveys [Item 12]. Another report of May 1997, VJK, Archaeological Assessment Additional Areas [Item 8] is not relevant to castle site. Comment: As with the previous reports, there is no discussion of the route of the Pale (Site 15) in relation to Site 16, or of its continuation towards the Castle. The road reports The report of Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown County Council on the adopted scheme was published in August 1997 in two volumes: South Eastern Motorway [Items 20 & 21]. As a result of the investigations around the castle site it was noted that: ‘the Carrickmines Interchange was re-designed so that visible remains of the castle can be retained. Furthermore, land has been designated for landscaping purposes to protect and enhance the environs of the Castle.’ (Item 21, 436) This was followed in September 1997 by the EIS: Environmental Impact Statement South Eastern Motorway [Item 17]. The Cultural Heritage content of the EIS is described below in §4.3, and comments on it occur below in Chapter 5. The Environmental Impact Statement Scope of Cultural Heritage in the EIS The EIS Chapter 17 dealt with the Cultural Heritage under two headings: (1) Buildings and Structures of Architectural, Artistic or, Historic Significance and, (2) Archaeology. The historic buildings study The buildings study [§17.1] was carried out by the County Council. It comprised an examination and assessment of all buildings (defined as (1) above) along the route in a 1-km corridor. Consideration was given to a broad range of buildings (including e.g. a railway bridge and 20th-century cottages), in addition to those buildings Listed in the Dublin County Development Plan 1993 (List 1 & List 2). An assessment was made of the impact on structure and setting (with semantic scale of Severe-Moderate- Slight for impact on setting).

Seven buildings were assessed at Carrickmines (Fig. 17c), as summarised on the table below. No assessment was provided for the farm buildings at Carrickmines, or the standing remains of the castle,

11 with only the explanation that ‘Carrickmines Castle (List 2)’ is ‘dealt with in the Archaeological section’ [p.248]. The farm buildings are not in fact mentioned there. Summary of EIS Historic Buildings Assessment at Carrickmines (§17.1) Map ref. Name Description Impact 27 Carrickmines Bridge Stone road bridge Demolition 29 Hinchoge 18th-cent house (List 2, DCDP Demolition 1993) 23-24 Riverside/Glenview e.20th-cent. County Council Severe impact on labourers cottages setting

25 Carrickmines Railway Former station buildings (List Moderate impact on Station 2, DCDP 1993) setting 26 Priorsland Fine Edwardian House Moderate impact on setting 28 Lackentoney House ?19th-cent farmhouse Moderate impact on setting

In the case of demolition, the proposed mitigation is a drawn and photographic record in advance, and during demolition (‘and this relates particularly to Hinchoge’) observation of evidence for the origins and evolution of the building. For setting impacts, screening and planting are proposed [p.251]. Archaeology in the EIS The archaeology study [§17.2] was carried out by Valerie J. Keeley Ltd. in August-September 1996. As stated above [§4.2.5], the VJK report of October 1996 Additional Archaeological Assessment of Routes A and 5 Vol. 1 [Item 6] effectively was the specialist study for the Environmental Assessment, though neither there nor in the EIS was it described as such. The chapter starts with a brief overview of the landscape setting of the route [§17.2.2], a description of the potential impact of motorways [§17.2.3], and an outline of methodology [§17.2.4]. The assessment had, as previously described, comprised a ‘paper survey, field inspection, terrain potential assessment and archaeological aerial survey’. The Terrain Potential Assessment is described and mapped [§17.2.4A, and Figs. 17f-17j], in the same manner that had been reported in the April 1996 study [Item 5]. The purpose of this was to ‘give an indication of the general archaeological potential of the landscape through which the proposed scheme will pass.’ The Additional Assessment is then described [§17.2.4B], indicating sites chosen for further investigation, and where different levels of topographical survey or geophysical survey had been undertaken (i.e. the work reported in October 1996 [Item 6]). The purpose of this work had been ‘to establish more accurately the archaeological importance and extent of these sites.’ The EIS then briefly mentions the field investigation [§17.2.4C], indicating that test trenching had taken place at Carrickmines Site 17 in September 1996, in addition to the Main Drainage investigations in August 1996. The ‘ameliorative measures’ are briefly outlined [§17.2.5], relative to all the 27 identified sites. ‘As the area under discussion is so archaeologically sensitive special care must be afforded the sites and areas of archaeological potential. The further assessment already conducted under the headings topographical, geophysical and investigations has significantly clarified the potential archaeology of the proposed route.’ Prior to construction the measures outlined consist firstly of Avoidance: ‘AVOIDANCE of all sites is the maximum possible recommendation. Where possible the engineering design has av oided all identified sites. Where this could not be done the following ameliorative measures will be carried out to mitigate the impact of the proposed route on the archaeology.’ These further measures comprise Metal Detecting Survey, Field walking for flint scatters, Investigative Excavation, and where shown necessary, Full Archaeological Excavation. During construction ‘an archaeologist will be retained with a full watching brief’. A total of 27 identified archaeological sites are then tabulated on three pages [Table 17.2.1], and indicated on a series of general maps [Figs 17k-17o], with more detailed site maps for three sites, including Carrickmines [Fig. 17q]. The sites are briefly described: 17 Cultivation Ridges and lynchets, 18 Castle (site of). The detailed map for Carrickmines Site 17 shows an area of grey tone (stopping at the Glenamuck Road), with individual points identifying discrete features (e.g. ‘linear earthworks (c)’ and ‘enclosure complex (G18)’). This for the first time united the features from the topographical survey [Item 6] with those of the geophysical survey [Item 11], but in a form that obscured their extent.

12 The impact of the route’ is shortly treated for Site 17: ‘Features (a-j) will be directly affected by the route. The impact will be substantial ’. For Site 18 there is a longer treatment: ‘The impact on the remaining structure will not be direct, however the environs of this feature to the north and south will be affected. The extent of the original castle and its associated structures is not yet established. The relationship of the castle wall to the surrounding complex will be severed. The visual aspect will be impaired due to its position at a lower level to the surrounding scheme. To be reviewed when full landscaping details available.’ The Recommendations for these two sites was for further investigation. For Site 17 the ‘significant and extensive complex will warrant excavation’. The features already identified needed to be investigated ‘to establish their nature and significance’ and related to each other and the remains of the castle. For Site 18 an investigation in the immediate vicinity of the castle was recommended ‘to establish if any foundations or associated features are present’. The identified area was to be fenced off and protected during construction. An architectural survey of the castle wall was also recommended, with protection measures during construction. The issue of avoidance was dealt with under Site 17: ‘The possibility of taking measures to alter the design of the Scheme in this area should be addressed. ’ An additional section reads: ‘Consequent on this recommendation Carrickmines Interchange was redesigned to retain the Castle remnant in as open an area as possible and to cause the minimum of disruption to the more significant areas. It is not reasonably possible to relocate the motorway elsewhere.’ Section 18 of the EIS Proposed Environmental Measures repeats the mitigation for buildings [§18.11.1] and archaeology [§18.11.2]. The archaeology section is headed by the statement: Carrickmines Interchange design has been modified so that the castle remnant can be retained in an open area and minimum disruption is caused to the more significant areas. Consultation Consultation with National Monuments Service (later Dúchas) The draft EIS had prompted a letter from the National Monuments Service in July 1997 to Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown County Council [Item 37]. It called for ‘full descriptions’ of archaeological sites to be included in the completed EIS documentation, for a fuller description of impacts, and more detail on levels of monitoring. In the case of Carrickmines castle it asked whether architectural advice from the Office of Public Works had been sought, or a record of the remains been made, and continued: ‘We would require to [see] the details of the degree of the impact of the motorway construction at this location and the proposed landscaping of the area around the upstanding remains. It seems likely that the chosen route will uncover the subsurface remains of the foundations of Carrickmines Castle. The removal of a medieval structure such as this can be a serious issue. What are the proposals for access and the protection of the remains?’ It would appear that few changes were made to the text as a result of this representation. Possibly as a result of the studies carried out on the site, the issue in 1998 of the Record of Monuments and Places showed a large area around Carrickmines, comprising the fields around the castle on the west side of the Glenamuck Road [Item 38/F11 ]. In November 1997 the National Monument Service wrote to the Minister of Environment concerning the archaeological recommendations of the EIS [Item 1 attached to Item 26]. The letter refers to “Vol. 1 of the Additional Information Report” [?presumably identical with Item 6] as being ‘more comprehensive than the EIS’, and having been used in their consultation. They agreed that ‘its recommendations should be accepted and implemented’, but made additional comments and recommendations, both with regard to the sites that required archaeological investigation, and to the general scale of archaeological operations. It was suggested that the number of monitoring archaeologists should be increased, and stressed the importance of an early start on archaeological fieldwork ‘Known sites which have been recommended for full excavation, should be excavated well in advance of works commencing, i.e. as soon as the funding is in place and before the commencement of road works, to allow for adequate research conditions and measured responses to unforeseen archaeological problems or site complexities’. Archaeological investigation (i.e. test excavation, followed by full excavation if deemed necessary) was recommended on some seven sites, including the Carrickmines complex. For Carrickmines Castle, in addition to excavation ‘followed by fencing off of remains as uncovered’, it was recommended that the architectural survey and landscaping proposals should be brought forward prior to works commencing.

13 Most importantly, a clear criticism of the overall archaeological programme was given in the penultimate paragraph:

‘Overall, we are concerned that the practice to carry out test excavations well in advance, as the best way of resolving the potential archaeology of the affected areas was not the chosen approach. While a thorough investigation/excavation programme as outlined in the EIS, if adequately funded, may be a satisfactory outcome, there is always the possibility that heretofore undiscovered sites may be uncovered which could lead to additional delays and costs and general disruption to the project.’

Finally the Minister was reminded of the need for archaeologists to apply for licences to carry out archaeological work on the motorway. Consultation with An Taisce An Taisce had approved the selected route prior to the EIS for a number of reasons, and then following a study of the EIS wrote to the Minister for the Environment in support of the route, with the following observation on Carrickmines: [Items 2 & 3 attached to Item 26]. ‘Site 18, Carrickmines Castle. An extensive area of remains of Carrickmines Castle and its curtilage probably lie within the motorway reservation which will require full archaeological investigation prior to construction. The exact location of the castle is uncertain as it was blown up 200 years before it was recorded in the first Ordnance Survey map. The surviving wall mentioned was part of an outbuilding and not part of the castle wall itself. There is also the potential of a burial site from the battle of Carrickmines. Project Approval Public Inquiry Representations made to the Public Inquiry regarding archaeology in general and Carrickmines Castle included the letters of the National Monuments Service and An Taisce described above, for which rebuttal statements were prepared by the archaeologist [Items 9 & 10 attached to Item 26]. An additional objection was received from the landowner [Item 11 attached to Item 26]. The archaeological evidence was given to the Public Inquiry by Valerie Keeley, with a brief statement outlining the earlier archaeological programme (though not referring explicitly to earlier reports), and a summary of the proposed archaeological mitigation, which was to include ‘intensive monitoring’ at Carrickmines 16-20 [Item 12 attached to Item 26]. The tone of these representations suggests that the archaeological issues were, apart from details, non-contentious at this stage, and that apart from the warning note sounded by the National Monuments Service on the excavation programme, it was believed that archaeological investigations would be conducted in a timely manner. Ministerial approval In October 1998, following Public Inquiry, ministerial approval for scheme was received. [Item 26, p.8]. Fieldwork prior to construction Lead-in to fieldwork In February 1999 the National Monuments Service (now Dúchas) conveyed to Dún Laoghaire County Council the Minister’s decision on the archaeological implications of the motorway, including the provision of an archaeological excavation licence [Item 30]. This was followed by a gap of fourteen months before archaeological trenching began on the site. Meanwhile, the archaeology of the site had been disturbed to an unknown extent by the building of the Carrickmines-Bray Gas Pipeline through the castle in September-November 1998. Archaeological monitoring failed to record any discoveries at Carrickmines, where the pipeline passed for 150 m through what was later shown to be the castle precincts, and indeed in what appears to be a careful record of some significant discoveries elsewhere on the pipeline, the castle itself is not actually mentioned [Excavations 1998, no. 125: see Item 9, §3.6, and Item 38/ F2 at §4.3]. The commitment of the Government and National Roads Authority [NRA] to archaeology at this time was reflected in the issue of two policy documents Policy and Guidelines on Archaeological Excavation, and Framework and Principles for the Protection of the Archaeological Heritage Department of Arts, Heritage, Gaeltacht and the Islands [Items 14 & 15]. At the same time the archaeological needs of the roads programme was addressed in the Code of Practice between the National Roads Authority and The Minister for Arts, Heritage, Gaeltacht and the Islands [Item 22]. This shows a responsible attitude towards the handling of archaeological sites, and it is generally recognised that the NRA has made a serious commitment in the employment of archaeologists to

14 oversee road works, expenditure of funds, and a proactive approach to implementing the Code of Practice [Item 26, §8.10.7]. Comment: The certainty that an archaeological site of unknown extent was to be encountered at Carrickmines should have led those concerned with giving archaeological advice and direction to NRA to have urged the commencement of field activity at the earliest possible moment. The time lag between February 1999 and April 2000 was thus to prove, in retrospect, rather unfortunate, in reducing the amount of time available for fieldwork prior to construction. Archaeological fieldwork at Carrickmines Evaluation trenching at Carrickmines by Dr Brady began in April 2000, as reported in VJK, Archaeological Investigations Carrickmines, May 2000 (Item 9). The trenches were mostly located outside the farmyard area, to its north and west, and none were located on the main sweep of the motorway immediately south of the farm, or in the land east of the Glenamuck Road (all of which was also in the Mooney farmland). Trench J, north of the farmyard suggested a very high potential for habitation material, and Trench C, to the north-west contained remains of the moat. Discussion (also in the light of Healy’s report) seems to assume that ‘the core of the castle complex… should lie within the existing farmyard’, with a bawn [i.e. castle enclosure] to the north (as indicated by Healy). Further work was recommended north of farmyard, with a suggestion of further investigations in the untested field to the south. Comment: The targetted nature of the April 2000 trench layout (derived from the findings of previous fieldwork), and the lack of trenching in areas of uncertainty (i.e. in the farmyard, the 200+ m length of motorway south of the farm, and east of the Glenamuck Road) set the archaeological programme on a fixed course that was to postpone the time when the true nature of the remains would be discovered. The main excavation began in August 2000 under Dr Clinton and continued for two years. It is not appropriate to comment here on the involved story of these excavations, and the controversial circumstances in which they were concluded in 2002/3 [see Item 39], or of the difficult relations between Dúchas and the National Museum, with the latter expressing serious misgivings about the proper recovery of finds [Items 29 & 31, 38]. After a final phase of excavation in December 2002 to January 2003, by hand and machine, it was believed that ‘all currently accessible areas to be affected by the motorway scheme will have been archaeologically resolved’ [Items 26, §1.6.11]. No matter what the methods employed, the results of the excavation were spectacular and far exceeded any expectations of what might survive at Carrickmines. The surprising fact was that substantial and significant parts of the castle were found to lie east of the Glenamuck Road, and south-east of the farmyard, where advance prospection had never taken place. A geophysical survey was however conducted on the east side of the Glenamuck Road in 2001, following excavation of incomplete features on the west of the road, revealed ‘convincing evidence for numerous soil-filled ditches’, in addition to trackways and enclosures. This was reported in July 2001, GeoQuest for VJK, Geophysical Survey of an Area at Carrickmines [Item 13] A drawn survey and description of the farm buildings was also made, including the remnant piece of medieval walling, though the report made no attempt to date or assess the standing remains. This was reported in March 2001, VJK, Architectural Survey [Item 10] Comment: No detailed information has been provided on the full extent of the excavations, or of the current state of understanding about what parts of the castle had been uncovered, or to what extent the full area of destruction had been properly mitigated by the end of fieldwork [compare plans in Item 26, map Q and Item 38/F14]. After the fieldwork The results of the excavation aroused much interest and concern about the treatment of the remains in the motorway construction programme. In July 2002 a proposal for moving the road was made by An Taisce to Minister, while at the same time Party A initiated a complaint to the European Commission [Item 28 ]. The response of the NRA to An Taisce was made in August, Preservation of Archaeology at Carrickmines Report on Proposals Made by An Taisce [Item 23]. Excavation ceased in August 2002, and almost immediately the site was occupied by the protest group of 'Carrickminders' [Item 39], resulting in litigation which has since continued. On 16 September the Minister issued a decision of new mitigation measures for the preservation of a larger area at Carrickmines mitigation [Item 5 attached to Item 26] = [Item 38/F12], and in the same month proposals were made to the minister and to An Bord Pleanala for an alternative route [Item 38/F14]. The mitigation measures introduced a substantial element of additional preservation by means of tilting and raising the Glenamuck Road roundabout, and included: retention of 50 m of fosse [wall/ditch] below the roundabout public viewing point

15 possible archaeological heritage park reconstruction of dismantled section of fosse retention in situ of two medieval features retention of 18th-century farmhouse commission of conservation plan for castle arrangements for finds retrieval for areas not yet investigated preservation of trees on site restricted use of heavy machinery publication of the results of the excavations. [Item 5 attached to Item 26]

A debate took place in the Dail on 9 October 2002 [Item 32], a nd on 26 October a group of concerned academic historians held the Carrickmines Castle Forum at Trinity College Dublin to increase public awareness of the significance of the site [Item 38/F13]. In the same month the European Commission advised Ireland’s Permanent Representative of Complaint P2002/4957 [Item 24]. The Irish government responded in January and February 2003 [Item 25, 26 & 27]. Other representations to the Commission were made by individuals and organisations [Items 34 - 39].

Review of developer information The main document for the EIA of the South Eastern Motorway (SEM) is the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) published in September 1997. This document is the only document that can legally inform the decision-making process in so far as developer-derived information is concerned. Hence this chapter evaluates how the EIS complies with the Directive 85/337/EEC, and a general evaluation is made of the EIS as the only document. In this way no assessments of validity of the findings have been made, but the method chosen for interpretation and presentation of the findings has been evaluated. Furthermore, the assessed impacts on the cultural heritage around Carrickmines Castle have been evaluated based on the EIS, an evaluation of the methods, implementation of the underlying surveys and the interpretation and presentation of those findings in the EIS document. EIS in general This chapter has some global considerations of whether the EIS in general complies with the legal requirements of Directive 85/337/EEC, in order to assess the effects of the road scheme on the archaeological heritage. The examination relates the EIS to what reasonably could be expected from an EIS for a road scheme worked out in 1997. The Cultural Heritage is dealt with separately below (§5.2). General quality of the data presentation It is important that the data is represented in a way that makes it obvious for the reader to understand the considerations that lie behind the choice of route and mitigation measures. In this respect the maps have an important rôle, and in this case each environmental item is supported by maps of scale approx. 1:13,000. The base map used for this is a black and white technical map. In order to assess the reasons for the selection of the chosen alignment at Carrickmines Castle it would have been convenient to have contour lines for the whole area mapped at least on one of these maps, as illustrated for example in Vejdirektoratet, 1998b. In the case of Carrickmines Castle, where the landscape topography is one of the main reasons for choosing this alignment, it is impossible for the reader to envisage that it actually is the only possible alignment without support from the contour-lines being shown. This shortcoming could raise the question of whether the developer actually supplied the necessary data required to identify and assess the main effects on the environment as required by Article 5(2) of Directive 85/337/EEC. Mitigations and alternatives In general the text part of the EIS contains a good description of how the new SEM impacts the environment, direct and indirect. But in relation to mitigation measures we find it quite confusing, in that mitigation measures are incorporated into the project for some of the issues, while with other environmental items the mitigation measures are only proposed as options. The reason for the differential treatment is unclear. For instance is it remarkable how the Leopardstown Racecourse and Carrickmines Castle are treated differently. At Leopardstown Racecourse a tunnel-, viaduct- and surface solution has been carefully investigated before choosing the surface option due to economic considerations. In this case the ameliorative measures are incorporated in the scheme.

16 At Carrickmines it is stated that only one line is possible. This is done without addressing any attention to solutions other than the surface option. It may be so that tunnel- or viaduct solutions are technically impossible or too expensive, but having in mind that passing Carrickmines is problematic both in regards to archaeology and the aquatic environment, we find that this issue should have been addressed in far more detail. In this case the ameliorative measures are incorporated in the scheme with regard to archaeological impacts, but the mitigation measures remain as proposals in regard of the aquatic environment and fauna. By showing how the process of selecting an alternative could be done appropriately in case of the Leopardstown Racecourse, we find it hard to understand why the developer did not apply same diligence in the case of Carrickmines Castle. The different alternative schemes for the route between the South Cross Route Motorway and the N11 are discussed in chapter 5 of the EIS. It is stated that due to the landscape topography and the location of housing developments the route was forced to pass through Carrickmines Castle. Hence the route was separated in a northern and a southern part. Three different alternatives were suggested for the northern part and six alternatives for the southern part. In general the chosen method for consideration of alternatives appears good. Though some critical points arise: By choosing only one alternative for extensive analysis limits the geographical extent of the EIA. In that way it is harder to imagine consequences for alternative suggestions. When one location is chosen as fixed for different alternatives the design of the scheme at the fixed site should be applied. The narrow survey corridor implies that areas close to the alignment had not been surveyed and makes it difficult to imagine the consequences for other alternatives. Having in mind that Carrickmines Castle already was known as a potential valuable area for cultural heritage and was at the same time the intersection point for valuable water courses, we find that every effort for designing the scheme with minimal impacts on the environment should have been made. If the topography and housing developments sets very narrow limits for the alignment of the motorway, the EIS should address more attention to the design of the intersection in order to mitigate the impacts on the environment. In the feasibility study for the road scheme, (1992) the Carrickmines interchange consisted of two roundabouts and the motorway was sited more southerly; subsequently this became four roundabouts and associated link roads, on a more northerly alignment (Consultants Report, 1997). While part of this related to new land-zoning and requirements for land access, the final route alignment was partly made on the basis of recommendations in VJK's additional 'Archaeological Assessment Report for the South Eastern Motorway' dated October 1996. Non-technical summary The EIS contains a nine page non-technical summary with five maps showing the road scheme on a black and white base map at an approximate scale of 1:13,000. Even though the language is non- technical, it is difficult for a lay member of the public to comprehend where conflicts and environmental vulnerable areas are located and how the scheme tries to mitigate the adverse effects. It is assessed that the non-technical summary has the following shortcomings: Maps with investigated alternatives Maps showing areas of conflicts Figures in general. It can be questioned whether the summary comprehends all the issues that would be expected. Local knowledge is required in order to locate the information because of the lack of maps and figures. With regard to the archaeology the non-technical summary does not in any way mention the significance of conflict between the archaeology and the Carrickmines interchange even though the EIS actually recommends that the design of the scheme should be reconsidered because of the potential of the area. This is a serious shortcoming. Cultural Heritage Scope Scope of ‘Cultural Heritage’ in EIS [§4.4.2 above] The EIS deals with cultural heritage under the two headings: Buildings and structures of architectural, artistic or historic significance Archaeology Cultural Heritage has never been fully defined for the purposes of Environmental Impact, and perhaps intentionally so, in order that music, cultural tradition, folk-life etc. might be considered where necessary. In practice the simple division into Architecture and Archaeology was (and is) not uncommon, but best practice would have included historic landscape, or at least have provided some explanation of why the two headings were chosen.

17 Data to assess effects on historic landscape in EIS The cultural/historical landscape was not mentioned by word in the Directive 85/337, but it has the following wording in Annex III (3) that can only be interpreted as the cultural/historical landscape: 'A description of the aspects of the environment likely to be significantly affected by the proposed project, including, in particular, population, fauna, flora, soil, water, air, climatic factors, material assets, including the architectural and archaeological heritage, landscape and the inter-relationship between the above factors.' The cultural and historical landscape was an issue that was addressed in many studies and was a matter of concern in Europe, while historic landscape studies were not new in Ireland in 1996. While the landscape was to an extent included under Archaeology, it was not expressly addressed as a topic. There was, of course a 'Landscape' section, but that as usual dealt with visual aspects of the landscape. The lack of a landscape investigation (with mapping of historic townlands, land use, village centres, churches, castles, etc.) deprived this study of a full landscape context. The admirable Terrain Potential Assessment only provided this indirectly, and was more concerned with general archaeological potential. Proper consideration of the castle sites in relation to the Pale and the wider medieval landscape would have highlighted the special situation of Carrickmines, and allowed a more rounded description of the resource. An understanding of the historic landscape at Carrickmines was a material consideration for identifying the effects, and to the extent that it was not separately assessed (although generally considered in relation to surviving remains), this data was not presented by the developer in the EIS. Buildings and structures [§4.4.3 above] Data to assess effects on historic buildings (Q.1a) The building study would appear to be an entirely appropriate investigation of all possible historic structures along the route, whether or not listed as historic buildings. The significance of the buildings is not actually assessed, except inasmuch as their presence on the list of sites being considered implies they have reached a certain level of worth. An assessment is however provided of the impacts on setting, with a semantic scale of Slight-Moderate-Severe. The omission of the farm at Carrickmines, while understandable since they were to be considered with the archaeology, is unfortunate. The farm buildings should have been thoroughly assessed, especially given the potential for the buildings to contain medieval fabric, in addition to the known fragment of walling. No such assessment was provided in the archaeological section, and the building study was not undertaken until much later, being reported in March 2001 (see below). Description of measures to remedy adverse effects on historic buildings (Q.1b) The suggested mitigation measures are exactly the kind of remedies that should be expected, apart from the omission of the Carrickmines farm. Further considerations with regard to second question 1) Description of heritage: The buildings are properly described. 2) Description of effects: The effects are properly assessed. 3) Description of forecasting methods: These are self-evident. 4) Description of measures to offset: As above §5.3.2. Further considerations with regard to non-EIS documentation The documentation within the EIS seems to be adequate for its purpose, and no other documentation has been submitted. Archaeology [§4.4.4 above] Data to assess effects on archaeology (Q.1a The Methodology (§17.2.4) does not go beyond describing the methodology for identifying and investigating sites. There is no discussion of the process of assessing the significance of the identified sites, of assessing the severity of impacts, or of assessing the degree of uncertainty. The reference in the Directive to ‘Significant Effects’ can be taken as a simple threshold where everything described or discussed in the EIS is Significant, and that was presumably the thinking that lay behind the Archaeology section. Thus the EIS had more the character of being a summary of the long series of archaeological reports rather than being an assessment.

The EIS did contain ‘a description of the likely significant effects’ by listing the 27 archaeological sites with short descriptions of the impact, but did not provide any assessment indicating that some of those effects might be rather more severely adverse than others. It did not begin to consider the implications of the uncertainty over the location Carrickmines Castle that was admitted to be the case, and the fact that in the worst-case scenario the effect could be very severe indeed.

18 Although the significant sites were presented, it is questionable whether the data was sufficient properly to assess the effects. This is particularly so in regard to three areas of landscape context, historical context, and site mapping. The absence of an historic landscape study has been described above (§5.2.2).

The lack of any further historical study for the EIS yet again perpetuated the errors of interpretation arising from failure to appreciate the history of road changes and the relatively modern date (1816) of the imagined eastern site boundary on the Glenamuck Road. In this respect the description of the resource was inadequate in failing to relate the historical significance of the site. The lack of a full description and the outline nature of the mapping for Carrickmines (Sites 17 & 18) meant that the EIS did not draw attention to the true character and extent of the discoveries that had been made in the valuable series of investigations that had been made on the site. The overall documentation seems to suggest that there was always an assumption on what and where the castle was, but this was only later described and was never mapped. In all these respects the data in the EIS, while technically present in some form, had shortcomings that in the event rendered it insufficient to describe fully the effects. Description of measures to remedy adverse effects on archaeology (Q.1b) Inasmuch as all the archaeological work since 1992 could be seen as an ongoing programme of investigation and mitigation, the process was well understood and well described in the ‘Recommendations’ section of the Archaeology chapter (Table 17.2.1). The measures were indeed described, but the question remains of whether they were adequate. The failure to be explicit about the apparent assumption that the castle equated with the farmyard meant that no serious consideration was given to the possible full extent of the castle. The October 1996 report lying behind the EIS still warned of the possible great extent of the castle, but this advice seemed to be ignored by the archaeologists themselves. The entirely appropriate series of operations conducted on the land north and west of the farm seemed to block out any consideration of the possibility that land east and south of the farm might have potential, and should also be subject to the same investigations. Thus the ‘levelled field’ south of the farm [Item 6, Fig 25] was actually known in 1996 to have a very extensive pattern of geophysical anomalies [Item 11, Fig 13], but appeared in the EIS as two small spots of equal size [Item 17, Fig 17q ‘field levelled’ and ‘enclosure complex (G18)’]. A reading of the impacts and recommendations for the other 26 sites would suggest that Carrickmines presented the one largest area of uncertainty on the route, and the highest archaeological risk. As indicated in the July 1997 letter from Dúchas in commenting on the draft EIS, the removal of the castle remains ‘can be a serious issue’ [Item 37]. While the Recommendations suggested avoidance, and further excavation, and indeed achieved a re-design of the junction (of uncertain extent), the actual degree of uncertainty should have prompted a high degree of alarm in September 1997 about possibility that the castle was as extensive as their earlier warning had suggested. The lack of any serious consideration of the possibility that the site was more extensive meant that contingency planning was not addressed. The remedy for this lay outside the EIS, in the securing at the earliest opportunity of the most extensive possible series of evaluation trenches all around the castle. The consultation letter from the National Monuments Service in November 1997 raised a general concern about the need for archaeological field work well in advance, but did not actually stress this aspect for the site of the Castle. The EIS may have encouraged a sense of relaxation about the problem, but it did include the words it should have done to suggest otherwise.

In all these respects the measures were described in the EIS, but not in such a way as to ensure that they would be carried out successfully. Further considerations with regard to second question 1) Description of heritage: The archaeological sites are only summarily described in the EIS. 2) Description of effects: The effects are not fully assessed, inasmuch as the significance of the sites is not discussed, and thus the effects cannot be properly described. 3) Description of forecasting methods: The lack of a clear or explicit methodology has serious implications for forecasting. A consequence of this was that the lack of attention paid to the uncertainty factor meant that contingent effects were not considered. 4) Description of measures to offset: As above §5.4.2. Further considerations with regard to non-EIS documentation The twenty-seven archaeological sites are very briefly described in a Table in the EIS, but they are more fully described in the documentation lying behind the EIS. When the EIS is read in the context of the series of background archaeological studies some of its shortcomings disappear. The earlier reports

19 (Items 6 & 11) had more information but were still deficient in explaining assumptions or making a clear prediction. They contain more description and illustration, and the relative importance of the sites becomes more clear (at least to an archaeologically trained reader). Nonetheless some problems remain: It required more than one volume to understand the site at Carrickmines: both the main report [Item 6] and geophysical reports [Item 11]. A final set of site maps showing all known features was not provided at Carrickmines, where the additional material of enclosures south-east and walls north-east of the farm were only included on outline mapping, and not added to the very clear maps provided in Item 6) It remains the case that, for a site that was potentially one of the most difficult in a list of 27 sites, and after five years' study, the fundamental historical and topographical study of the castle had not been undertaken, and the question of where the castle actually was had not explicitly been addressed. A risk-reduction approach to the archaeology of the project had not been taken, and even if the castle site had been half the size it eventually proved to be there could have been a substantial archaeological problem. The studies that lay behind the EIS were not referred to as being part of it (and were not, for example, referred to in the archaeological evidence at the Public Inquiry). They were in any case a series of separate studies produced at different times, and were not summarised into one specialist report to accompany the EIS, as was often the practice elsewhere at that time. But even if they had been part of the EIS as presented, they still did not contain an adequate description assessment or discussion of the history, character or extent of the remains at Carrickmines. In this respect the description of the resource was inadequate.

Conclusions Findings The EIS in general For most of the topics discussed in the EIS the developer has supplied the appropriate information that can be expected. But on some points of vital importance in regard to assessing the effects on Carrickmines Castle shortcomings in the EIS have been found. Descriptive maps in order to assess possible alternatives for road alignment. Differential treatment of mitigation measures for different topics. No description of the historical landscape. Defective non-technical summary. With regard to understanding why the situation at Carrickmines has developed the way it has, we find the defective non-technical summary is the most significant shortcoming for the EIS in general, since it is the basis on which the public will react. Underestimations or omissions of the impacts, and the lack of thematic maps are confusing for an understanding of the overall impact the road scheme has on the environment. With regard to archaeology the EIS had many of the right words but not enough information (eg maps) to demonstrate how much was known and how much remained uncertain. The latest discoveries were only included on outline mapping, and not added to the very clear form of mapping provided earlier in Item 6. Had the castle site been as small as may have been imagined in 1997 these shortcomings would not have proved so serious. But given that the EIS made it clear that the site might be larger, it failed to give the evidence to judge to what extent that might be the case, or to explain or quantify the effects (i.e. consequences) were it to prove so. Thus the reader would not have had a clear view of the significance of the effects. The EIS compliance with minimum requirements An assessments of whether the EIS complies with the requirements set as an absolute minimum by Article 5(2) in Directive 85/337/EEC is given in the following table: Table 6-1 Assessments of whether the EIS complies with the requirements set as an absolute minimum by Article 5(2) in Directive 85/337/EEC. Topic Adequately Comments included in EIS a required to identify and assess the main effects Partly - Insufficient mapping and description of ch the project is likely to have on the archaeology haeological heritage at Carrickmines - Insufficient historical study Moderate significance

20 escription of the measures envisaged in order to Partly - Lack of quantification of the impacts d, reduce and, if possible, remedy significant - Disregard for worst-case scenario. erse effects on the archaeological heritage Moderate significance on-technical summary No - Insufficient mapping - Omissions or underestimations of adverse effects on archaeological heritage High significance

The EIS compliance with Annex III requirements An assessments of whether the EIS supplies the information relevant and reasonable to comply with the requirements set in Annex III of Directive 85/337/EEC is given in the following table. Table 6-2 Assessments of whether the EIS supplies the information relevant and reasonable to comply with the requirements set in Annex III of Directive 85/337/EEC. Topic Adequately Comments included in EIS description of the archaeological heritage at Partly - Historical landscape not addressed rickmines likely to be significant affected by the - Archaeology not fully described ect - History not fully addressed Moderate to high significance description of the likely significant effects of the Partly - Effects not fully assessed by disregarding ect on this archaeological heritage. significance of sites Moderate to high significance description of the forecasting methods used to Barely - No explicit methodology; extent of ss the effects on this heritage. uncertainty not assessed Moderate to high significance escription of the measures envisaged to prevent, Partly - L ack of quantification of the impacts uce and where possible offset any significant - Disregard for worst-case scenario. erse effects on this heritage Moderate significance

An overview of the archaeological input to the EA process The failings of the archaeological process must be seen in the context of a properly planned and staged approach to the identification and mitigation of the archaeological impacts that was undertaken for the South Eastern Motorway scheme. All the fieldwork conducted at Carrickmines prior to the EIS was exactly what should have been done (i.e. field investigation, topographical and geophysical survey). Had the castle site proved to be small (and many of the hundreds of Irish castles are indeed quite small) the archaeology of the site would probably have been dealt with in a timely matter without provoking any controversy. A number of errors were made that proved to have serious consequences. Firstly the site was not afforded a full historical and topographical study which might have suggested both its serious historical interest (the latest study has emphasised its key rôle as a frontier castle on the south of Dublin), and its uncertain extent. A standard map regression study would have injected an important area of uncertainty about the imagined eastern boundary of the castle, by removing the Glenamuck Road and perhaps drawing attention to the large enclosure that had been crossed by the Glenamuck Road (and which proved to be the outline of the southern part of the castle). The necessary sources for these studies were readily available. Second, had the EIS been a more substantial document then one might have expected the study to address the significance of the sites and to quantify the impacts. It did not technically fail on the minimum requirements at this point, but other EIA studies at the time certainly did this. A proper assessment of the significance of the effect would probably have brought Carrickmines to the top of the list of 27 sites as the major environmental impact of the motorway for the cultural heritage (the review letter from Dúchas [Item 37] was pointing this way in referring to loss at Carrickmines as a 'serious issue'). Thirdly, both the earlier report of Healy, and their own findings in the fields north and west of the farmyard led to the unspoken assumption that (i) the farmyard represented the castle, and (ii) the main areas of archaeological interest lay to the north and west of the farm. These were to a degree reasonable professional judgements in the light of the information they had sought (especially in the lack of a fuller map study), but they should also have been doubted in the light of professional judgement. As stated on a number of occasions, and mostly recently in the EIS: 'the extent of the original castle and its associated structures is not yet established'. The archaeological programme

21 both before and after the EIS was designed around the assumption of the site being smaller, in disregard of the stated caveat that was there for all to read. Fourthly, the uncertainty that was consequential on this statement was not fully addressed by the EIS. An important aspect of environmental prediction is an explicit attitude towards uncertainty. Although this has not always been an aspect of archaeological reporting (but was, for example used in the Channel Tunnel Rail Link studies from the late 1980s), the understanding of degrees of uncertainty is clearly a key aspect of managing the archaeological risk to a project. A risk assessment approach to the archaeology of the motorway would again have brought Carrickmines into the forefront, and the site might have been treated differently by the NRA in seeking alternatives to an expensive and potentially destructive excavation. Judgement on these failings is difficult, but clearly these errors and failings proved, with hindsight, to have been the beginning of a chain of consequences that led to the serious archaeological situation. They represented lapses of best archaeological practice, although were perhaps not so uncommon in Ireland at the time (see Lambrick and Doyle 2001). They were not of themselves so serious as to invalidate the whole EIA process, since the consequences were not inevitable. Observations Inflexibility of road design Given the known preference of road engineers for maximising infrastructure provision (built to the highest standards for the greatest foreseeable use) it must be assumed for the purposes of this report that the expanding land-take for the Carrickmines Junction has a wholly innocent explanation. The more important question is why the new large roundabout on the castle site became (for the engineers) such an immoveable component as the archaeological consequences began to become apparent, and a redesign was only entertained at the latest stage. The post-EIS archaeological programme It has been suggested the EIS was only the first link in the chain of consequences leading towards the final Carrickmines situation. The early stages of archaeological fieldwork had been partly on the right course, if biased towards the north and west of the site. If the high potential of the site and the degree of uncertainty had been properly understood then the delay in starting fieldwork (i.e. the lack of field activity between the road decision in October 1998 and commencement in April 2000) can in retrospect be seen as careless. The decision to commence trenching on areas of known interest and not immediately to reduce the amount of uncertainty by trenching in other areas (especially along the main line of the motorway) is understandable in the light of what has previously been said, but was lacking in foresight in postponing the discovery of the site's true potential. The lack of a consistent and robust curatorial support for the archaeology of Carrickmines Castle is one of the more unfortunate aspects of the entire affair. The dispute between the National Museum and Dúchas: the Heritage Service about their clear statutory responsibilities to preserve the buried heritage of Ireland was not helpful, and fell short of what might be expected [see §4.6.2 above]. To the extent that parts of this admittedly important site may not to have been properly mitigated prior to destruction, the curatorial system has been shown to less than fully effective, especially where the impression was given that one curator (Dúchas) was more concerned about the road construction programme than its archaeology. The unwillingness of the NRA to mitigate to a significant degree by avoidance or reduction can only have been based on a misunderstanding of the risk they were running. How they were able to balance to need for the large additional roundabout with major archaeological consequences, and how the advice of their archaeologist and that of Duchas encouraged them to believe that the risk could be eliminated are questions that cannot be answered here. In the event the final additional mitigation by re-design is probably as much as can be hoped for, but it may be felt that the reasons offered for rejecting the earlier An Taisce proposals [Item 23] are not entirely convincing. Had the true scale of the impact been understood sooner it must be the case that a better engineering solution could have been designed. The overall view The environmental study was flawed but addressed the archaeological issue with a strong message on the need for redesign. As it happened the mitigation efforts to preserve the setting of the standing features were trivial compared with the clear need (early stated by the archaeologist) to minimise the impact on buried archaeology. Once the route option and junction design were fixed the matter became one of risk reduction (in general, the very proper consideration of risk to the Leopardstown racecourse seems to have been given more prominence in the Consultants report than the cultural heritage). We have not been given the details of this process, but it must be assumed that there was an ongoing concern about how the archaeology of Carrickmines was to be handled, and that advice was sought and

22 offered on what was best to be done. Clearly the timing of ministerial approval and land-acquisition may have been of key importance. In the event the archaeological programme was targetted on areas that were properly recognised as having potential, but were, as it turned out, of much lower potential than other areas which were ignored. By the time the true significance of the southern and eastern parts of the site were recognised it was too late effectively to mitigate the very substantial remains to the best archaeological standards (i.e. by hand excavation rather than the use of machinery to remove archaeological deposits). Judgements are easily made with hindsight when the extent of buried remains become known. But even if the castle had been half its size, or exactly where it was thought to be, the measures taken to acquire a more certain understanding of it were inadequate, and the mitigation process was flawed. In terms of the EIS the outcome might not have been different even if the archaeological data had been presented in more detail. But with fuller and more explicit information in the public domain it could certainly have alerted concerns at Public Inquiry stage, and might have alerted the archaeological curators to the scale of the problem. As matters stand, short of reopening the entire approval process for the Carrickmines Interchange for the purposes of a new design, there is little that can be done except for the greatest possible degree of preservation within the existing road limits. The lessons of the case match with the findings of the Heritage Council report on archaeological work (Lambrick and Doyle 2001), and must now be made clear to archaeologists working on such projects. Uncertainties This report has been based on the abundant materials supplied, but there remain a few points of information that would assist in obtaining a better understanding of the full circumstances. It is still not clear what maps and historical sources for Carrickmines Castle were examined prior to 1997, or at what stage an historian was consulted. It is not clear what were the circumstances that led to the delay in commencement of site work until 2000, or what background information and assumptions informed the trench layout in April 2000. The greatest uncertainty still remains about what is now thought to be the full extent of the castle in terms of buildings, defences, ditches, and outer enclosures, and of the extent to which the archaeology of those parts of the castle that will be removed for road construction have been fully mitigated by controlled excavation.

Appendix I: References http://www.ncte.ie. Homepage for The National Centre for Technology in Education, Ireland. EIA documents for road schemes done under Directive 85/337/EEC Vejdirektoratet. 1994. Omfartsvej ved Næstved. VVM redegørelse - sammenfattende rapport. Vejdirektoratet, København. The Danish Road Directorate. 1995. By-pass at Næstved. EIS - Summary. The Danish Road Directorate, Copenhagen. Vejdirektoratet. 1995. Rute 18 - Brande omfartsvej. VVM-redegørelse - sammenfattende rapport og Miljøvurdering. Vejdirektoratet, København. The Danish Road Directorate. 1995. Route 18 - Brande By-pass. EIS - Summary and Environmental Assessment. The Danish Road Directorate, Copenhagen Vejdirektoratet. 1997a. Rute 9 Odense - Svendborg. Undersøgelse af landskab, natur og kulturhistorie - Fase 1 rapport. Vejdirektoratet, København. The Danish Road Directorate. 1997. Route 9 Odense - Svendborg. Survey of landscape, nature and cultural heritage - Phase 1 report. The Danish Road Directorate, Copenhagen. Vejdirektoratet. 1997b. Rute 9 Odense - Svendborg. Undersøgelse af landskab, natur og kulturhistorie - Bilag 4: Lokalitetsskemaer. Vejdirektoratet, København. The Danish Road Directorate. 1997. Route 9 Odense - Svendborg. Survey of landscape, nature and cultural heritage - Annexe 4: Site survey tables. The Danish Road Directorate, Copenhagen. Vejdirektoratet. 1998a. Rute 9 Odense - Svendborg. VVM redegørelse - sammenfattende rapport. Vejdirektoratet, København. The Danish Road Directorate. 1998. Route 9 Odense - Svendborg. EIS - Summary. The Danish Road Directorate, Copenhagen. Vejdirektoratet. 1998b Rute 9 Odense - Svendborg. Miljøvurdering. Vejdirektoratet, København. The Danish Road Directorate. 1998. Route 9 Odense - Svendborg. Environmental Assessment. The Danish Road Directorate, Copenhagen.

Archaeological and historical studies referred to in the report

F.E. Ball, 'The Castle of Carrickmines and its History', PRSAI, XXXI [5th series, vol. XI] (1901), 195- 203. T. Barry, Archaeology of Medieval Ireland (1987).

23 G. Hey and M. Lacey, Evaluation of Archaeological Decision-making Processes and Sampling Strategies (Oxford Archaeology for Kent County Council, 2001). G. Lambrick and I. Doyle, Review of Archaeological Assessment and Monitoring Procedures in Ireland (Heritage Council 2001) Emmett O'Byrne, 'A much disputed land: Carrickmines and the Dublin Marches', in Sean Duffy (ed.) Medieval Dublin IV (2003), 229-252. Oxford Archaeological Unit for British Railways Board, Rail Link Project Eastern Section Environmental Assessment Specialist Study of Historic and Cultural Impacts (Draft Final Report, May 1991)

Appendix II: Documents Outlining the Sequence of Events

1983 July P. Healy of An Foras Forbartha Teoranta, Report on Carrickmines Castle [Item 33] for Dublin Planning Office. Described history of site and the extent of earthwork remains.

1992 September V.J. Keeley Ltd Archaeological Survey [Item 1] Paper survey [i.e. desktop study] of land corridor of proposed motorway, forming the archaeological input to the feasibility study..

1992 October South-eastern Motorway Feasibility Study [Item 16] A description and comparison of route options, incorporating the findings of the archaeological survey.

1993 April VJK, Archaeological Survey 'Environmental Impact Study' [Item 2] Report on results of 'intensive archaeological survey of those areas scheduled to be affected by construction of SER Motorway Scheme'.

1993 November VJK Archaeological Report on Modified Route B and Route A [Item 3] Lists, inter alia, Carrickmines Castle.

1993 Dublin CC Development Plan shows the road passing south of the castle [Item 26, Fig. F]

1995 Coin hoard found to east of road and reported to National Museum [Item 38/F2].

1996 February VJK Archaeological Assessment of Routes A,B and 5 [Item 4] Report on results of 'intensive archaeological survey and evaluation' of alternative routes. Three Carrickmines sites were recognised: 16 Cultivation ridges; 17 Cultivation ridges and lynchets; 18 Carrickmines Castle. The cultivation earthworks identified in aerial photographs were seen as being associated with the castle. Further topographical and structural survey in site 17 and 18 was recommended.

1996 April VJK Sites identified in EIS on the Basis of New Maps [Item 5] For Carrickmines, text as Item 4.

1996[?] MCO’Sullivan, South Eastern Motorway Consultants Report on Route Selection [Item 18 &19]

1996 July/Aug. Carrickmines-Shanganagh Main Drainage Scheme stripped 25 m corridor across north side of castle site, adjacent to the stream. Report on Archaeological Investigation by A Connolly of October 1999 included as Appendix 1 in [Item 6], and noted the presence of mostly post-medieval features.

24 1996 October VJK Additional Archaeological Assessment of Routes A and 5 Vol. 1 [Item 6] This reports on additional assessments by Topographical Survey (Sites 17 & 18) and Geophysical Survey (Sites 17& 18), and report on Main Drainage Scheme (see above) Extensive earthworks in Site 17 were reported, and the Geophysical Surveys revealed patterns of enclosures and ditches. It was noted that ‘this significant and extensive complex will warrant excavation’.

1997 May VJK Archaeological Assessment Topographical Survey Site 16 [Item 7]. A topographic survey of Site 16 (between Site 15 Pale Ditch and Site 17) was conducted in April 1996. A few minor earthworks were recorded, but no further features were revealed by Geophysics.

1997 May GeoQuest for VJK Geophysical Surveys [Item 12]. A geophysical study of Site 16 [=Area 5] revealed no archaeological features (as reported above).

1997 May VJK Archaeological Assessment Additional Areas [Item 8]. Not relevant to castle site.

1997 July Letter of National Monuments Service to Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown County Council in re Draft EIS for motorway [Item 37]

1997 August Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown County Council, South Eastern Motorway Report on Adopted Scheme [Items 20 & 21]

1997 September Environmental Impact Statement South Eastern Motorway [Item 17]

1997 November Letter of National Monuments Service (Dept. of Arts, Culture & Gealtacht) to Minister of Environment concerning archaeological recommendations of EIS [Item 1 attached to Item 26]; also submitted to Public Inquiry, with note of rebuttal [Item 9 attached to Item 26].

1997 November Letter of An Taisce to Minister of Environment in support of rout A, and concerning archaeological recommendations of EIS [Item 3 attached to Item 26]; also submitted to Public Inquiry, with note of rebuttal [Item 10 attached to Item 26].

1997 The European (Valetta) Convention on the Protection of the Archaeological Heritage (January 1992: European Treaty Series 143) ratified by government of Ireland.

1998 ‘Record of Monuments and Places’ issued by Dúchas for Dublin and surrounds, include s large area of mapping for Carrickmines Castle [Item 38/F11]

1998 July Dún Laoghaire Rathdown CC Development Plan omits Castle monument from map [Item 26 Fig. N]

1998 October Ministerial approval for road scheme, following public Inquiry [Item 23]

1998 Sept/Nov Carrickmines-Bray Gas Pipeline. Archaeological monitoring did not record any discoveries at Carrickmines, where the pipeline passed through 150 m of the castle. [Excavations 1998, no. 125] (See Item 9, §3.6)

1999 February Dúchas to Dún Laoghaire County Council conveying the Minister’s decision on the archaeological implications of the motorway [Item 30]

25 1999 Issue of Government policy documents Policy and Guidelines on Archaeological Excavation, and Framework and Principles for the Protection of the Archaeological Heritage Department of Arts, heritage, Gaeltacht and the Islands [Items 14 & 15]

2000 Issue of Code of Practice between the National Roads Authority and The Minister for Arts, Heritage, Gaeltacht and the Islands [Item 22]

2000 April/May Trenching at Carrickmines by Dr Brady, reported in VJK Archaeological Investigations Carrickmines, May 2000 (Item 9).

2000 August Main series of excavations begun by Dr Clinton [Item 39]

2001 March VJK Architectural Survey [Item 10] Survey and description of farm buildings, including castle remnant.

2001 July GeoQuest for VJK Geophysical Survey of an Area at Carrickmines [Item 13] Geophysics on the east side of the Glenamuck Road, following excavation of incomplete features on the west of the road, revealed ‘convincing evidence for numerous soil- filled ditches’, in addition to trackways and enclosures.

2002 May 9 Letter of NMI to Dúchas the Heritage Service supporting extension of time for excavation [Item 38, exhibit F1]

2002 May Letter of Kelly, NMI to Fadden, Dúchas regarding likelihood of excavations not being completed [Item 38/F3]

2002 May 20 Letter of Duffy, Dúchas to O’Connor advising of 30 August finish of excavations [Item 38/F4]

2002 May 23 Draft minute of Dúchas/NMI meeting (with emendation in NMI email of 6 June) [Item 38/F5a, 5b]

2002 July An Taisce proposals to National Roads Authority [Item 23]

2002 July Complaint of A to European Commission [Item 28]

2002 August NRA, Preservation of Archaeology at Carrickmines Report on Proposals Made by An Taisce [Item 23]

2002 Aug. 9 Dr Clinton’s interim report on progress [Item 38/F17]

2002 Aug. 30 Main phase of excavation work at Carrickmines ceases. Site occupied by 'Carrickminders' [Item 39]

2002 Sept. 3 Minutes of NMI meeting with Dúchas (NMI version sent 16 October) [Item 29] = [Item 38/F6]

2002 Sept. 6 Letter of Kelly, NMI to Sweetman, Dúchas, [Item 38/F2]

2002 Sept. 10 Letter of Mr De Rossa MEP to European Commission, [Item 35]

2002 Sept. 16 NMI internal memo regarding EIS [Item 31] = [Item 38/F7]

26 2002 Sept. 16 Ministerial decision on new mitigation [Item 5 attached to Item 26] = [Item 38/F12]; with Press Release [Item 13 attached to Item 26]

2002 Sept. 27 Proposals made to An Bord Pleanala for an alternative route, following earlier proposals to the Minister [Item 38/F14]

2002 Oct. 1 European Commission advises Ireland’s Permanent Representative of Complaint P2002/4957 [Item 24]

2002 Oct. 9 Dail debate of 9 October [Item 32]

2002 Oct. 10 European Commission response to complaint A [Item 38/F9]

2002 Oct 16 Letter of Dúchas to NRA welcoming the proposed modifications to the Carrickmines Interchange [Item 6 attached to Item 26]

2002 Oct. 26 Carrickmines Castle Forum held at Trinity College Dublin [Item 38/F13]

2002 December Submission of B to Flood Tribunal [Item 38, with 17 exhibits numbered F1 to F17]

2002 December Final phase of archaeological work on site [Item 26, p.9] to January 2003

2003 January Response to Complaint P2002/4957 [Item 26]

2003 February Response of Ireland’s Environment Attaché to European Commission [Item 25] = [26] without attachments.

2003 February Letter of complaint C to European Commission [Item 34]

2003 February Further response of Ireland to European Commission [Item 27]

2003 February Letter of Mr De Rossa MEP to European Commission with judgement of Irish Supreme Court [Item 36] and copy of 1997 letter from Dúchas [Item 37]

2003 June Letter of D to European Commission [‘Item 39’]

List of abbreviations An Foras National Institute For Physical Planning and Construction Research Forbartha An Taisce The National Trust for Ireland DCDP Dublin County Development Plan Dúchas The Heritage Service, Ireland EA Environmental Assessment EC European Community EEC European Economic Community EIA Environmental Impact Assessment EIS Environmental Impact Statement NMI National Museum of Ireland NRA National Road Authority OPW Office of Public Works OS Ordnance Survey SEM South Eastern Motorway SER South Eastern Route VJK Valerie J. Keeley Limited

27 28 Annex A

Response by NRA/Dun Laoghaire Rathdown CountyCouncil to Kampsax Report on Review of Archaeological Aspects of SEM EIA

SECTION 1 - BACKGROUND & INTRODUCTION

Scheme Description The South Eastern Motorway (SEM) is the final part of the M50 C-Ring Motorway around Dublin. It forms part of Euro Route E01, which extends from Rosslare via Dublin and Belfast to Larne along the east coast of Ireland. The South Eastern Motorway scheme extends from the end of the M50 Southern Cross Route Motorway at Ballinteer to the M11 Shankill/Bray By-Pass at Shankill and includes the construction of 10km of dual two-lane motorway, four motorway interchanges, 16 bridges and 2 underpasses. The South Eastern Motorway will form a strategic element of the national road network providing a safe high-speed link between the M11 and the other national primary radial routes around Dublin. The contract for the construction of the motorway was signed in October 2001 and provides for a three- year construction period. While the legal situation in relation to Carrickmines has restricted the contractors access to the site, work on the motorway either side of the site is progressing well.

Route Selection Following extensive studies the options for alternative routes for the SEM were restricted to the gap between the extensive housing developments on the southern fringe of Dublin and the Dublin Mountains. The available gap was particularly restricted at Carrickmines because of the housing at Brighton, Brennanstown and Glenamuck Roads to the north and the housing and steeply rising ground to the south. As a result, all possible route options passed through this location with three variations to the west of Carrickmines in the Ballinteer direction and six variations to the east, towards Shankill.

Motorway Design at Carrickmines The preservation of the remaining upstanding element of Carrickmines Castle (in an island area of 1.5 acres which will not be impacted by the motorway) was achieved by the road designers with the introduction of two back-to-back curves in order to create an undisturbed area, around the Castle remains, between the motorway and the link road north of the motorway.

If the layout were set without consideration of the location of the Carrickmines Castle then the layout might well have been the simple dumbbell shape, not unlike the 1992 model, rather than the “relatively complex design” which was developed specifically to minimise impacts on Carrickmines Castle and which subsequently received

29 statutory approval. Under a dumbbell design the two roundabouts might have been accommodated on the line of the existing Glenamuck Road joined by a bridge over the motorway. The four slip roads might lead directly from the roundabouts onto the motorway. The effect of this might be to move the motorway further northward in order to avoid housing, thereby causing the motorway to run directly through the reputed site of the castle. There would be no space between the slip road in the north western quarter (i.e. the off ramp for southbound traffic on the motorway) and the motorway. The location of the northern roundabout would not have been much different to the current location of the Glenamuck North Roundabout. The combined effect of this would have been to obliterate all archaeology north of the Glenamuck Road housing cluster and south of the Ballyogan Stream at Ballyogan Road.

Other considerations affecting the design of the road and, as a consequence, the extent of land which would be required for construction of the scheme included the water level of the Ballyogan stream and the levels of the existing local road network and how this would integrate with the motorway.

Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) The EIS for the preferred route for the SEM identified Carrickmines Castle as an important archaeological feature, drawing from all information available at the time, and recommended the investigation of the Castle environs. The approach provided for in the EIS, i.e. preservation in situ of the remaining upstanding element of Carrickmines Castle and investigation of the Castle environs to resolve any newly discovered archaeological features by excavation and recording, accorded with best professional practice and the hierarchy of methodologies to be employed in dealing with archaeology. This approach envisaged resolution of some sites by preservation and some by excavation and recording and was endorsed by Dúchas which recommended that the strategy of the EIS should be accepted and implemented.

The route proposed for the road and the environmental implications involved were the subject of a public inquiry and subsequent approval by the Minister for the Environment and Local Government in 1998.

Post-EIS Work Following initial archaeological investigations carried out on the site of Carrickmines Castle between 3 April and 19 May, 2000, by the archaeological consultant, Dun Laoghaire-Rathdown County Council arranged for full archaeological excavations to commence on 28 August, 2000. These have been carried out in accordance with methodologies approved by Dúchas. An archaeological licence was issued under the National Monuments Acts by Dúchas following consultation with the National Museum of Ireland. As the excavations progressed, the full extent of the work necessary for the complete archaeological excavation and resolution of the area and recording to Dúchas requirements gradually became clear. While this had implications for the time and cost of the road project, the National Roads Authority immediately agreed to the excavation of the areas concerned having regard to their potential archaeological significance. The original estimate by the consulting archaeologist and the licensed site director for the completion of the excavations was 10 months (to the end of May, 2001). However, in May, 2001, the period was

30 extended by a further twelve months. The revised completion date of the end of August, 2002, involving a further extension of 3 months for excavation, was agreed in May, 2002, by Dúchas, in its role as Statutory Archaeological body of the State, following consultation with the National Museum of Ireland and extensive discussions with the archaeological consultancy and licensed site director responsible for the on-site excavations and the National Roads Authority’s Project Archaeologist.

This phase of excavation work at Carrickmines ceased on 30 August, 2002, after a period of more than two years. Up to 200 archaeologists were involved on the South Eastern Motorway at any one time, including, as many as 130 on the Carrickmines site. Close contact was maintained at all stages during the process of the excavations between the National Roads Authority, the County Council and Dúchas to ensure that best practice was observed in relation to the archaeology uncovered. It is understood that decisions made by Dúchas in relation to the issuing of archaeological licences were taken following consultation with the National Museum of Ireland.

At the end of August, 2002, the archaeological Site Director informed the archaeological consultancy and Dúchas that the site had been fully resolved in accordance with the licence conditions. However, a subsequent review of the situation by Dúchas and the National Roads Authority’s Project Archaeologist concluded that the site had not been fully resolved. In the circumstances, the National Roads Authority’s Project Archaeologist determined that further resolution was required and a strategy in this regard was approved by Dúchas.

The final phase of archaeological resolution on the site of Carrickmines Castle entailed further archaeological hand excavation and a finds retrieval strategy involving the use of mini-diggers to excavate the archaeological deposits of the defensive ditches. In early December, 2002, there were up to 60 archaeologists employed on this phase of work on the site. Commencement of the work concerned was delayed due to the presence of protestors on site. The excavations were completed in January, 2003, by which time all accessible areas to be affected by the motorway scheme had been archaeologically resolved either by preservation by record or preservation in situ. Further archaeological excavation will be carried out once limited areas become available which are not currently accessible, e.g. under the existing Glenamuck Road.

Access to some areas of the site have not yet been gained, i.e. under the existing Glenamuck Road, the areas under the tennis court to rear of the house south of the farmyard, the area under scrub adjacent to tennis court to the south of the farmyard. These areas will be fully archaeologically resolved prior to the commencement of construction in accordance with the conditions of the joint consent given under section 14 of the National Monuments Act, 1930, as amended (see Appendix A). This aspect is dealt with below.

The extensive post-excavation phase of the first part of the archaeological programme commenced in September, 2002. This process may take up to two years.

The results of the excavations at Carrickmines, carried out at a total estimated cost in excess of €6 million, have significantly enhanced the national archaeological record, the understanding of the history and changing settlement patterns of south county

31 Dublin and the knowledge of medieval and post-medieval frontier castle life in the area.

Subsequent to the statutory approval process and the decision of the Minister for the Environment and Local Government to approve the Motorway Scheme (October, 1998) no representations in relation to the Carrickmines site and the motorway were made to the National Roads Authority or Dun Laoghaire-Rathdown County Council until 29 July, 2002, one month before the initial phase of archaeological excavations were scheduled to end. At that stage, the process of excavation and recording in advance of construction of the motorway had been underway for two years in accordance with the provisions of the approved Environmental Impact Statement and methodologies authorised by Dúchas. The strategy being pursued in relation to the archaeology was well known during the period, as were the nature of the finds at the site. The submission from An Taisce (29 July, 2002) sought changes to the motorway and associated ancillary roads, the main objectives of which were to conserve the archaeological features at the Carrickmines Castle site intact insofar as possible. Specific objectives indicated concerned the preservation of:

the medieval wall under the roundabout;
the fosse (i.e. part of the Castle’s outer defences), and
the 18th century farmhouse.

The NRA and the County Council gave careful consideration to An Taisce’s submission and identified alternative measures to achieve most of the preservation objectives while respecting the terms of the October, 1998 statutory approval. Further details in this regard are set out later in this document.

Legal Challenge In September, 2002, demonstrators occupied part of the South Eastern Motorway site at Carrickmines, in protest at the handling of archaeological issues at the site. The main archaeological excavations at the Carrickmines site were completed on 26 January, 2003. Plans to remove a section of fosse (defensive structure) on 27 January, in order to facilitate commencement of road construction works at the Carrickmines site, were obstructed by the demonstrators.

Dun Laoghaire-Rathdown County Council sought an injunction restraining further interference with works at the Carrickmines site. This was granted by the High Court on 3 February, 2003 against two named individuals and any other individuals with knowledge of the Order.

Subsequently, Dun Laoghaire-Rathdown County Council was notified by solicitors that it was intended to seek an injunction against the Council restraining it from carrying out any further work at Carrickmines. In the circumstances, the Council suspended works at the Carrickmines site. The matter came before the High Court on 10 February, 2003 and was adjourned until 12 February, 2003 at which time the Court refused to grant an injunction against the Council. The matter was appealed to the Supreme Court and was heard on 21 February, 2003. The Supreme Court judgment delivered on 24 February, 2003, granted an interlocutory injunction restraining the

32 Council from carrying on works at Carrickmines until such time as the substantive legal matters were resolved concerning the status of the site under National Monuments legislation, the adequacy of licences issued under section 26 of the 1930 Act/possible requirement for a joint consent under section 14 of that Act as amended. The judgement left it open for Dun Laoghaire Rathdown County Council to return to the High Court to seek to have the injunction lifted.

One of the arguments raised by the objectors was that the Carrickmines site is a national monument and, therefore, any works at the site require the joint consent of the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government and the County Council in accordance with section 14 of the National Monuments Act, 1930, as amended. Notwithstanding its earlier position in relation to the status of the Carrickmines site, the Council made an application to the Minister on 17 April, 2003 to join with it in issuing such a consent.

On 4 July, 2003, the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government and Dun Laoghaire Rathdown County Council issued a joint consent for works at the site of Carrickmines. The Minister approved the joint consent by Order, which was laid before both Houses of the Oireachtas in accordance with the provisions of the 1930 Act, as amended.

Section 14 Consent In granting his approval to the joint consent, the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government sought to balance the need to ensure the preservation to the greatest extent possible of the archaeology at Carrickmines with the public interest in achieving the early completion of the strategically important M50 C-Ring (see below for details of joint consent). In considering the matter, the Minister had regard to the extent of archaeological work carried out at Carrickmines to date, the contribution that this has made to the archaeological record, the contribution to be made by the SEM in realising the transport policy objectives for the Greater Dublin Area, the Dublin Transportation Office’s Platform for Change, 2000-2016 and the National Development Plan, 2000-2006, as well as the important role of the scheme in terms of improving safety, economic and local environmental conditions in the South Dublin area. It should be noted that, before consent was granted, a public consultation process was undertaken. Of the 23 submissions received, 17 were for the granting of consent and 6 against.

Archaeological Policy and Practice in Ireland

Archaeological practice in Ireland is regulated by the 1930 National Monument Act and subsequent amending legislation. In 1997 Ireland ratified the Council of Europe European Convention on the Protection of the Archaeological Heritage (the ‘Valetta’ Convention). In 1999 the Irish Government published Policy and Guidelines on Archaeological Excavation and Framework and Principals for the Protection of the Archaeological Heritage. In 2000 a Code of Practice was agreed between the

33 National Roads Authority and the Minister for Arts, Heritage, Gaeltacht and the Islands in relation to archaeology and the national roads improvement programme.

There are 120,000 recorded monuments in Ireland (Records of Monuments and Places) and as yet many more undiscovered. There is no provision for rating of archaeological monuments in either Irish legislation or policy documents. The nature of archaeological sites and monuments are such that substantial sub-surface remains may exist associated with some sites and not with others. It is only through testing of archaeological sites and their subsequent excavation that their full extent and possible significance can be determined. It is important that the desk-based assessment of any site is comprehensive and that the State agencies, the developer and consultant archaeologist work in a spirit of cooperation to ensure that all available information is shared at the earliest stage possible of the development and planning process so as to inform decisions taking account of possible implications for archaeology.

In the mid to late 1990s when the EIS was being prepared for the SEM, it was and is still considered best archaeological practice to conduct a detailed paper survey comprising cartographic references to the Sites and Monuments Record/Record of Monuments and Places, National Museum of Ireland topographical files and historical sources (journals, published works, ordnance survey letters, etc.) and maps (early ordnance survey editions, estate maps, etc.) that may exist. It was and continues to be common practice to conduct a walkover survey to identify sites and monuments within the land take of the proposed development. In specific cases of archaeological potential it would also have been best practice to conduct topographical surveys. During this period it was rare for geophysics and archaeological test trenching to be carried out in the course of an EIS. The Notice of Entry to the land involved in any road development can only be served after the Compulsory Purchase Order (CPO) or Motorway Scheme (MS) is approved and consequently access to lands for the purpose of archaeological testing can be denied by the individual landowner prior to CPO/MS approval.

Code of Practice

The principal objective of the Code of Practice concluded between the National Roads Authority and the Department of Arts, Heritage, Gaeltacht and the Islands (now Department of Environment, Heritage and Local Government) is the establishment of a coherent and consistent approach to the management of the archaeological aspects of national road schemes informed by agreed principles and commitments concerning the appointment of Project Archaeologists and the development of further guidelines and practices in relation to archaeology.

Since the inception of the Code of Practice in 2000, a more standardised and extensive approach to archaeological mitigation has been adopted by the National Roads Authority. It is now normal practice to carry out extensive geophysical work on major road schemes to identify potential archaeological sites and areas of archaeological potential. However, this is dependant on gaining access to lands which are still in private ownership at this stage. Once the CPO/MS has been approved, it also now standard practice to use extensive invasive techniques to better establish the presence, nature and extent of archaeological sites along the line of the proposed road.

34 This facilitates agreement with the Department of Environment, Heritage and Local Government on appropriate mitigation. This also ensures that sufficient time and resources can be employed to carry out the agreed archaeological mitigation in advance of construction of the approved road scheme.

Through the Code of Practice, the National Roads Authority has been proactive in employing archaeologists within the Authority and is also funding the positions of 19 Project Archaeologists and Assistant Archaeologists in 10 National Road Regional Design Offices nationwide. The Project Archaeologist’s brief is wide and varied. It encompasses the archaeological implications of every phase of road scheme development including, the earliest phase of planning, the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA)/ Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) phases, post-EIS phase, construction phase, and post-construction phase.

The primary function of the NRA’s archaeologist is to formulate a coherent and consistent approach to archaeology in relation to all national road scheme proposals and to develop policy and strategy in relation to the archaeological aspects on national road schemes. In relation to the planning stages of road development, such as Constraint Study, Route Selection and EIS, advice notes in relation to archaeology are currently being prepared by the National Roads Authority entailing a consultative process with relevant members of the Irish archaeological profession. It is anticipated that these advice notes will be completed in early 2004. The NRA has also organised a number of seminars in relation to archaeology and the national roads programme (see enclosed published monograph) and is actively promoting a publication policy to ensure that the general public can access information on the archaeology uncovered on the Authority’s schemes.

It is noted that the Kampsax report acknowledges the commitment of the NRA and the proactive approach it has adopted to archaeology in the implementation of the National Roads Programme and that the “responsible attitude towards the handling of archaeological sites” is reflected in initiatives such as the employment of archaeologists and agreement on a Code of Practice with the Minister for Arts, Heritage, Gaeltacht and the Islands. It is further noted that the Irish Government’s commitment to archaeology is reflected in the issue of two policy documents Policy and Guidelines on Archaeological Excavation and Framework and Principals for the Protection of the Archaeological Heritage.

Archaeological roles

Section 3.2.2 of the Kampsax report refers to archaeological roles as they are understood in Britain or some other countries. However, the situation described is not necessarily the case in Ireland. The report refers to the term Curator as being “concerned with safeguarding the archaeological interest.” The term Curator is not one used in Ireland in this context. The National Monuments Section of the Department of Environment, Heritage and Local Government (formerly Dúchas) is the primary State archaeological body with functions involving survey, licensing of archaeological excavations and maintaining the Record of Monuments and Places.

35 The National Museum of Ireland has a primary duty of care to archaeological artefacts and is also a consultee in the licensing process.

In Ireland, Consultant Archaeologists are retained by the developer to advise on archaeological matters. They liase with the developer and the Department of Environment, Heritage and Local Government and act as an employer and overseer of the contractors working on sites. They are bound to respect and uphold the best values of the profession. Subject to this, they have a duty of care to their client, the developer.

The Contractor is retained by the Consultant Archaeologist to carry out work by contract as directed and is bound to respect and uphold the best values of the profession and, subject to this, has a primary duty of care to the employer. The Contractor may, where necessary inform the Department of Environment, Heritage and Local Government and/or the National Museum of relevant routine matters but it is a requirement that they inform the Consultant Archaeologist, their employer, of any such contacts.

36 SECTION 2 – THE KAMPSAX REPORT - CONCLUSIONS

CONCLUSIONS OF THE KAMPSAX REPORT

The conclusions of the Kampsax Report (Ref. 6.1.1) are as follows:

“For most of the topics discussed in the EIS the developer has supplied the appropriate information that can be expected. But on some points of vital importance in regard to assessing the effects on Carrickmines Castle shortcomings in the EIS have been found.” These are as follows:

1. Descriptive maps in order to assess possible alternatives for road alignment. 2. Differential treatment of mitigation measures for different topics. 3. No description of the historical landscape. 4. Defective non-technical summary.”

“With regard to understanding why the situation at Carrickmines has developed the way it has, we find the defective non-technical summary is the most significant shortcoming for the EIS in general, since it is the basis on which the public will react. Underestimations or omissions of the impacts, and the lack of thematic maps are confusing for an understanding of the overall impact the road scheme has on the environment.” (Ref. 6.1.1 Kampsax Report).

The Kampsax report goes on to state that the errors were not of themselves so serious as to invalidate the whole EIA process since the consequences were not inevitable. It is proposed to look at the foregoing conclusions and alleged errors and address each in turn.

Comments on the conclusions of Kampsax Report

1. Descriptive maps in order to assess possible alternatives for road alignment.

“In this respect the maps have an important role, and in this case each environmental item is supported by maps of scale approx. 1:13,000. The base map used for this is a black and white technical map. In order to assess the reasons for the selection of the chosen alignment at Carrickmines Castle it would have been convenient to have contour lines for the whole area mapped at least on one of these maps, as illustrated for example in Vejdirektoratet, 1998b. In the case of Carrickmines Castle, where the landscape topography is one of the main reasons for choosing this alignment, it is impossible for the reader to envisage that it actually is the only possible alignment without support from the contour-lines being shown.” (Ref. 5.1.1.)

The Kampsax report views are expressed on the quality of presentation of maps in so far as these maps support the route selection of the South Eastern Motorway “at Carrickmines Castle”. The author notes that contour lines are not shown on the maps included in the EIS and therefore the reader is not presented with a mechanism to endorse the route selection which directed the motorway to the corridor at

37 Carrickmines. Notwithstanding the fact that the EIS was done on the route already selected (route selection was confirmed by County Council Vote in March 1997) the Environmental Impact Statement in clause 5.1 (EIS page 63) records the conditions which restricted the possible route corridor at Carrickmines “where the space between the housing developments off Brighton, Glenamuck and Brennanstown Roads on the north and the steeply rising ground to the south provide a corridor just sufficiently wide to enable the motorway be constructed with minimum loss of dwelling houses”. Furthermore the EIS in clause 3.10 (m) and (n) (EIS page 46) identifies geometric measures to mitigate the more significant adverse effects of the chosen motorway alignments. Clearly this is a more accessible explanation for a reader with no technical expertise than a series of contoured maps.

For anyone who might have had a greater interest in the choice of route for the road and the constraints of existing developments and topography, the County Council provided a public display of the proposed South Eastern Motorway Scheme for some months between the publication of the EIS and the public inquiry in January 1998.

This display was in the public atrium of the County Hall adjoining where the public inquiry took place and could be viewed by anyone attending the inquiry. In addition to the formal motorway order documentation on display, scale representation of the full scheme at 1/1000 was shown in the three formats, a scale model of the full 11km of motorway, a series of rectified photographs and the technical maps which also showed longitudinal section of the proposed roads.

Elsewhere the author of the Kampsax report argues in regard to the interpretation of the archaeological context of the EIS that “the EIS can be considered as incorporating by reference any studies or survey that it explicitly mentions” (Ref. Section 2 point d). By similar argument the report (identified by Kampsax as Items 20 & 21) prepared by Engineering Consultant M.C.O’Sullivan dated August, 1997, which was one of the specialist report on which the EIS is based was available to be consulted by anyone who approached the Planning Department of the County Council. During the period from September, 1997, to January, 1998, anyone who sought access to the specialist reports was facilitated and copies were made as appropriate for interested parties. In this regard, the Engineering report contained the contoured data indicating the rising ground which the Kampsax company see as so important (MCOS report Fig 3.3 pg 24).

It is considered therefore, that the maps and other material available including the scale model were more than adequate to assess possible alternatives for the road alignment.

2. Differential treatment of mitigation measures for different topics.

The Kampsax report raises concerns that for some features mitigation measures are incorporated into the project while for other environmental items the mitigation measures are only proposed as options. The report seeks to illustrate this point through a comparison of the respective treatments of Leopardstown Racecourse and Carrickmines. However, the report goes on to acknowledge that mitigation measures

38 for Carrickmines, as with Leopardstown, are in fact incorporated into the scheme – “In this case the ameliorative measures are incorporated in the scheme with regard to archaeological impacts, but the mitigation measures remain as proposals in regard of the aquatic environment and fauna” (Ref. 5.1.2).

The Kampsax report goes on to takes issue with the different levels of treatment of Carrickmines relative to Leopardstown Racecourse. In the case of Leopardstown Racecourse the scheme had a severe impact with the Sprint track of the racecourse to be severed as stated in the EIS. In addition, a total restructuring of the golf course was proposed because of the extent of impact. In the event the sprint track has been eliminated and compensation paid to the owners.

In relation to the Carrickmines site, the EIS proposed the preservation of what was thought to be the site of the castle in the undisturbed island area by changing the alignment of the motorway and introducing “the unusually impressive infrastructure requirements at Carrickmines” (Ref. section 1). Further archaeological investigation was proposed where it was established that there might exist potential of further archaeology. In the event the supposed site of the castle has been preserved but the further investigations have yielded extensive earthworks and other features beyond the 1.5 acre designated island. It is clear that this further investigation has been fruitful in enhancing the knowledge of frontier life in Medieval Dublin.

3. No description of the historical landscape

The authors of the Kampsax report state that, “the cultural/historical landscape was not mentioned by word in the Directive 85/337, but it has the following wording in Annex III (3) that can only be interpreted as the cultural/historical landscape” (Ref. 5.2.2):

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

The term historical landscape does not appear in the Directive and the report’s compilers view is open to interpretation. The Irish authorities would have difficulties in accepting the interpretation put forward.

While the EIS for the South Eastern Motorway dealt with the surrounding environment of Carrickmines Castle, including the Pale Ditch, and carried out a terrain potential assessment, the concept of Historic Landscape as now understood was only being developed in the mid to late 1990s in Britain. In Ireland in 1999 a conference held on Policies and Priorities for Ireland’s Landscape introduced a working definition of the term “Archaeological Landscape”. This conference recognised that the basis for any management strategy on archaeological landscapes had to be the compilation of inventory data at a national, regional and local level. The

39 conference also identified that in 1999 there was no system or methodology for the management of archaeological landscapes in Ireland.

In Britain in the 1990’s the concept of Historic Landscape Characterisation was being developed and projects were in place to establish a holistic view of the Historic Landscape. However, it was identified by the Historic Landscape Characterisation programme run by English Heritage that a broad-brush approach needed to be taken and that English historic counties should be chosen as a suitable working scale. Implicit in the suggested approach is that an appropriate framework to address Historic Landscape Characterisation should be developed at a higher level rather than seek to be addressed in the context of individual development proposals. It was also identified that investigation into historic landscapes at a local scale lacked context, pattern and structure.

The Kampsax report notes that, “the lack of a landscape investigation (with mapping of historic townlands, land use, village centres, churches, castles, etc.) deprived this study of a full landscape context. The admirable Terrain Potential Assessment only provided this indirectly, and was more concerned with general archaeological potential. Proper consideration of the castle sites in relation to the Pale and the wider medieval landscape would have highlighted the special situation of Carrickmines, and allowed a more rounded description of the resource”(Ref. 5.2.2).

It was with the express purpose of discovering any associated features that Aerial Archaeological, Topographical and Geophysical Surveys were conducted at sites 16, 17 and 18 (Carrickmines). The Kapmsax report states that no link was made between the Pale Ditch and sites 16-18. However, these surveys did not reveal any evidence of the Pale Ditch. Excavations conducted over a 30-month period did not reveal any physical remains of the Pale Ditch in proximity to the castle site. It should be noted that the Pale Ditch at Ballyogan was known to lie some 650m to the west of the site and not ‘a few hundred metres’ as stated in the Kampsax report. In the circumstances it was not surprising that a link was not established between Sites 16-18 and the Pale Ditch in the course of the surveys concerned.

The Kampsax report notes that, “an understanding of the historic landscape at Carrickmines was a material consideration for identifying the effects, and to the extent that it was not separately assessed (although generally considered in relation to surviving remains), this data was not presented by the developer in the EIS” (Ref. 5.2.2). The study of archaeology is concerned with physical remains. Historical sources and references are not impacted by development schemes; physical remains are. The purpose of the EIA was to identify archaeology and to mitigate, hence a series of non-intrusive investigations which were undertaken in an effort to identify sub-surface remains. The Irish authorities are satisfied that consideration of Historic Landscape issues along the lines suggested by the Kampsax report would not have altered the archaeological procedures which were subsequently conducted at Carrickmines.

40 4. Defective non-technical summary

The Kampsax report offers a criticism of the non-technical summary on the one hand because it is not comprehensive enough in that it does not highlight the particular issues at Carrickmines and on the other hand because it is not laid out to make it comprehensible to a lay member of the public.

Effectively the criticism is that the full EIS is not presented in the nine written pages and five maps which make up the non-technical summary of the EIS in a format that a member of the public can assess. In fact, the opposite to the criticism can easily be argued in that the non-technical summary is a good and reasonable synopsis of an EIS extending to 292 pages, in respect of a project of 11km of motorway in a suburban environment. Anyone with an interest in archaeological aspects would appreciate from the non-technical summary that a total of sixteen potential archaeological sites were expected to require further archaeological investigation. In addition it is important to bear in mind that the adequacy of the non-technical summary was not raised as an issue in the statutory approval process.

In regard to the general point of accessibility of the project to a member of the public it is useful to reflect on the magnitude of the project and the complexity of its interaction with the community and the environment. To augment the statutory documentation the County Council sought to engage the public in a series of informal consultations particularly through the public display of the project over a number of months before and during the public inquiry. In particular, a 13m long scale model prepared specifically but not exclusively for the purposes of the public inquiry proved to be the focus of interest and the one to one exchanges between members of the public and County Council staff served to explain the project in whatever level of detail or interest the citizen required.

The Kampsax report claims (Table 6.1) that the EIS has a “Defective non-technical summary”, based on insufficiency of mapping and omissions or understatements of adverse effects on archaeological heritage.

The insufficiency of mapping suggested by the report implies that the non-technical summary of the EIS should contain the justification of the route selection at Carrickmines. It should be noted however, that the EIS process itself does not require the provisions of such justification. Instead the EIS must describe the route selected and what alternatives were considered when the County Council confirmed the route by vote in March 1997. Notwithstanding these provisions there was a clear description of the route options with reference to Carrickmines in both the EIS and the non-technical summary. In addition it should be noted that the full route selection report was also available at all times to the public, and could be referred to by interested parties wishing to gain a deeper understanding of the basis for the selected route.

The alleged omissions or understatement of adverse effects on archaeological heritage appear to imply that the authors of the non-technical summary should have been able to look beyond the knowledge available at September, 1997 and anticipate the outcome of some 2 years archaeological excavations. In this regard it should be noted that neither at that time nor in the course of the public inquiry was significant interest

41 expressed in the archaeology of Carrickmines by the general public or the archaeological or medieval history communities. Traffic and other environmental issues dominated public interest in the road scheme proposal.

42 SECTION 3 – THE KAMPSAX REPORT – ALLEGED ERRORS

ERRORS REFERRED TO IN THE KAMPSAX REPORT The Kampsax report (Ref. 6.1.4) also claims that a number of errors were made in the EIS process viz:

A. The site was not afforded a full historical and topographical study. B. Had the EIS been a more substantial document then one might have expected the study to address the significance of the sites and to quantify the impacts. C. The earlier report of Healy (1983) and their (i.e. archaeological consultants) own findings in the fields north and west of the farmyard led to the unspoken assumption that (i) the farmyard represented the castle and (ii) the main areas of archaeological interest lay to the north and west of the farm. D. A risk assessment approach to the archaeology of the motorway would have brought Carrickmines to the forefront.

Comments on alleged errors referred to in the Kampsax report

A. The site was not afforded a full historical and topographical study

Historical Sources The report states that, “in the context of a report on an ‘intensive archaeological survey’ dealing with only eleven sites, the opportunity might have been taken to investigate further the historical and cartographic evidence for Carrickmines Castle” (Ref. 4.2.3).

The contention that further historical or cartographic research than was already conducted, would have altered the manner of the proposed investigations that ensued is not accepted. Nothing in the historical record could have been translated into physical archaeological remains or their location without subsequent archaeological prospection and excavation.

The Kampsax report states that “Carrickmines does not yet figure in standard accounts of Irish castles or medieval archaeology”, but states that it was “always known to historians of county Dublin” (Ref. 4.2.1). Prior to the publication of the EIS in 1997 the most recent account of the history of Carrickmines Castle was Balls publication of 1901. The references to Carrickmines referred to by Kampsax i.e., Lewis’s Topographical Dictionary of Ireland (1837), comprise five lines and the words relevant to the castle at Carrickmines are “and here are the remains of an old castle.” Ball’s article of 1901 referred to by the Kampsax report was included in the Archaeological Paper Survey South Eastern Route Feasibility Study, Valerie J Keeley Ltd September 1992. A specific reference to Ball was made in this report, where a direct quote from Ball is included; “ It is described by Ball as being “visible in the end wall of a piggery.” Ball’s article charts the history of the castle but in no way indicates its full extent.

43 The Kampsax report also refers to O’Brien’s publication of 2003, six years after the EIS was published and benefiting from the results of the excavations by the archaeological consultant engaged in the SEM project.

Kampsax makes reference (4.2.1) to the “standard textbook” published by Barry in 1987 (The Archaeology of Medieval Ireland). This standard textbook contains no reference to the site at Carrickmines and the Castle is not indicated on the map of the Pale in the fifteenth century referred to in their report.

With reference to the cartographic search, the field boundary that was shown in earlier maps to extend past the Glenamuck Road can only be considered of significance to the site with the benefit of hindsight. Many other field boundaries are shown which have no archaeological significance. The Kampsax report suggests that more speculation should have been applied and again with the benefit of hindsight it should have been speculated selectively to achieve the desired result, a result which has only been proven by excavation.

Healy Report/Paper Survey led to misunderstanding of the extent of the Castle

In relation to the Paddy Healy report of 1983 the Kampsax report states that, “whilst his report makes a valuable contribution, its emphasis on the north and west sides of the castle complex may have contributed to later misunderstanding of the true extent of the castle.” There was no ‘misunderstanding’, the true extent was clearly unknown and only became known as a result of excavations carried out in the period 2000- 2002, in accordance with the strategy for archaeology provided for in the EIS, not as a result of literary research.

Lack of map regression analysis

The Kampsax report states that, “the lack of a full map regression study had led to the supposition (at least on the site mapping) that the castle was limited on the east by the Glenamuck Road” (Ref. 4.2.4). It was never stated in the archaeological assessment that the Glenamuck Road was a limit of the castle. The Sites and Monuments Record (1987) map current at the time delimited the area of archaeological potential around the castle as lying to the north of the Glenamuck Road. The current Record of Monuments and Places (1998) map delimits the extent of the castle also, while the area of archaeological potential of the castle has increased to the north-east and west, it still does not extend south across the Glenamuck Road. A large area around the castle site was selected for investigative survey following from the strategy set out in the EIS.

A comparison of John Rocque's 1760 map of the Dublin region, Taylor's 1816 map of County Dublin and the Ordnance Survey [OS] first edition 6-inch map shows the following: 1. Several ‘New Roads’ are marked on Taylor’s map. 2. The path of the Glenamuck Road appears to have changed between Rocque’s and Taylor’s maps. On Taylor’s map a road is marked south of Carrickmines

44 with dotted lines ending in the ‘Carrickmines Hill’. This is possibly part of the older Glenamuck Road marked in Rocque’s map. 3. Neither Rocque’s map nor Taylor’s map show a location of a castle at Carrickmines. This is in contrast to Kilgobbin Castle and Puck Castle which are marked on both maps. 4. As both Rocque and Taylor fail to identify a location for Carrickmines Castle no further information to this effect is likely to be derived from them. The first edition OS 6” map has the words “Site of Castle” written underneath some buildings (which we now know as the outbuildings of the Farmhouse). The Farmhouse is also depicted and a rectangular enclosure/field is marked adjoining the Farmhouse on the south side. To the north of the castle site a ‘Pond’ is marked, as well as some field boundaries which correspond roughly to features identified by Mr. Paddy Healy (Site of Bawn) and the surveys (linear earthworks) carried out by the consultant archaeologist. The word ‘Site’ is written across one line and the word ‘Castle’ across a separate line. These two lines together with the Glenamuck Road and the entrance road form a rectangle. All of the above features are located west of the Glenamuck Road.

The statement in the Kampsax report that, “while the Ordnance Survey [OS] first edition 6-inch map shows a number of enclosures, including a large rectangular field truncated by the new 1816 road, in which the words 'Castle, site of' are written” (Ref. 4.2.2) is misleading as this information cannot be accurately derived from the map. Applying hindsight to the map, we can now state that the revetted fosse (stone-lined ditch) follows the line of the boundary starting at the ‘C’ in ‘Castle’, crosses the Glenamuck Road then turns at approximately 90 degrees eastwards but while the marked boundary continues on the fosse (still within the same field) turns at nearly a right angle again, crosses the Glenamuck Road again and turns once more to end at the entrance to the complex as is known from the excavations. Neither the existence nor the nature of an enclosure associated with the Castle as defined by the fosses could be derived from these three maps. Careful excavation was the only method by which the extent of the archaeological features could have been determined.

The term ‘map regression’ has a specific meaning with regard to the prospection of archaeological sites. A map regression study aims to evaluate certain environmental factors (for example proximity to water, soil type, elevation, climate etc.) for the prediction of the location of archaeological sites. The result of such an exercise is usually a probability map of possible site locations. Such a study is of no value to a site of known location. The precise locations of several features at the Carrickmines complex were identified in the EIA.

45 Unequal treatment of Kilgobbin Castle in the EIS relative to Carrickmines

Photographs showing the upstanding remains of Kilgobbin Castle (left) and the site of Carrickmines Castle (right) as identified in the EIS

The Kampsax report states that, “the contrast between the attention paid to Kilgobbin (two pages) as opposed to Carrickmines (one page) is, seen in retrospect, unfortunate” (Ref. 4.2.3). As shown in the photographs displayed above Kilgobbin Castle, is an impressive upstanding structure while Carrickmines Castle (site of) comprised minimal upstanding evidence. The more substantive and relatively more significant remains at Kilgobbin Castle determined that the archaeological description and attention paid to the site was more extensive than that accorded to Carrickmines.

The Kampsax report states that, “the only site specific recommendations refer to Kilgobbin Castle” (Ref. 4.2.3). This is not the case, however. Specific recommendations were made for the Carrickmines site in the EIS. In fact, the Kampsax report quotes them “..survey and possibly an investigative excavation....for the area of the route in proximity to the castle remains” (Ref. 4.2.3).

Discovery of Coin Hoard

The Kampsax report states that, “the discovery of a coin hoard was made east of the castle in 1995 (across the road) and acquired by the National Museum of Ireland”(Ref. 4.2.4) and appears to suggest that this was vital information in helping to establish the location of the castle.

The National Museum of Ireland files indicate that the alleged ‘hoard’ was found by a treasure hunter with a metal detector in 1988. The NMI files indicate that the hoard only came to the attention of the museum in 1995 during a National Museum of Ireland amnesty for material found by treasure hunters and the exact find location was not verified until, it would appear, April/May 1997. However, there is nothing on the NMI file to confirm this. The earliest coin is dated 1660, 18 years after the destruction

46 of the castle at Carrickmines by Sir Simon Harcourt, in 1642. But more importantly the latest coin is dated 1760. This indicates that the hoard was deposited at least 118 years after the castle was demolished. In the circumstances the existence of the coin hoard has no relevance to the location of the castle or in informing the archaeological investigative strategy.

B. Had the EIS been a more substantial document then one might have expected the study to address the significance of the sites and to quantify the impacts

Ranking/Grading of archaeological sites

The Kampsax report refers to grading of sites using terms like “quality”, “rarity” and “size”. In Ireland no such method for the grading of sites exists. The National Monuments Acts 1930-1994 do not distinguish between grades of ‘monument’ (see Section 11 of the 1987 Act). Section 12 of the 1994 National Monuments Amendment Act refers to recorded monuments in the following manner:

Section 12. – (1) “The Commissioners shall establish and maintain a record of monuments and places where they believe there are monuments and the record shall be comprised of a list of monuments and such places and a map or maps showing each monument and such place in respect of each county in the State.”

Consequent to the foregoing and the other provisions of Ireland’s National Monuments legislation all known archaeological monuments are protected. Accordingly, the process of rating sites by individuals on a potential or possible a subjective basis is not supported under existing legislation and is not a practice currently forwarded by the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government.

As stated above, there is no legal basis for such grading of sites in Ireland. It is our understanding that English Heritage has devised criteria for grading sites in Britain. It is normally given in the form of potential information and material which the site is assumed to have/offer based on all available desk based information and limited field work. In order to grade a site, therefore, one needs a good idea of what the particular site is known to contain and what the site may contain and the only way to do this at desk based stage is to have a large body of comparable data. However, as the Kampsax report notes the site at Carrickmines has not figured in the standard accounts of Irish castles or medieval archaeology. In the circumstances, in the hypothetical situation where a grading system had applied in Ireland, it is highly likely that the site at Carrickmines would have received a relatively low grading based on the state of information available at the time.

In Ireland in situations where preservation in situ is not feasible due to the nature of development and in the case of schemes where the public interest is deemed paramount, preservation by record is the appropriate approach. The purpose of rescue excavation is to mitigate the impact of development on archaeological deposits,

47 features and objects through scientific recording, such recording resulting in preservation by record in accordance with the requirements of the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government.

The Kampsax report implies that had a ranking approach been applied in the EIS, greater significance would have been attached to the Carrickmines site than to other sites. This assumption is rejected as the available historical and cartographic evidence did not indicate the full extent of the site. It is only through the extensive two and a half year archaeological investigation of the site that a clearer picture of the nature and extent of the archaeological remains became known. The significance of the site lies in the nature of the archaeological remains coupled with its historical associations.

The EIA/EIS identified the site at Carrickmines as a site of historic importance. In the EIS it is referred to as “the complex at Carrickmines Great which represents a segment of preserved medieval landscape, the Pale Ditch, castles and indeed post- medieval dwellings” (Section 17.2.2, pg. 257). The EIA process identified hitherto undescribed and unknown subsurface features due to a thorough and systematic approach, namely a detailed and precise topographical survey, archaeological aerial survey, geophysical survey and site inspection.

The Kampsax Report states, “proper assessment of the significance of the effect would probably have brought Carrickmines to the top of the list of 27 sites as the major environmental impact of the motorway for the cultural heritage” (Ref. 6.1.4). The Irish authorities would not regard this a sound or standard archaeological practice as it means automatically that a medieval site with many historic references is more important than for example a prehistoric site without any historic reference. This would not be considered to accord with archaeological best practice in Ireland.

Pre-Inquiry Investigations

Non-invasive testing took place on the site of Carrickmines during the course of the EIA and EIS. During the 1990’s and even to this day, it is not common practice to carry out invasive archaeological investigations on sites prior to the publication of the EIS. The State archaeological service does not generally licence archaeological investigations when the prospect of development has not been confirmed. Any departure from this long established practice could entail unnecessary damage and possibly loss of archaeological features over a wide area, e.g. the conducting of invasive archaeological investigation on road route options prior to the completion of the statutory EIS process would have such undesirable consequences.

The Kampsax report refers to the Channel Tunnel Rail Link as an example of when ground investigations might be justified at the pre-inquiry stage. The relevance of this approach to all development proposals is not apparent. As regards the Channel Tunnel project it might be noted that its construction was catered for by an Act of Parliament. The tunnel scheme also involved the excavation and removal of a scheduled ancient monument, one of the most well-known Roman villa sites in Kent. The site was not deemed to be important enough to change the route design.

48 Approach taken in the EIS for the SEM

The recommendation in the EIS for the SEM was to conduct an investigation in the immediate vicinity of the Castle to establish if any foundations or associated features were present. The approach taken in the EIS is to discuss the significance of the impact of the route on the site of Carrickmines Castle. The EIS states, “the impact on the remaining structure will not be direct, however the environs of this feature to the north and south will be affected. The extent of the original castle and its associated structures is not yet established. The relationship of the castle wall to the surrounding complex will be severed. The visual aspect will be impaired due to its position at a lower level to the surrounding scheme. To be reviewed when full landscaping details available” (Table 17.2.1, pg. 261).

The preservation of the remaining upstanding element of Carrickmines Castle, i.e. the gable wall of the gate house, was achieved by the road designers with the introduction of two back-to-back curves in order to create an undisturbed area (of 1.5 acres), around the only upstanding remains of the castle, between the motorway and the link road north of the motorway. Other considerations affecting the design of the road and, as a consequence, the extent of land which would be required for construction of the scheme, included the water level of the Ballyogan stream and the levels of the existing local road network and how it would integrate with the motorway.

The Kampsax Report cites a letter from Dúchas to Dun Laoghaire-Rathdown County Council in July, 1997, commenting on the draft EIS for the SEM. The letter deals with a number of archaeological sites but does not prioritise Carrickmines or offer any insight to the extent or significance of the site, as inferred by the Kampsax report. While the letter does indicate that the removal of a medieval structure such as the foundations of Carrickmines Castle can be a serious issue, this has always been acknowledged by Dun Laoghaire-Rathdown County Council and the National Roads Authority and is reflected in their approach to the design of the road scheme, specifically the retention of the 1.5 acre undisturbed area as well as their extensive commitment in terms of time and resources to the mitigation of the archaeological impact at Carrickmines.

A series of eight Archaeological Assessment Reports were prepared by Valerie J. Keeley Ltd, Archaeological Consultants, for the Environmental Impact Assessment in respect of the South Eastern Motorway, commencing in 1992 and culminating in the final Assessment Report in 1997. The assessment process involved desk studies including examination of all available National Museum of Ireland and Office of Public Works (later Dúchas) files, as well as An Foras Forbartha reports, including the reports compiled by the late Mr. Paddy Healy in 1975 and 1983. The assessment also included the field inspection of the route options, terrain potential assessments, aerial, topographical and geophysical surveys. The extensive nature of these procedures was not standard practice at the time and were adopted in this case so as to allow a more comprehensive assessment to be conducted using state of the art methods. It was, in fact, the first time topographical and geophysical surveys were utilised in the preparation of the archaeological section of an Environmental Impact Statement in Ireland in respect of a road scheme proposal.

49 A survey of the available information was conducted and a terrain potential assessment was included in the report completed by Valerie J. Keeley Ltd. in April 1996 (South Eastern Motorway sites identified in EIS on the basis of new maps). This report also included details of the aerial photographic survey conducted and provided for ameliorative measures regarding archaeology on the scheme. The main archaeological recommendation was to avoid all archaeological sites. Full archaeological excavation was recommended for those areas where avoidance would not be possible. In addition special recommendations were issued regarding geophysical, topographical and architectural surveys on selected sites.

The studies confirmed that the only known upstanding remains of Carrickmines Castle was the fragment of the gate house incorporated into farm sheds on the site in a later period. The castle at Carrickmines was destroyed in 1642 and as such it is to be expected that only subsurface remains exist.

It is not accepted that further historical research than was already conducted would have altered the manner of the proposed investigations that ensued following the recommendations in the EIS. Nothing in the historical record could have been translated into physical archaeological remains or identified their location without archaeological prospection or intrusive investigation.

C. The earlier report of Healy (1983) and their (i.e. archaeological consultants) own findings in the fields north and west of the farmyard led to the unspoken assumption that (i) the farmyard represented the castle and (ii) the main areas of archaeological interest lay to the north and west of the farm

The Kampsax report states that, “they seem to have been limited by an unstated supposition that the Castle lay under the farmyard (first explicitly stated in May 2000 archaeological report), and limited on the east by the Glenamuck Road” (Ref. 4.2.5). From the earliest stages of assessment it was continually recommended that road design avoid the area where the remains of the gate house wall incorporated into a shed lay. From cartographic material this area was recorded as the site of the Castle. Contrary to Kampsax’s supposition the two and a half year archaeological excavation conducted on the site would still indicate that the remains of the castle proper are within the 1.5 acres which was consciously avoided as part of the road design, so as to minimise possible effects on archaeology.

The reasons why the main focus of the investigations were to the north and west of the farm were as follows:

Cartographic evidence.
Healy report.
Results of the archaeological monitoring of the Bord Gáis pipeline.
Carrickmines-Shangannagh main drainage.
Archaeological testing.

50 Cartographic evidence All cartographic evidence including the first edition of the Ordnance Survey map and 1987 Sites and Monuments Record and the 1998 Record of Monuments and Places map indicated that the site of the Castle lay to the north of the Glenamuck Road. The question of property boundaries in relation to the first edition map has been dealt with earlier in this response.

The Healy Report The Paddy Healy Report was prepared in 1983, not for the South Eastern Motorway but for a proposal to realign Ballyogan Road to the Glenamuck Road. The realignment scheme did not proceed. The Reports comments on archaeology are confined to an area between the Carrickmines River and the Mooney Farmhouse.

While the findings of the 1983 Healy Report were considered in the preparation of the EIS for the South Eastern Motorway, it represented only one source of information consulted. The actual EIS was based on an extensive paper and topographic survey over the period 1992-1997.

In relation to the Healy report the Kampsax report states that, “whilst his report makes a valuable contribution, its emphasis on the north and west sides of the castle complex may have contributed to later misunderstanding of the true extent of the castle” (Ref. 4.2.1) There was no ‘misunderstanding,’ the true extent of the castle was clearly unknown.

Bord Gáis Pipeline The Kampsax report states that, “meanwhile, the archaeology of the site had been disturbed to an unknown extent by the building of the Carrickmines-Bray Gas Pipeline through the castle in September-November 1998” (Ref. 4.6.1). Figure 2 shows that the gas pipeline passed through the two outer fosses and the revetted fosse (as now known) of the castle site on the south-east side of the site. It continued through the centre of the enclosed area and crossed the Glenamuck Road.

No archaeological evidence was reported in the areas through which the pipeline passed. This was taken to indicate that no archaeological material existed on the east of the Glenamuck Road. This situation impacted on the assessment of the archaeological potential of the area to the south of the Glenamuck Road as well as the general approach adopted by the consultant archaeologist working on the SEM, her recommended programme of investigations and the priorities assigned to different areas.

Carrickmines-Shangannagh Main Drainage The Kampsax report states that, “a major opportunity to evaluate Carrickmines Castle came in July 1996 when the Carrickmines-Shanganagh Main Drainage Scheme stripped a 25m corridor across north side of castle site, adjacent to the stream.” The area concerned extended for 145m running north-west from the Glenamuck Road and was stripped without archaeological supervision. Further topsoil stripping was not undertaken at the request of the Department of Arts, Culture and the Gaeltacht, the

51 State Authority with responsibility for archaeology. Further work, as mandated by the Department, involved trial trenching under archaeological supervision in the undisturbed area through which the drainage scheme was to pass.

This work located two burnt spreads and finds of glass and post-medieval pottery. A stone feature found to be a drain of post medieval date was also investigated. These finds gave no indication of the existence of significant archaeological features in the general area.

Test Investigations The Kampsax report states that, “the targeted nature of the April 2000 trench layout (derived from the findings of previous fieldwork), and the lack of trenching in areas of uncertainty (i.e. in the farmyard, the 200+ m length of motorway south of the farm, and east of the Glenamuck Road) set the archaeological programme on a fixed course that was to postpone the time when the true nature of the remains would be discovered” (Ref. 4.6.2). The following comments should be noted:

The test investigations conducted in 2000 were designed to focus on the features to the north and west of the farm complex which had been identified by previous topographic study. The approach was also informed by the range of other archaeological investigations conducted over the period 1992-1997, as well as the conclusions of the reports concerning the Bord Gais pipeline and Carrickmines- Shangannagh Main Drainage projects. The test investigations were intended to determine the archaeological potential and significance of the previously identified features. In the view of the Irish authorities, this approach accords with best practice, was eminently logical and had the objective to apply available resources to best effect. My authorities cannot accept that the assignment of priority to test excavations in areas of uncertainty would have constituted appropriate or responsible practice. It might be noted that the investigations to the north and west of the farm complex uncovered significant structural remains and earthen features. The methodology of the test excavation was approved by Dúchas in consultation with the National Museum of Ireland. It is noted that the Kampsax report acknowledges that, “the decision to commence trenching on areas of known interest and not immediately to reduce the amount of uncertainty by trenching in other areas (especially along the main line of the motorway) is understandable in the light of what has previously been said” (Ref. 6.2.2). However, the Irish authorities cannot accept the additional comment that this “understandable” strategy was “lacking in foresight.” This suggestion can only be put forward with the benefit of hindsight.

The Kampsax report states that the farmyard should have been subject of archaeological investigation. This is at variance with best practice which seeks to avoid impacts. Indeed, the Kampsax report’s conclusion appears to conflict with its earlier stated position that the best way of sustaining the archaeological resource is through preservation in situ (Report Ref. 3.2.4). As noted earlier, the farmyard, located in an undisturbed 1.5 acre island, has been intentionally avoided by the road design so as to preserve in situ the only surviving upstanding remains of the Castle. This strategy was also intended to preserve the likely location of the foundations of the Castle itself.

52 The Kampsax report notes, “the surprising fact was that substantial and significant parts of the castle were found to lie east of the Glenamuck Road, and south-east of the farmyard where advance prospection had never taken place” (Ref. 4.6.2). The purpose of archaeological excavation is to discover the nature and extent of archaeological remains. In relation to Carrickmines the archaeological mitigation began in those areas close to the known upstanding remains and based on archaeological prospecting and investigation extended over a very large area. This is a standard approach, where the initial area of attention, as informed by the previous studies outlined above, was extended in a controlled fashion based on the results of excavation, again common archaeological practice. The excavations revealed many features of archaeological significance; the two outer fosses and revetted fosse in the castle precincts in the field east of the Glenamuck Road were among them. It was the systematic excavation of archaeological features that led to the discovery of these additional subsurface features.

A geophysical survey was conducted on the east side of the Glenamuck Road in January 2001, following excavation of incomplete features on the west of the road and revealed convincing evidence of soil-filled ditches, in addition to trackways and enclosures. It was not until the end of January 2001 when it was realised that the revetted fosse did not appear to respect the line of the Glenamuck Road. It was decided to conduct a geophysical survey in the field south of the Glenamuck Road to verify the nature of the archaeological deposits in this area. However, due to the Foot and Mouth Disease outbreak all work in this field had to be postponed until July. At that stage a geophysical survey was conducted. This was carried out to inform a controlled excavation of any subsurface archaeology discovered. The geophysical survey, made available in July 2001, suggested the presence of ‘numerous soil filled ditches’. An area excavation strategy was devised, discussed with the licensing authority and commenced shortly afterwards.

D. A risk assessment approach to the archaeology of the motorway would have brought Carrickmines to the forefront

The Kampsax report criticises the absence of a risk assessment in dealing with the uncertainties over the location and extent of Carrickmines Castle. The report acknowledges that risk assessment was not common archaeological practice in the mid-1990s.

We note that in Section 3.2.4 of the Kampsax report it is stated that test-trenching in the pre-planning stage as part of archaeological mitigation is carried out “where it is considered to be critical.” This would appear to contradict a later statement in the report that “it has been good practice since at least the early 1990s to ensure that at the earliest opportunity test trenching takes place in areas of uncertainty and areas believed to be of low potential” (Ref. 3.2.5). The concept of large-scale risk assessment archaeological mitigation was an unknown strategy for large-scale infrastructural projects in Ireland in the mid-1990s. Scheme archaeological risk assessment has been introduced over the last two years by the NRA to address the nature and extent of the archaeological potential on a scheme by scheme basis. This is

53 an innovative concept being carried out on an extensive basis when compared to practice in Britain and Europe.

CONCLUSIONS ON ALLEGED ERRORS

In relation to the supposed ‘errors’ alleged by Kampsax, the report notes that ‘with hindsight’, these ‘errors’ seem “to have been the beginning of a chain of consequences that led to the serious archaeological situation” (Ref. 6.1.4). In view of the detailed response outlined above it is not accepted that ‘errors’ occurred. It is further noted that the alleged errors were, according to the report, “not of themselves so serious as to invalidate the whole EIA process, since the consequences were not inevitable” (Ref. 6.1.4).

54 SECTION 4 – THE KAMPSAX REPORT - OBSERVATIONS

KAMPSAX REPORT OBSERVATIONS

The Kampsax report also makes a number of observations in addition to the conclusions and alleged errors already outlined. These observations relate to the:

The inflexibility of the road design.
The An Taisce proposal.
The approach adopted by the NRA.
The preservation of archaeological features within land take.

The strategy of introducing back to back curves on the motorway mainline to bring the motorway alignment as far south as possible and of separating the two roundabouts on the north by the link road provided an opportunity to retain an undisturbed island which was believed to have contained the remnants of Carrickmines Castle as they were understood at that time.

As a result of the recommendation in the EIS the “Carrickmines Interchange was redesigned to retain the Castle remnant in an open an area as possible and to cause minimum disruption to the more significant areas. It is not reasonably possible to relocate the motorway elsewhere” (Ref. EIS Table 17.2.1).

If the layout were set without consideration of the location of the Carrickmines Castle then the layout might well have been the simple dumbbell shape, not unlike the 1992 model. The two roundabouts might have been accommodated on the line of the existing Glenamuck Road joined by a bridge over the motorway. The four slip roads might have lead directly from the roundabouts onto the motorway. The effect of this would have been to move the motorway further northward in order to avoid housing, thereby causing the motorway to run directly through the reputed site of the castle. No space would have been retained between the slip road in the north western quarter (i.e. the off ramp for southbound traffic on the motorway) and the motorway. The location of the northern roundabout would not have been much different to the current location of the Glenamuck North Roundabout. The combined effect of this would have been to impact all archaeology north of the Glenamuck Road housing cluster and south of the Ballyogan Stream at Ballyogan Road.

The assertion that the reasons offered for rejecting the earlier July 2001 An Taisce proposals “are not entirely convincing” (Ref. 6.2.2) is not accepted. The Kampsax report offers no basis for this claim and appears to demonstrate a lack of understanding of the statutory procedures relating to road development in Ireland.

One of the main proposals put forward by An Taisce was for the alignment of the motorway to be shifted to the south west. As indicated in the NRA and Dun Laoghaire Rathdown response, such a proposal could not have been accommodated within the Motorway Scheme and EIS as approved by the Minister in 1998. An Taisce’s proposals, if accepted, would have required a new Motorway Scheme and EIS, with consequent serious delays to the SEM project. In these circumstances, the NRA and Dun Laoghaire-Rathdown County Council developed a series of additional mitigation

55 measures and engineering responses to further enhance the preservation of archaeology at Carrickmines within the restrictive statutory framework of the approved Motorway Scheme and EIS. The measures concerned were approved in September 2001 by the Minister for Transport and provide for the preservation of the following features in situ:

the section of fosse over a length of approx 50m which is located within and extends under the Glenamuck Road roundabout;
the section of medieval wall located within the above mentioned roundabout;
two medieval structures adjacent to the aforementioned roundabout;
the 18th century farmhouse, and
the section of the remains of the defensive structure under the Glenamuck Link Road.

The Kampsax report states that, “unwillingness of the NRA to mitigate to a significant degree by avoidance or reduction, can only have been based on the misunderstanding of the risk they were running” (Ref. 6.2.2). This fails to recognise the significant efforts made by the NRA and Dun Laoghaire-Rathdown County Council to mitigate the impact on archaeology at Carrickmines through the redesign of Carrickmines Interchange during the EIS phase, the measures adopted in response to An Taisce’s proposals, as well as the limitations on the scope for further redesign in the post-EIS phase. It should be noted that while the additional mitigation measures outlined above, aimed at enhancing the preservation in situ of the archaeology at Carrickmines represented minor changes in the overall context of the scheme, they were nonetheless the subject of an application to An Bord Pleanala seeking a direction requiring the preparation of a new EIS and the undertaking of all associated statutory approval procedures. Having regard to the provisions of the EIA Directive 85/337/EC, this demonstrates the problems associated with bringing forward even minor changes to an approved road scheme.

The Kampsax report acknowledges that “short of reopening the entire approval process for the Carrickmines Interchange for the purposes of a new design there is little that can be done except for the greatest possible degree of preservation within the existing road limits” (Ref. 6.2.3). In responding to the An Taisce proposals, the NRA and Dun Laoghaire-Rathdown County Council sought the greatest possible degree of preservation of archaeology at Carrickmines while respecting the Motorway Scheme and EIS as approved by the Minister in 1998.

As regards the preservation of features within the land take, it should also be noted that in July, 2003 the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government when approving the joint consent under section 14 of the National Monuments Act, 1930, attached a number of relevant conditions to the carrying out of work at the Carrickmines site (See Appendix A).

56 SECTION 5 – THE KAMPSAX REPORT – OTHER ISSUES

OTHER ISSUES RAISED IN THE KAMPSAX REPORT

In addition to the main conclusions, the Kampsax report raises a number of other issues which are discussed below.

Fourteen-month delay

The Kampsax report states that, “the certainty that an archaeological site of unknown extent was to be encountered at Carrickmines should have led those concerned with giving archaeological advice and direction to NRA to have urged the commencement of field activity at the earliest possible moment” (Ref. 4.6.1).

The Kampsax report goes on to refer to a “gap of fourteen months before archaeological trenching began on site”. The timeline of relevant events from the SEM scheme approval to the commencement of archaeological excavations at Carrickmines is as follows:

Ministerial Approval to SEM Scheme 19 October 1998 Completion of Draft Archaeological Services Contract 23 March 1999 Documentation Final completion of Contract Documentation 20 May 1999 Advertisement for Tenders 28 June 1999 Commencement of Tender Analysis 10 August 1999 Completion of Tender Analysis 29 September 1999 Award of Archaeological Services Contracts 29 October 1999 Date of Commencement of Contracts 7 February 2000 Commencement of Works at Carrickmines (Site 17) 3 April 2000

The period of time from October 1998 to June 1999 involved discussion with Dúchas regarding archaeological mitigation. This time was also used to refine the procurement procedure to determine whether the archaeologists were to be procured under a works contract or a services contract. During this time it was also decided to divide the scheme into two distinct archaeological contracts. During the period from October 1999 to February 2000 the issue of land acquisition including a lengthy arbitration with the landowner at Carrickmines was dealt with. Fieldwork commenced in April 2000. In the light of the situation outlined it can be seen that no undue delay occurred under the procedures applicable at the time in relation to the commencement of archaeological investigations.

The timeline applicable in this case to procure archaeological services corresponded with standard practice employed by the NRA and local authorities in relation to the road schemes at the time. This entailed the development of contract documentation, advertisement for tenders etc. in a sequential manner following the receipt of the necessary statutory approvals to a road scheme. The Authority has since revised its procedures so that many of these individual steps are progressed concurrently during the period when statutory approvals are awaited. This approach should generally

57 ensure earlier commencement of archaeological investigations following receipt of applicable statutory approvals.

Letters from the National Monuments Service/Dúchas

The Kampsax report refers to a November 1997 letter from the National Monuments Service to the Minister for the Environment concerning the archaeological recommendations of the EIS for the SEM (Ref. 4.4.1). The Report quotes the penultimate paragraph of the letter where the National Monuments Service express concern regarding the approach taken in relation to archaeology. While the letter acknowledges that the “investigation/excavation programme as outlined in the EIS, if adequately funded, may be a satisfactory outcome” it highlights to the developer potential delays, costs and disruption to the project arising from the possibility of heretofore undiscovered sites being uncovered. This should not be interpreted as a criticism of the overall archaeological programme as suggested by Kampsax. Rather at the outset of the November 1997 letter the National Monuments Service states that, “we have examined the EIS and related documentation in relation to the impact of the proposed motorway development on archaeology and in our opinion its recommendations should be accepted and implemented.” Specifically in relation to Carrickmines Castle the letter records the agreement of the National Monuments Service with the recommendations in the EIS.

58 SECTION 6 – CONCLUSION/EIS COMPLIANCE WITH MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS

In conclusion it is considered, having regard to the foregoing and contrary to the views expressed in paragraph 6.1.2 of the Kampsax report, that the EIS complied fully with the requirements of Art.5(2) and Annex III of Directive 85/337.

59 APPENDIX A – JOINT CONSENT

National Monuments (Approval of Joint Consent) Order 2003

Whereas section 14(1) of the National Monuments Act 1930 (No. 2 of 1930) provides that it shall not be lawful for any person to do inter alia any of the following things in relation to a national monument of which the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government (hereinafter called “the Minister”) or a local authority are the owners or the guardians, that is to say

(a) to demolish or remove wholly or in part to disfigure, deface, alter or in any manner injure or interfere with any such national monument, or

(b) to excavate, dig, plough or otherwise disturb the ground within or around, or in proximity to any national monument, without the appropriate consent specified in section 14 (2);

Whereas Dun Laoghaire Rathdown County Council (hereinafter called “the Council”) are the owners of lands within their functional area in which the remains of the Carrickmines Castle complex are situated;

Whereas the appropriate consent in relation to works affecting these lands in any of the manners set out at (a) or (b) is the joint consent of the Council and of the Minister;

Whereas such a joint consent has been given by the Council and the Minister on 3 July 2003 as set out in the Schedule to this order; and whereas the approval of the Minister is requested for it under section 14 (3)(B) (as inserted by section 15 of the National Monuments (Amendment) Act 1994 [No. 17 of 1994]) of the National Monuments Act 1930;

60 Whereas full and careful consideration has been given by the Minister to the case submitted by the Council for the joint consent and to the submissions made by other interested parties; and

Whereas a systematic approach has been adopted by the Council to the archaeological resolution of the Carrickmines site, and whereas this, subject to the further archaeological work provided for in the joint consent, will preserve the main archaeological elements of the site either or by record in situ;

Now Therefore the Minister, considering that the public interest in the construction of the South Eastern Motorway along its approved route justifies the carrying out of works described in the joint consent, impacting on archaeology at the site which are in exercise of the powers conferred on him by subsection (3B) (inserted by section 15 of the National Monuments (Amendment) Act 1994 (No. 17 of 1994)) of the National Monuments Act 1930 (No. 2 of 1930), hereby makes the following order:

1. This order may be cited as the National Monuments (Approval of Joint Consent) Order 2003. 2. The joint consent of the Council and of the Minister which is appended in the Schedule to this order, is hereby approved.

61 Schedule

CONSENT UNDER SECTION 14 OF THE NATIONAL MONUMENTS ACT, 1930 AS AMENDED

Issued by the Minister for Environment, Heritage and Local Government and Dun Laoghaire-Rathdown County Council.

WHEREAS: -

1. The South Eastern Motorway Scheme is the final and an integral part of the M50 C-Ring Motorway around Dublin. It forms part of Euro Route E01, which extends from Rosslare via Dublin and Belfast to Larne along the East coast of Ireland. The South Eastern Motorway Scheme extends from the end of the M50 Southern Cross Route Motorway at Ballinteer to the M11 Shankill/Bray By-Pass at Shankill and includes the construction of 10km of dual two-lane motorway, four motorway interchanges, 16 bridges and 2 underpasses. The Scheme will form a strategic element of the national road network providing a safe high-speed link between the M11 and the other national primary radial routes around Dublin.

2. During the road planning process the design of the South Eastern Motorway Scheme was altered specifically so as to mitigate the impact on the Carrickmines Castle site by moving the motorway alignment and changing the interchange layout so as to create an “island” where the remains of the Castle itself were considered to exist. These alterations were made in order to protect the site of the Castle, as then understood, and to preserve in situ the only upstanding remains of the Castle, i.e. the section of gatehouse wall.

3. The route proposed for the road and the environmental implications involved were the subject of a public inquiry and subsequent approval by the Minister for the Environment and Local Government in October, 1998 by means of Ministerial Orders under sections 49 and 51 of the Roads Act, 1993.

4. Pursuant to this approval, a contract for the construction of the motorway was entered into by Dun Laoghaire-Rathdown County Council in October 2001 and the road scheme has been under construction for some eighteen months. The contract provides for a three-year construction period. To date, significant public monies have been invested in the project in terms of the contract and also in terms of land acquisition, including acquisition of the lands at the site of Carrickmines Castle. The estimate for the completion of the project is c. €600 million with approx. €300 million expended to date.

5. Completion of the M50 C-Ring is a key objective of the National Development Plan, 2000-2006 and the overall transportation strategy for the Greater Dublin Area as set out in the Dublin Transportation Offices ‘A Platform for Change, 2000-2016’. It is also critical to meeting the objectives of the Dun Laoghaire Rathdown County Council Development Plan in relation to the ongoing and future development of major growth areas in the county including at Dundrum,

62 Stepaside, Sandyford/Stillorgan and at Cherrywood where a major new high- density mixed use urban center is proposed. There are major planned developments in these areas that may be in jeopardy in the absence of the motorway. A number of these developments are intrinsic parts of the County Council’s statutory requirements in meeting its objectives in its Housing Strategy and its obligation to provide housing and employment for its residents.

6. The strategy for the archaeological resolution of the Carrickmines site, as set out in the approved Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), envisaged the preservation by record of any archaeological features discovered on the line of the motorway and associated local roads. This has involved extensive archaeological excavations conducted under licences issued by the Minister for Arts, Heritage, Gaeltacht and the Islands (and his/her successor, the Minister for the Environment and Local Government) under section 26 of the National Monuments Act, 1930, as amended. Initial archaeological investigations, as provided for in the EIS, were carried out on the site between the 3 April and 19 May, 2000, while full archaeological investigations commenced on 28 August, 2000.

7. The original estimate by the consulting archaeologist for the completion of the excavations was 10 months (to the end of May, 2001). However, in May, 2001, the period was extended by a further twelve months. The revised completion date of the end of August, 2002, involving a further extension of 3 months for excavation, was agreed in May, 2002, by the Department of the Environment and Local Government following extensive discussions with the archaeological consultancy responsible for the on-site excavations and the National Roads Authority’s Project Archaeologist. The strategy pursued on behalf of the County Council and approved by the Department of Environment and Local Government sought to ensure the full archaeological resolution of those areas of the Carrickmines site which would be affected by the construction of the South Eastern Motorway and associated local roads.

8. This phase of excavation work at Carrickmines ceased on 30 August, 2002. Up to 200 archaeologists were involved on the South Eastern Motorway at any one time, including, as many as 130 on the Carrickmines site. Expenditure to date on archaeology associated with the South Eastern Motorway Scheme totals €10m, including over €6m on the Carrickmines site alone.

9. The strategy being pursued by Dun Laoghaire Rathdown County Council will preserve in situ significant archaeological features, viz:

 The section of fosse over a length of approximately 50 meters which is located within and extends under the Glenamuck Road roundabout.

 The section of medieval wall located within the abovementioned roundabout.

 Two medieval structures adjacent to the aforementioned roundabout.

63  The section of the remains of the defensive structure under the Glenamuck Road.

10. The adequacy of the section 26 licences for the works entailed at Carrickmines in removing a section of fosse (defensive structure), thereby facilitating the construction of the motorway, was the subject of High Court proceedings taken by Dominic Dunne and Gordon Lucas on 10 February, 2003, which sought an interim/interlocutory injunction restraining Dun Laoghaire-Rathdown County Council from undertaking any works which would demolish, remove, disfigure, deface, alter or in any manner injure or interfere with the Carrickmines site which they claimed to be a national monument.

11. On appeal from the High Court where the injunction was refused, the Supreme Court dealt with the case on the basis that no issue was raised on the state of the evidence at the interlocutory stage of the proceedings as to whether or not the relevant site is a national monument as defined in the 1930 Act. In deciding to grant the interlocutory application the Supreme Court judgment stated that while on a full hearing “the evidence may be different and more ample”, and that “the law will be debated at greater length and, we are told, the question of the site’s national monument status will put properly in issue, as it has not been here …” the Court went onto say that “…it is not finally deciding that a Section 14 consent is necessary but on the present state of the evidence that appears to be so” (page 27).

12. Dun Laoghaire-Rathdown County Council has, by letter 16th April 2003, invited the Minister for the Environment and Local Government to join with the County Council in giving a consent pursuant to sections 14 (2) and (3) of the National Monuments Act 1930, as amended. The consent relates to works for the completion of the South Eastern Motorway Scheme that impact on the monument at the site of Carrickmines Castle in the manner described in the Case for the Joint Consent submitted by the County Council.

13. And whereas a case has been made for the completion of such works in the manner described in the Case for the Joint Consent, the Minister for Environment, Heritage and Local Government, following the invitation from Dun Laoghaire Rathdown County Council and his consideration of the position, has agreed to join with the County Council in giving the consent having regard to the following considerations:

- the scale and extent of archaeological excavations carried out on the Carrickmines site commencing in August, 2000 and continuing to date;

- the contribution that this work has, and continues to make to enhancing the national archaeological record, the understanding of the history and changing settlement patterns of south county Dublin and the knowledge of medieval and post-medieval frontier castle life in the area;

64 - the implications of further delay or non-completion of the South Eastern Motorway Scheme for the Government’s objectives in relation to the integrated transportation strategy for the Dublin region set out in the National Development Plan, 2000-2006 and the Dublin Transportation Offices ‘A Platform for Change, 2000-2016’;

- the need to realise the full transport service objectives of the M50 in relation to the Dublin area and the radial national routes serving the regions;

- the objectives of the integrated transportation strategy for the Greater Dublin Area, including the role envisaged for the M50 in facilitating access to Dublin Port, thereby removing a significant volume of heavy vehicles from Dublin City Centre;

- the significant environmental and safety implications for residential areas along the local road network in the South Dublin area arising out of any further delay or non-completion of the South Eastern Motorway Scheme;

- the need to maintain commercial and economic activity in the South Dublin area and the provide for the further development of the area;

- the additional substantial demands on Exchequer funding and the possibility of the loss of E.U. Cohesion Fund aid previously approved arising out of any further delay or non-completion of the South Eastern Motorway Scheme, and

- the implications for the contract for the construction of the South Eastern Motorway Scheme and the potential for the contractor to claim for disruption to his programme of works and possibly other losses under the contract.

NOW THEREFORE, the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government and Dun Laoghaire-Rathdown County Council, in exercise of the powers vested in them jointly by virtue of section 14 of the National Monuments Act, 1930, as amended by the National Monuments (Amendment) Act 1994, Hereby Jointly Consent and Agree that the County Council, as owner of the monument at Carrickmines within the area outlined in the attached map, may by itself, its Servants or Agents demolish or remove wholly or in part or disfigure, deface, alter, or in any manner injure or interfere with the monument concerned and may excavate, dig, plough or otherwise disturb the ground within, around, or in proximity to the monument to the extent necessary and as set out in section 5 of the Case for Joint Consent and appended hereto (Appendix 1) so as to permit the completion of the South Eastern Motorway Scheme and associated local roads subject to the following conditions:

65 1. Conditions applying to areas that have not been accessible to date for archaeological resolution:

a. Under the existing Glenamuck Road:

When the existing Glenamuck Road is closed to traffic it should be made available for archaeological resolution. In order to record the structure of the road the Council’s archaeological team should excavate a section or sections across the road. Following the removal of the modern road structure under archaeological supervision the underlying archaeological structures and deposits associated with the Castle should be excavated and recorded by the Council’s archaeological team.

b. Area under the ‘tennis court’ to rear of house south of farm yard.

The overburden under the ‘tennis court’ should be removed under archaeological supervision to reveal the underlying archaeological features and deposits. All features and deposits surviving should be excavated and recorded by the Council’s archaeological team.

c. Area under scrub adjacent to ‘tennis court’ to south of farm yard.

The area of scrub should be cleared under archaeological supervision and all archaeological features and deposits excavated and recorded by the Council’s archaeological team.

d. Any other area that will be impacted on and that has not been fully archaeologically resolved prior to the commencement of construction.

Any archaeological structures, features or deposits that are to be removed, in whole or in part, should be fully recorded by the Council’s archaeological team and the removal should be supervised by the archaeologists.

2. Conditions applying to areas to be preserved in situ:

a. Details of the methodology to be employed to protect, consolidate or conserve the archaeological structures, features and deposits that are to preserved in situ are to be agreed with the Department before any works commence.

b. Details of the construction methodology to be employed and the measures to protect the archaeological structures and features during construction of the roundabout and link roads to be submitted to the Department before works commence.

c. All works to protect archaeological structures, features and deposits to be carried out under the supervision of the Council’s archaeological team.

66 3. Conditions applying to the removal of sections of the revetted fosse : All the sections of the revetted fosse that are to be removed should be removed under archaeological supervision using a methodology to be agreed with the Department.

4. Other Conditions : Details of the underpass and access road thereto to be provided in advance of the commencement of construction works to the Department and no works to commence until a mitigation strategy has been agreed and implemented.

Removal of negative features in the areas fully archaeologically resolved should be carried out under archaeological supervision.

Dated this 3rd day of July 2003

Martin Cullen

Minister for Environment, Heritage

and Local Government

Dated this 3rd day of July 2003

Derek Brady

Dun Laoghaire-Rathdown County Council

67 Appendix 1.

5. WORKS TO BE COVERED BY A JOINT CONSENT

5.1 The areas referred to in this section are delineated and coloured appropriately on the map attached to this document.

5.2 In view of the foregoing, Dun Laoghaire Rathdown County Council considers it appropriate and urgent that a joint consent be given pursuant to section 14 (2) of the National Monuments Act 1930, as amended, for the works set out below required for the completion of the South Eastern Motorway Scheme and associated local roads:

Motorway and Eastbound Diverge Ramp and Associated Local Roads (Area ‘A’ coloured pink)

The removal by archaeologists of a 10metre section of the revetted fosse south of the Glenamuck Road (hatched black on accompanying map) for storage and reconstruction off-site. The removal of this section of the revetted fosse is also required to establish the methodology of construction of the revetted fosse so as to better inform the archaeological understanding of the fosse and also to aid in its reconstruction.

The demolition and removal of the remainder of the revetted fosse in the line of the motorway to facilitate construction of the proposed motorway.

The archaeological investigation, excavation and preservation by record prior to removal and demolition (if required), of archaeological features in the area under the existing Glenamuck Road.

The removal and/or disturbance of soils and sub-soils as are necessary within the pink area marked “A” on the attached map.

Underpass and Carrickmines Stream Realignment (Area ‘B’ coloured pink)

The archaeological investigation, excavation and removal, including demolition, if required, of any remaining archaeological features or materials in this area.

Link Roads and Roundabout (Area ‘C’ coloured green)

The alteration, removal in part or interference with the following features and/or remains and disturbance of the ground within, around or in proximity to

68 such features and/or remains so as to enable their preservation in situ, and the completion of the scheme:

The section of fosse over a length of approximately 50 metres which is located within and extends under the roundabout,

The section of medieval wall located within the abovementioned roundabout,

Two medieval structures adjacent to the aforementioned roundabout,

The section of the remains of the defensive structure under the Glenamuck Road.

The construction of the Golf Lane Link Road, which lies to the south of the proposed motorway over the existing ground including the existing topsoil. In this way it is proposed to preserve, in situ, any archaeological features and/or remains under the line of the Link Road.

Given under the Official Seal of the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government this day of 3rd July 2003.

L.S.

Martin Cullen

______

Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government.

69 LIST OF MAPS & FIGURES

Map 1 Section of Rocque’s map (1760)

Map 2 Section of Taylor’s map (1816)

Map 3 Section of Ordnance Survey 6” map (first edition)

Figure 1 Cutting layout in undisturbed area from ‘Archaeological Investigation Carrickmines-Shanganagh Main Drainage Scheme 96E236’

Figure 2 Lines of disturbance by the Gas Pipeline and the Carrickmines- Shanganagh Main Drainage Scheme (before archaeologists were alerted)

70
 

          

 
!" # $   % &" '(()

The headings below relate to the relevant headings in the above report

Background

The use of words and phrases such as “destruction of a major archaeological site”; “What went wrong”; “clearly the process has failed in this one instance to achieve what was intended” are not justified either on the basis of the content of the report or the treatment of archaeology at Carrickmines. The judgements implicit in the background section of the report go beyond the terms of reference for the review and indicate a lack of due consideration of all the information relating to the EIA and the treatment of archaeology on the project.

The implication that the site was not approached in a measured way is not correct. Site inspections, topographical survey geophysical surveys, test excavations, complete excavations of the areas impacted on by the construction of the SEM were all carried out. The basis for the statement “the final abandonment of the site” is factually incorrect. The process has not failed in this “one instance” – the site was identified and assessed and full mitigation was employed in the areas to be impacted on and part of the site, including the main areas of occupation is to be preserved in situ. It seems that the authors approached their assessment of the EIA process with the preconceived notion that there was something wrong with the treatment of the Carrickmines site both in the EIA and subsequently.

Requested assignment

The review states that it is restricted to a study of the EIA but clearly goes outside that assignment in addressing post EIA issues.

Clarification “e)” makes it clear that a “hindsight” test should not be applied but that the standard to be applied should relate to what was ascertainable at the time of compilation of the EIS. It would, however, seem that the authors of the review have been

71 influenced by “hindsight” in a number of their comments on the EIS (see below).

In clarification “g)” there is a requirement to provide by reference to practice in comparable cases, observations on the sort of avoidance or mitigation measures that might reasonably have been expected had a more complete description of the archaeological heritage and a more complete identification and assessment of likely impacts on been supplied by the developer. In response to this clarification it should be noted that the EIS, and the pre-EIS reports clearly identified the Castle and underlined that its full extent was not known. The core of the Castle as determined by the visible remains was excluded from the area of construction and is to be preserved in situ. All other areas of the Castle were archaeologically excavated and recorded in advance of construction in line with policy and best practice. Any outstanding areas of the Castle not accessible will be fully recorded at construction phase.

Clarification “h)” states that additional documents to the EIS need to be examined as listed in the Annex. Many of these are Danish publications and it is not clear what reason these are applied to this case.

3.2.2 Archaeological Roles

The review indicates that a clear understanding of archaeological roles is required and then goes on to incorrectly to set out these roles in relation to public archaeology in Ireland

3.2.4 Archaeological mitigation (resolution)

The authors accept that the “partial loss of a significant site might be contemplated where the site was unavoidable and was required for a necessary public work and full mitigation were possible and would be funded”. Carrickmines is an example of such a scenario.

3.2.5 Environmental Impact Studies and archaeological fiekdwork

This section of the review indicates that the archaeological content of an EIA would normally include the earlier stages … but not necessarily extend to include intrusive ground investigations.

Intrusive investigations – archaeological test trenching – carried out pre-approval of road schemes are not the norm. There are, as the review points out, problems with intrusive investigations not

72 least of which is the agreement of the landowner which is not always forthcoming in advance of the compulsory purchase order.

4.2.1 Pre-EIS studies

In referring to the P. Healy report of July 1983 the review implies that it was commissioned as part of “discussion of the possible route of the motorway”. It was not as it was commissioned by the County Council in connection with a proposed realignment of the Ballyogan Road. This is a common misrepresentation made by the opponents of the motorway that should be corrected.

The review goes on to say that the emphasis in the Healy report on the north and west sides of the castle complex may have “contributed to later misunderstanding of the true extent of the castle”. This would appear to be the “hindsight” test being applied. The “true extent” of the site was not discernable before the archaeological excavations. The EIS emphasised that the full extent of the Castle was not known. The earthworks to the north and west were known. It was clear, however, that other parts of the Castle could exist to the east and west.

4.2.2 The paper survey (1992)

The review seems to indicate that this was an entirely adequate report. It then goes on to state that early maps of the area could have been researched and points out the changes in the road layout between the dates of various maps. It says, however, that the research involved might “represent a degree of research greater than that expected in an initial ‘Paper Survey’ but would have been relevant in any subsequent attempt to locate the castle”.

The location of the Castle was not at issue but the extent of it was the unknown factor. The earlier Taylor’s and Roque’s maps are not helpful in any attempt to determine the extent of the Castle site. The first edition of the OS 6” map does show a number of field enclosures but it is not correct to state that it clearly shows “a large rectangular field truncated by the new 1816 road in which the words ‘Castle, site of’ are written”. What the first edition OS map shows is the legend ‘Castle, site of’ written to the north of the Glenamuck road beside the farmyard. To the south of the road is a large trapezoidal field behind a row of cottages on Golf Lane. The boundaries of this field, if continued across the Glenamuck Road, do not connect with any of the boundaries shown on the map north of the road. It is only due

73 to the results of the archaeological excavations and with the benefit of hindsight that it can be seen that these field boundaries partly reflect the defences of the Castle.

4.2.3 Intensive archaeological survey (1993)

The comments here suggest that not enough attention was paid to Carrickmines in contrast to that paid to Kilgobbin Castle. It also says that the opportunity might have been taken to investigate further the historical and cartographic evidence for Carrickmines Castle. The point again here seems to be that more historical and cartographic research would have identified the extent of the Carrickmines Castle site but the fact is that there is no historical or cartographic evidence quoted that gives any idea of the extent of the site.

4.2.4 Intensive archaeological survey and evaluation (1996)

The review states that the field investigation of the site and the warnings about the possible extent of the site “were admirable and just as they should have been”. It then goes on to repeat the implication that because there was no further cartographic or historical research the site of the Castle was “limited to the east of the Glenamuck Road”. It also refers to the 1995 coin hoard not appearing in the report.

As has been mentioned above, the early maps do not give any evidence as to the full extent of the Castle site. The coin hoard, in fact, appears to date to the mid-eighteenth century and was deposited more than 100 years after the demolition of the Castle. It could not, therefore, have given any evidence that the site extended across the Glenamauck Road.

4.2.5 Additional archaeological assessments (1996-97)

There is, again, an acceptance that “this series of operations was an entirely appropriate step in the staged evaluation of the site”. Yet again there is reference to “further consideration of historical and cartographic data”.

There were no test trenches carried out as stated in the review – the only excavation conducted was a small one to assess the damage caused by the sewerage scheme. See also Section 4.3.3 below.

4.3.2 The historic buildings study

The statement in the EIS that ‘Carrickmines Castle is dealt with in the Archaeological section’ is surely sufficient. Why would

74 there need to be a separate assessment of the farm buildings and the remains of the Castle included in this section?

4.3.3 Archaeology in the EIS

There is an error in the review where it states that test trenching had taken place at Carrickmines in September 1996 in addition to the Main Drainage investigations in August of that year. The only archaeological excavations carried out at Carrickmines in 1996 were those connected with the drainage scheme (Licence No. 96E0236).

4.4.1 Consultation with National Monuments Service

The letter from the National Monuments Service to Dun Laoghaire Rathdown County Council in response to the draft EIS (July 1997) asked for details of the impact of the motorway construction at Carrickmines and for details of proposed landscaping around the monument. It also advised that subsurface remains of the Castle were likely to be impacted on and requested details of proposed access and protection of the remains to be retained in situ.

This would have been the response to any development proposal that impacted on a known monument or its immediate vicinity. The intention was to put the developer on notice that extensive archaeological excavations could be required and that sufficient time and resources should be made available.

The change in the area of the monument between the Sites & Monuments Record and the statutory Record of Monuments and Places arose from the additional information made available through the work of National Monuments Staff and through the reports prepared for the EIS.

The review’s contention that the letter of November 1997 contains clear criticism of the EIS is wrong – there is neither explicit or implicit criticism in that letter. It sets out possible mitigation post EIS. Strictly, the elements of the letter referred to in the review fall outside the scope of the assignment.

The letter of November 1997 stressed the need to commence archaeological fieldwork as early as possible because the National Monuments Service was increasingly concerned that not doing so was causing problems at construction stage. The presence of archaeologists on site when construction commenced had caused difficulties on previous schemes and it was felt

75 necessary to underline the advisability of commencing archaeological excavations as far in advance as possible of the construction phase. The lack of comprehensive archaeological testing of the route of a proposed road was felt to be a contributory factor in causing problems at the construction phase. This issue has since been resolved and it is now common practice to test the route of major road schemes in advance of construction to identify and resolve previously unrecorded archaeological sites.

It was the then case that, following the resolution of known archaeological monuments and sites and the investigation of areas of archaeological potential identified in an EIS, archaeological mitigation was carried out at construction phase by the archaeological monitoring of topsoil stripping. Any archaeological site uncovered would then be excavated by teams of archaeologists. This inevitably led to conflicts between the archaeological requirements and the construction programme. In order to minimise, if not entirely remove, the need for archaeological monitoring of construction topsoil stripping there has been a change to pre-construction archaeological testing of the whole route of a road scheme. All sites identified in this process are then archaeologically excavated and recorded. This is done pre-construction phase where possible. It has not been unusual in the past that where there have been large and complex sites to be excavated that the excavations carried on past the commencement of the construction phase. This has occurred particularly when sites proved to be more extensive or more complex than anticipated.

It should be remembered that archaeological sites often are more complex or more extensive than would appear at first inspection and that even the use of techniques such as geophysical surveys and test excavation, while they may add a great deal more information and help in the formation of the resolution strategy, will not necessarily give a full picture of what can be expected to be found during the excavation of the site.

4.4.2 Consultation with An Taisce

An Taisce pointed out that full archaeological excavation of that part of Carrickmines Castle that lies within the motorway reservation would be required and were, therefore, not suggesting in situ preservation for these areas.

4.5.1 Public Inquiry

The archaeological issues were not contentious, the only concern was to ensure that sufficient time and resources were available to carry out the archaeological programme.

76 4.6.1 Lead-in to fieldwork

The letter from National Monuments to Dun Laoghaire Rathdown Co. Council (February 1999) gave the Minister’s approval for the archaeological programme at the Loughanstown Archaeological Complex. It recommended that archaeological excavations elsewhere on the route should start as early as possible and made particular reference to Carrickmines. The archaeological licence was not a factor at this stage. No archaeological excavation licence was issued for the SEM in 1999.

The timing of the commencement of archaeological investigations was dependent on agreement between Dun Laoghaire Rathdown Co. Council and the landowner. It was entirely a matter for the Council to arrange for access to the lands for the commencement of archaeological excavations. Again it needs to be clarified if this aspect of the review falls within the scope of its assignment.

4.6.2 Archaeological fieldwork at Carrickmines

The archaeological test trenching carried out by Dr. N. Brady in April 2000 was intended to address the known archaeological features located outside the area to be preserved in situ.

There was no need to test in the farmyard as this area was excluded from the motorway project and was to be preserved in situ. The area out side the known archaeological features was not part of this phase of archaeological investigation. It was not the then practice to test the entire length of a road scheme.

It is interesting to note the statement by the authors of the review that ‘the results of the excavations were spectacular and far exceeded any expectations of what might survive at Carrickmines’. In site discussions, the licensed archaeologist was of the belief that the Glenamuck Road formed the boundary of the Castle and that the road had been constructed along the line of the Castle defences on that side. It was only as the excavations progressed that it became clear that the revetted fosse did not turn at the road but appeared to continue under it that it became necessary to investigate the far side of the road. In fact, the licensed archaeologist first wanted to arrange for test excavation in the roadway to confirm that the fosse turned under the road but then it became clear that this was not possible because a road closure would be required. It was then that investigation on the far side of the road was decided on but this was delayed due to the restrictions placed on access to agricultural land because of the Foot & Mouth outbreak in 2001. When the information became available from the Geophysical Survey and some test excavations carried out by the licensed

77 archaeologist, which indicated that extensive archaeological structures, features and deposits existed on the far side of the road, that the area for full excavation and recording was expanded.

The areas of the Castle that will be impacted on by the construction of the motorway and that have been accessible to date have been fully archaeologically resolved by the two phases of excavations. The remaining areas within the footprint of the road scheme, principally under the Glenamuck Road, will be resolved when they become available. As the area of the farmyard had been excluded from the road works and is to be preserved in situ no archaeological excavations were ever intended to take place there.

The review mentions the difficult relationship between Dúchas (as State archaeological authority) and the National Museum, while at the same time indicating that it is not appropriate to comment on the involved story of the excavations. It should be noted, however, that the first time the National Museum expressed concerns about the excavations was in mid 2002 long into a process in which they had been consulted at appropriate stages throughout its duration.

4.6.3 After the fieldwork

Excavation did not cease in August 2002. A further phase was to commence at the end of September 2002. The assertion in the report that the ‘arrangements for finds retrieval for areas not yet investigated’ was due to the decision of the Minister for Transport of 16 September, is incorrect. It was always intended that, following the conclusion of the first phase of excavations, there would be further archaeological excavations carried out to complete the resolution of the site. This would, as a matter of course, include ‘finds retrieval’. Also the publication of the results of the excavations was always intended and, indeed, the NRA were, from the beginning, determined to ensure that the results of all the archaeological investigations on the SEM would be published.

It should be noted that at no time did any of the objectors/protestors approach the National Monuments Service to discuss the archaeological mitigation programme for Carrickmines Castle.

5.2.2 Data to assess effects on historic landscapes in EIS

The review emphasises the importance of an understanding of the historical landscape at Carrickmines and calls the Terrain Potential Assessment 'admirable' but says that it was more

78 concerned with the general archaeological potential and only indirectly provided a landscape study for the Castle. It claims that a 'proper consideration' of the castle sites in relation to the Pale and the wider medieval landscape 'would have highlighted the special situation of Carrickmines'. The report presents no evidence to support this nor does it show how a 'proper consideration' would have given any indication of the extent or complexity of the archaeological site at Carrickmines Castle. The notion of a historic/archaeological landscape is generally considered in archaeological assessments including those carried out for an EIS.

The EIS for the SEM was of a high standard and all the archaeological issues that would have been expected to be addressed were included.

5.3.1 Data to assess effects on historic buildings

As the farm buildings were to be preserved in situ and would not be effected by the motorway scheme and as no decision had been made as to the future of the farmhouse, a detailed building survey was not a priority at the EIA stage. Such a survey was carried out later.

5.3.2 Description of measures to remedy adverse effects on historic buildings

The 'omission' of Carrickmines farm is not a failing as the farm was not included in the construction area.

5.4.1 Data to assess effects on archaeology

The EIS identified known archaeological monuments and areas of potential. It identified the impacts on the monuments and sites that would be caused by the construction of the motorway. It identified Carrickmines Castle as a major monument the full extent of which was not known and said that the impact of the scheme would require full archaeological excavation of the areas of the Castle that would be effected.

The review again returns to an alleged lack of historical study but does not indicate what historical sources should have been consulted, if any additional sources were available. It claims there was a 'failure to appreciate the history of road changes and the relatively modern date (1816) of the imagined eastern boundary of the site on the Glenamuck Road.' It should be pointed out that the two pre-Ordnance Survey maps referred to do not, in fact, show the extent of the Castle as revealed by the archaeological excavations. The Glenamauck Road was not taken to be the boundary of the Castle Site. The Castle site was

79 identified as the area of the farmyard and the earthworks surrounding it.

The EIS states clearly that the full extent of the site was not known and, therefore, recognised that the site could be larger that the area occupied by the farmyard and the earthworks. The formal ranking of archaeological sites in terms of importance is not an internationally accepted practice. Different countries adopt a variety of approaches. In Ireland the question of grading of monuments is being considered carefully and the undesirable consequences as well as the advantages of adopting such a system are being assessed. Some of the potential negative impacts from a formal system would include, for instance, the potential loss of field monuments of a lower grading in local communities. It is also felt that formal grading could be undesirable as all archaeological sites are important and are an unrenewable resource. In addition, it is often not possible to decide on the archaeological importance of a site by visual inspection only. The nature of archaeological sites is such that quite often the most visually unimpressive sites can, on excavation, prove to be archeologically more informative than sites that are more visually apparent. An archaeological assessment that attempted to rank sites in terms of their archaeological importance on the basis of a visual inspection alone and to use this ranking to determine levels of archaeological mitigation, would not be accepted by the National Monuments Service. It would be regarded as a potentially misleading assessment as it could give a developer the impression that, by avoiding the high-ranking sites, the need for archaeological mitigation could be eliminated. Nevertheless it is clear that the potential archaeology at Carrickmines was flagged and given sufficient attention by the relevant authorities.

5.4.2 Description of measures to remedy adverse effects on archaeology

Again the review claims that there was an 'apparent assumption that the Castle equated with the farmyard'. It is clear from all the archaeological reports that the full extent of the site was not known. There is a clear confusion with regard to the compass directions used in the review. It refers to the levelled field to the south of the farm as having an extensive pattern of geophysical anomalies known in 1996 and states that this should have been subject to the same archaeological operations as conducted on the north and west. This area to the south of the farmyard was, in fact, included in the area to be excavated.

The letter from National Monuments in 1997 did express concern about the need for archaeological fieldwork well in advance of construction. This concern applied to all archaeological sites and of course included Carrickmines. It should be remembered that Carrickmines Castle was one of a number of archaeological sites

80 impacted by the scheme and the National Monuments letter was addressed to the issue of the archaeological mitigation programme for the scheme as a whole.

5.4.4 Further considerations with regard to non-EIS documentation

The site of Carrickmines Castle was identified as a major archaeological site on the route of the SEM that would be directly impacted by the construction of the motorway. The archaeologists recommended avoidance and, if this could not be achieved, then all the areas of the site that would suffer an impact would have to be excavated. It is clearly inaccurate for the review to state that the 'question of where the castle actually was had not been explicitly addressed.' The existence of the known archaeological features at Carrickmines was included and it was stated that the full extent of the site was not known. It is very easy in hindsight, with the knowledge of the results of the archaeological excavations, to now claim that the description of the resource was inadequate.

6.1 Findings

While accepting that all the fieldwork conducted at Carrickmines prior to the EIS was 'exactly what should have been done', the review goes on to say that a number of 'errors' were made. It states that a full historical and topographical study 'might have suggested both its serious historical interest and its uncertain extent'.

There was never any doubt that Carrickmines Castle was of historical importance and the EIS clearly stated that its full extent was unknown. The latest study referred to in the review postdates the EIS. Its publication in 2003 was prompted by the results of the archaeological excavations carried out in mitigation of the impact of the motorway scheme. A study of the maps does not draw attention to a large enclosure that had been crossed by the Glenamuck Road as is incorrectly claimed in the review. The loss of any archaeological site is a 'serious issue' and full mitigation of the loss is a standard requirement. The mitigation required of the impact at Carrickmines and elsewhere on the SEM route was full archaeological excavation of the areas impacted on. As the full extent of the site was not known there were no assumptions made as to the size or complexity of the site. It was accepted that there would be an impact on the Castle and preservation in situ was achieved for that part of the site which, on the available evidence, seemed to be the centre of the castle. The archaeological excavations have, in fact, largely confirmed this interpretation. The authors of the review fall into the

81 error of using hindsight again to accuse the archaeological consultants of lapses of best archaeological practice. It is not clear what standards of best archaeological practice are being referred to here. The EIS did what it was required to do - it identified the archaeology on the route of the motorway and it made recommendations on the mitigation of the impacts identified.

6.2.2 The post-EIS archaeological programme

It seems that this falls outside the scope of the assignment.

Did the review's authors make any attempt to ascertain what reasons there may be for the perceived delay in starting fieldwork? If they did not, and there could be many reasons why fieldwork could not have commenced before April 2000 (lack of co-operation from the landowner, contractual problems, procurement difficulties etc), then it is not acceptable for them to use words such as 'careless' in this context.

The report alleges a lack of 'consistent and robust curatorial support for the archaeology of Carrickmines Castle' as being one of the 'more unfortunate aspects of the entire affair'. It does not detail what lack of so-called curatorial support is referred to and it should be pointed out that this term (curatorial) is not used in Ireland outside of museums. If the authors of the report felt that, in some way, the archaeological regulatory authority in Ireland (the National Monuments Service) has been remiss in its duty to the archaeology of Carrickmines Castle then it is, at the very least, essential that they detail this before making such sweeping accusations. The fact that they did not contact the archaeological authority to put their concerns undermines the professionalism of the review.

The responsibility for the preservation of the archaeological heritage as represented by monuments and sites rested with the Ministers responsible (Arts, Heritage, Gaeltacht & and the Islands and later Environment, Heritage & Local Government). The National Museum of Ireland is responsible for the preservation of archaeological objects (artefacts) and both the Museum and Dúchas were part of the Department of Arts, Heritage, Gaeltacht & the Islands up to mid 2001. There is no evidence that National Monuments staff carrying out their role as State archaeological authority were more concerned about the road construction programme than its archaeology. This assertion is particularly unfortunate given that the authors of the review did not contact National Monuments to ascertain the approach adopted by the state authority before making this allegation.

82 Archaeologists from National Monuments inspected the excavations on numerous occasions and liased with the excavators on site as did archaeologists from the National Museum. Two management meetings were held between National Monuments the site director, consultant archaeologist, the National Museum, Dun Laoghaire Rathdown, & the NRA to discuss and agree the archaeological programme (Dec 01 and May 02). During the EIA process the Consultants were advised to avoid an impact at Carrickmines Castle if at all possible and that the full extent of the site was not known. It was also made clear that full archaeological excavation of the areas of impact would be required and that the removal of even part of the monument was a serious issue. The NRA and the Council were made aware that the excavations could be both time consuming and costly. It should not be assumed, as the authors of the review appear to do, that the existence of a major archaeological site on the route would require that that site be completely avoided whatever the consequences for other constraints (e.g. occupied dwellings, area of natural heritage importance etc.) or for the infrastructural project itself. It should be remembered that the SEM is the final leg of the Dublin C-ring relief road and is a part of Euroroute 1. It is a vital piece of national infrastructure and the regulatory authorities were cognisant of this when reaching decisions to accept or reject the impacts of the motorway project on the archaeological heritage. Difficult choices were made not only at Carrickmines and they were made in the knowledge that all impacts would be satisfactorily mitigated.

The authors of the review have failed to adequately investigate the background to the decisions made in relation to the SEM as a whole and to Carrickmines Castle in particular. The assertion that parts of the site were not dealt with to the best archaeological standards is not accepted. The excavation of large features that had been sectioned by hand excavation was completed by carefully supervised and controlled machine excavation. All archaeological deposits removed by machine are to be sorted by an archaeological team to recover archaeological objects - this operation has been suspended because of the legal proceedings initiated by the protesters who occupied the site.

There is also a clear misunderstanding in the review of the role of the National Museum, which has no statutory role in relation to the EIS and which was consulted in related to the ongoing excavations throughout the process.

6.2.3 The overall review

The review states that 'judgements are easily made with hindsight when the extent of buried remains becomes known' but its authors do not pay any heed to this in reaching their conclusions. The

83 statement that the mitigation process was flawed does not stand up to proper scrutiny and is rejected. The National Monuments Service was aware of the implications of the decision to accept part preservation in situ and part preservation by record at Carrickmines. While the full extent of the site was not known, it was accepted that full excavation of those areas to be impacted on would be a satisfactory mitigation of the impact of the SEM on the site.

6.3 Uncertainties

The review states that it is based on 'the abundant materials supplied' but stated that there remain the following points of information that would assist in obtaining a better understanding of the full circumstances:

• it is not clear what maps were consulted prior to 1997 or at what stage an historian was consulted.

• what the circumstances were that led to the delay in commencement of site work.

• the greatest uncertainty concerned what is now thought to be the full extent of the castle in terms of buildings, defences ditches and outer enclosures and of the extent to which the archaeology of those parts of the castle that will be removed for road construction have been fully mitigated by controlled excavation.

In response to the first point, since one of the main criticisms of the EIS is an alleged failure to consult early maps, it is surprising that the review should have reached the conclusion it did without first ascertaining what maps were consulted.

On the second , since the delay in commencement is criticised, should the authors not have sought to ascertain what the circumstances might have been before reaching their conclusions?

On the final bullet point the assertion is difficult to appreciate. As all the area around the Castle have been excavated or topsoil stripped under archaeological supervision, the full extent of the castle defences and outer enclosures is known. The building within the area of impact from the motorway scheme has been excavated and will to a large extent be preserved in situ. The only area of any uncertainty is within the farmyard, which, as it is to be preserved in situ, was not included, and was never intended to be, in the area for archaeological mitigation. This area is available for any future archaeological research if any such project is proposed. All accessible areas to be removed by

84 the construction of the motorway have been satisfactorily mitigated by controlled excavation. The remaining areas, principally the area beneath the Glenamuck Road, will be archaeologically tested and resolved when they become available. The areas to be resolved and the archaeological mitigation required have been conditioned in the Minister's Order giving approval to the joint consent for the works at Carrickmines.

Conclusion

The review contains serious mistakes and deals with issues outside the scope of the assignment. There seems to have been an assumption made by the authors from the very beginning that there was something wrong with the way the Carrickmines site was dealt with. They have been influenced by hindsight in reaching their conclusions and seem to have reached those conclusions without full knowledge of the policy, procedures, and processes that were gone through in reaching decisions on the best way to proceed with the SEM and with Carrickmines Castle, in particular. They have decided, without giving any evidence to back up their claim, that the regulatory authority failed in its duty to protect the archaeology of Carrickmines Castle. They have stated their conclusion that the regulatory authority did not adequately support the archaeology of Carrickmines Castle, without attempting to ascertain what decisions were made and how these decisions were reached. They have not even tried to find out what areas have been archaeologically resolved or what methodologies were employed in that resolution.

85