Sean Kirwan
Heritage Policy Division, Dept. of Arts, Culture and the Gaeltacht
The process of ratification of the Convention on the Protection of the Architectural Heritage of Europe; (commonly referred to as the Granada Convention) was recently completed. The current situation regarding ratification of the European Convention on the Protection of the Archaeological Heritage (commonly referred to as the Valletta Convention) which was signed by Ireland in 1992 is that a Government decision was made in December 1996 authorising the Minister for Arts, Culture and the Gaeltacht to seek Dáil approval for the ratification of the Convention. The Dáil passed the motion approving ratification on the 13th of February last. It is hoped that the process will be completed in the near future.
Both of these conventions were drafted within the framework of the Council of Europe. The Convention on the Protection of the Architectural Heritage of Europe was opened for signature in 1985. The European Convention on the Protection of the Archaeological Heritage was opened for signature in 1992. The latter is a revised and updated convention replacing the original European Convention on the Protection of the Archaeological Heritage opened for signature in London in 1969 to which Ireland did not become party.
The following articles are reproduced from The Newsletter of the Association of Professional Irish Archaeologists Vol. 24 1997.
1.1. Archaeology is a finite and non-renewable resource which in many cases is vulnerable to damage and destruction. It must therefore be managed in an appropriate manner so that it remains a resource both as part of our national heritage and to be used in education, leisure and tourism.
1.2. Where nationally important archaeological remains are threatened by development there should be a presumption in favour of their physical preservation.
1.3. Archaeological excavation should be seen as a second best option.
1.4. If a proposal proceeds, developers should be encouraged design the final development so that its impact on archaeological deposits is as slight as possible, thus ensuring their substantial preservation for the future.
1.5. All planning questions relating to the archaeological heritage should be referred, as a matter of policy, back to the National Monuments and Historic Properties Service (NMHPS) (Section 132, 1994 Planning Regulations)
1.6. A concerted effort should be made, as a matter of some urgency, to rationalise all relevant Planning and National Monuments legislation.
1.7. All Local Authority Development Plans (LADP) should reconcile the need for development with the interests of conservation including archaeology (Section 32, 1994 Planning Regulations). Each LADP should include a policy statement for the protection, enhancement and preservation of sites of archaeological interest and their setting. These sites and settings should be annotated on maps, and made available to all planners to provide a framework for the consideration of proposals which may affect archaeological remains.
1.8. The present list system should be abandoned in favour of a statement referring to sites extant in the Sites and Monuments Record.
1.9. It should be stated in all LADPs that any proposal for development on or close to any known archaeological sites should be immediately referred to NMHPS.
1.10. All planning authorities should make full use of the expert staff available in the NMHPS.
1.11. In order to avoid, or at least lessen, potential conflict between development and archaeology, it is vital that early consultations take place between developers, NMHPS and planners. Once detailed designs have been drawn up flexibility becomes more expensive and difficult to achieve.
1.12. Such consultations will give developers advance warning of the archaeological sensitivity of a site and should they wish to proceed can have the site assessed by non-invasive methods which include a desk-based evaluation and geophysical survey if appropriate.
1.13. With the desk based information in hand the developer can decide, from an informed position, whether to proceed. If he does, the planning authority may require an archaeological field evaluation to be carried out prior to a final decision on the planning application. Such evaluations help to define the character and extent of the archaeological remains and as such indicate the weight which ought to be attached to their preservation and identify options for minimising or avoiding damage. On the basis of the desk based assessment and the field evaluation an informed and reasonable planning decision can be made.
1.14. If, despite all efforts, significant remains will be destroyed, the hand excavation of some portion of the development area of the site may be required during which the archaeological evidence is recorded
1.15. In the case of an excavation the NMHPS should ensure that the developer has made satisfactory provision for the excavation and recording of the remains and the subsequent publication of the results, prior to releasing the site for development.
1.16. Where there is conflict or potential conflict, planning conditions may be imposed. These may range from a 'watching brief' during construction to carrying out archaeological investigation and recording in the course of permitted operations on site or by the use of a negative condition, that is a condition prohibiting the carrying out of the development until such time as, for example, the archaeological excavation of a specified area, has been carried out.
2.1. Preamble: The term linear archaeology has been used to cover both types of schemes. A difference between the two, is that road projects generally affect rural archaeological sites while service schemes by and large are concentrated in urban areas. There are, of course, projects which overlap, gas pipelines for example. However rather than attempting to draft scheme specific implications, the points highlighted below should be seen as being equally applicable to both road and service schemes.
2.2. The effectiveness of both the archaeological and the planning response to linear archaeology is variable. In order for the situation to improve it is important that the proposals outlined below are not only consistently adhered to in the planning stage but also consistently carried out as part of the archaeological response to these types of developments.
2.3. All details of roads and services schemes should forwarded to NMHPS at the inception stage, for their input and guidance on the potential impact on the archaeological resource (Section 132, 1994 Planning Regulations).
2.4. Consulting engineers must be made aware at an early stage that archaeology is one of the factors that must be considered in the assessment of a scheme's environmental impact. Too often it is tacked on as an afterthought.
2.5. NMHPS should, in the case of a publicly financed road or service scheme advise the engineering consultants on their required response, including ratification of appropriate briefs and approval of archaeological sub-consultants. Where the scheme is being undertaken by a private developer this function should be carried out by their consultant archaeologist but with reference to NMHPS.
2.6. Following the approval of a scheme's Inception Report, a desk-based study of the entire route options corridor should be undertaken along with a walkover survey. The views of interested parties, such as local societies, should be sought at this stage.
2.7. During geotechnical test-pitting, an archaeologist should be present to observe the pits (A statutory requirement for an archaeological presence during geotechnical testing on, in or close to sites or zones of archaeological interest should be considered).
2.8. This initial archaeological assessment should form part of the Preliminary Environmental Assessment Report. At this point all statutory consultees should be approached for their views on further responses.
2.9. Once the route options have been selected, they should all be surveyed using every available appropriate technique, other than machine trenching.
2.10. A summary of the data gathered should form part of a scheme's Technical Appraisal Report, with details forwarded to the statutory consultees and relevant curatorial bodies. Informed representations on archaeological grounds could then be made.
2.11. With the publication of the preferred route, but well in advance of the issue of compulsory purchase orders, further fieldwork should be undertaken, including targeted machine trenching. The information derived from this should be amalgamated with that already gathered to form a Technical Report to be produced in support of the Environmental Statement.
2.12. Finally, the archaeological sub-consultant should define a detailed mitigation strategy for any known sites remaining on the route line. In addition, proposals should also be advanced for dealing with the still possible appearance of the unexpected during the construction programme.
The author, Eoin Halpin, who is vice chairman of IAPA, drew heavily on the following documents in the compilation of the two articles above:
Planning Policy Guidance 16, Archaeology and Planning DOE 1990
A Planning Strategy for Rural Northern Ireland, DOE 1993, and
Environmental Assessment and Archaeology. IFA Occasional Paper No. 15.
He also consulted with the relevant authorities in the Department of Arts, Culture and the Gaeltacht.