LM02_18_Jul07.htm

everything else links off the Homepage

Lismullin Advisory Committee Meeting � 18 July 2007

Present: Mr. Finian Matthews, (DEHLG), Chairperson; Mr. Brian Duffy, Chief Archaeologist (DEHLG); Ms. Catriona Ryan, (DEHLG), Secretary; Mr Gerard Smith (DEHLG); Mr. Conor Newman (NUI Galway); Mr. Ronan Swan, Senior Archaeologist (NRA).

The minutes of the previous meeting were adopted subject to the submission by Mr. Newman of a paragraph on the efficacy of the tests carried out ahead of mechanical stripping of the topsoil and concerns expressed regarding the efficacy and desirability of mechanical topsoil stripping generally. (paragraph subsequently provided; minutes of the meeting of 10 July have been updated accordingly and are attached).

Geophysical surveys outside the landtake and within the landtake excluding the national monument has been completed. [Note that it appears that the company engaged to conduct the geophysical survey carried out some work on an area of the national monument without the prior approval of the committee and without the knowledge of, and in breach of clear instructions from, the NRA archaeologists not to carry out work over the enclosure. The committee recommended that the NRA consider this behaviour in light of the conditions of the contract and the appropriate action to be taken.]

Aerial photography has been completed and some of these images were presented at the meeting.

The original plastic covers have been lifted. While the intention was that this would allow the site to dry out, the weather has not co-operated.

Large plastic sheets have been sourced and are on site awaiting a suitable opportunity for installation. This will be done in such a way as to minimize surface impact from the weight of the plastic.

Mr. Swan presented the first results from the geophysical surveys carried out to date. A number of possible features, and anomalies which might suggest the presence of archaeological features, were indicated. It was noted that there was no trace in the surveys of that part of the national monument located outside the land-take for the road scheme.

The images from the geophysical survey carried out prior to the removal of the topsoil are to be provided to Mr. Newman so that a comparison between the two sets of results can be made. It was noted that there could be no guarantee that geophysical survey techniques would detect all archaeological features.

The company involved is to be asked to filter the results to clip out the more prominent results (or highlighted features) allowing the less obvious features to be revealed.

Details of the mechanics of how to prepare for, and proceed with, the excavation of the site were discussed. The Committee carried out an inspection of the site during a particularly heavy downpour and it was apparent that such rainfall was causing serious surface water erosion of the site. It was agreed that booms should be placed around the site of the monument as soon as possible to limit rainwater ingress and the subsequent damage to the site. It was further agreed that it is essential that these booms should be deployed as soon as possible. The booms will consist of sandbags and the positioning of same will be decided by the archaeologists on the ground following detailed observation of the water-flow.

The following elements of the excavation strategy were agreed subject to any views that Dr. Wallace and Prof. Cooney might put forward:

(Note that the sequence of the procedures to be carried out was the subject of a revised proposal which was circulated to the members and agreed by all.)

CN would like more time to review the supplemental method statement. It was agreed this would be considered a working document with ongoing amendments being made as appropriate and agreed.

The teams who will conduct the excavation of the quadrants should familiarize themselves with the revised method statement. Individual teams should be responsible for each area of significance (ie the funnel area, the interior and the bronze age pottery or north eastern area) and how it interfaces with the other areas.

An appropriate nominee should be designated to oversee the implementation of the revised excavation strategy, to ensure an integrated and coherent approach to the excavation between the different teams and to ensure consistency in the presentation of results from these excavations.

The fact that one of the adjacent landowners has refused access for the geophysical survey of his lands was noted by the committee. This was not considered to be significant as there is no indication that the monument extends into these lands.

The Chairperson pointed out that all the suggestions made at the previous meeting had been taken on board and included in the first report to the Minister presented of Friday, 13 July. The Minister wishes to put this report into the public domain, and proposes to post it on the Department�s website. The committee welcomed this.

The Chairperson outlined the position relating to the reasoned opinion of the EU Commission. The State has 2 months to respond to this opinion.

Mr. Swan outlined a proposed media briefing which would involve a presentation explaining the various stages of the investigation of the monument.

In advance of the meeting, the committee was briefed in relation to engineering matters by some of the project engineers - Mr. Kevin O�Rourke, NRA and Mr Ambrose Clarke and Mr. John McGrath, Meath County Council:

The possibility of reducing the �footprint� of the development, taking account of the farm access road, the maintenance strips the screening and the actual tarmac area, was also discussed. There followed a lengthy discussion of the design and specifications of the proposed motorway. The road corridor at the point of the National Monument is 105m wide (E-W). The engineers confirmed that the carriageway surface from outer edge of hard shoulder E to outer edge of hard shoulder W, including median, is 23m. The remainder of the road �take� comprises �cut� and provision of farm access road along the W side of the road �take�. Within the boundaries of the Lismullin site the road will be in deep cut ranging from 600mm to 5.3m at an incline of 1:2 (vis 2m E-W), that there would be an 8m gap between the edge of the �cut� and the proposed farm access road which, in turn would be 4m wide alongside which (to the W) a post-and-rail fence would be erected. CN queried whether measures could be taken to minimise actual impact on the National Monument whilst remaining within the existing road corridor, as follows: (i) changing from inclined cut to vertical retaining walls which might then allow the carriageway itself to be moved to E edge of the road �take�; (ii) re-configuring the proposed farm access road away from the National Monument whilst still serving the needs of the landowners. K O�R advised the meeting that upon discovery of the National Monument re-alignments were considered but such were demonstrated to impact on extant monuments N and S of the National Monument, and on an occupied domestic dwelling, and were therefore not desirable. CN requested copies of the re-alignment drawings made for this assessment.

CN expressed concern that, according to the current design, such a large portion of the National Monument would be impacted not by the actual carriageway surface but by ancillary features, vis �cut�, berm, farm access road and post-and-rail fencing. The engineers made the point that there were legal constraints pertaining to the Environmental Impact Assessment and planning permission surrounding any possibilities for adjusting the route, despite the width of the land-take at this particular point. Nonetheless, they undertook to re-examine the options with a view to minimising as far as practicable the impact on the monument. The various landholdings are to be clearly identified to establish if any other configuration for the farm access road might be feasible.

BD and CN raised concerns about the affect of the planting, which will be undertaken to minimise to noise and visual impacts of the roadway, on the surviving portion of the National Monument outside the road� take�. Plant root systems can seriously damage sub-surface archaeological features and it was felt that the question of the planting should be revisited in the context of the long-term maintenance of the National Monument. At the very least, plants with shallow root systems would be preferred if possible. Again, the engineers observed that planting regimes were also governed by EIS and Planning regulations and could not be altered without a fresh EIA.