An environmentalist who is challenging the proposed routing of the M3 motorway near the Hill of Tara is urging a form of "archaeological absolutism" which is unworkable, counsel for the State argued before the High Court yesterday.
While conceding that new laws introduced in 2004 have limited the protections that previously existed for national monuments, James Connolly SC argued it was the legislature that had made those changes. All the Minister for the Environment was doing when he issued disputed directions regarding the M3 motorway was to put those changes in place, counsel said.
The changes were changes of policy which the legislature, in its wisdom, had put in place, he said. The legislature had to balance archeological interests with those of the community, and there was no basis for arguing that national monuments laws should "trump" road Acts or the planning code.
The national monuments legislation did not envisage "vast swathes of landscape" being designated as a national monument as was being urged by environmentalist Vincent Salafia for the general area around Tara, Mr Connolly said. Monuments were man-made items and a landscape was not subject to national monuments protection.
There would be "huge logistical problems" if swathes of landscape were so designated.
In challenging the route of the M3, Mr Salafia was advocating a form of archaeological absolutism that was unworkable, counsel said. What was being sought was a sterilisation of some 91sq km (35sq miles) around Tara in circumstances where the Hill of Tara itself was already a registered protected monument extending over 100 acres.
Mr Connolly was outlining the basis of the State's opposition to the challenge by Mr Salafia to directions given by the Minister for the Environment Dick Roche in May 2005 regarding the treatment of archaeological works along the proposed route of the M3 motorway near Tara.
Mr Salafia, Dodder Vale, Churchtown, Dublin, is seeking to overturn the directions which relate to the treatment of 38 known archaeological sites along the proposed M3 route. The sites were discovered by Meath County Council while "test trenching" the route. Mr Salafia claims the directions were unlawful because they failed to address the issue of whether the sites were a national monument that required preservation.
The State contends that none of the 38 sites is a national monument.
Mr Salafia is further arguing that certain provisions of the National Monuments (Amendment) Act 2004 - the 2004 Act - are unconstitutional because they undermine the State's responsibility to protect national monuments.
The 2004 Act was introduced in an attempt to deal with the discovery of a national monument during the development of an approved road project.
Mr Salafia argues the site at Tara requiring protection and conservation extends beyond the existing protected site surrounding the hill itself, and he wants a declaration that the Hill of Tara/Skryne valley constitutes a national monument and a complex or series of national monuments.
In further submissions earlier yesterday, Gerard Hogan SC, for Mr Salafia, argued that the provisions of the 2004 Act mean the Minister for the Environment now has "free rein" to decide any national monument, including the Hill of Tara itself, may be destroyed for road building or other purposes.
The 2004 Act placed no limitation on the discretion of the Minister to direct the destruction of a national monument if the Minister decides that destruction is in the "public interest".
There was no definition in the Act of what public interest means and it was for the Minister to decide.
The case resumes on Tuesday before Mr Justice Thomas Smyth.
