The Heritage Council:
"We objected quite late because we expected duchas to and we have policy of not doubling up", says Heritage planning officer Paddy Mathews "on the grounds that the extent of the archaeological remains at the site has not yet been established. So it is not possible at this stage to determine the full impact of the development of the ecclesiastical site." The decision rests with An Bord Pleanala which is obliged to rule within four months of appeals being lodged, or notify all parties in the event of an extension being required. The Heritage Council is hopeful planning permission will be denied.
According to Paddy Mathews, "the Heritage Council is aware our national monuments are treated in isolation and their context within the wider archaeological landscape are not given due consideration, as in this case."
In terms of assessing the development within the wider landscape character, no consideration has been give to natural features such as the nearby Esker Riada, visible from all points on the site, whereas three other eskers in Co Offaly have been designated as proposed natural heritage areas. He agrees the entire site should be protected as "no knows exactly how extensive it is".
An Taisce:
A representative from An Taisce visited the site with the developer and expressed concern over the high number of residential units among other things. "They [An Taisce] want it halved, with another quarter given over to rentals, that's not viable. It'll take 10 years to make a profit." says ??the developer, John Maher. An Taisce objected to the planning permission. "We're looking at the wider trend of development at areas of great heritage and landscape significance," says Ian Lumley, heritage officer of An Taisce. "This proposed development is on the same scale as Carton House and Doonbeg, both of which we appealed and lost. But it is also the first time that a major archaeological site has been affected by this type of development which is essentially a country club with housing."
An Taisce has also questioned the manner in which the public access to the site "is being presented as some kind of bonus." According to Lumley, "This is an ancient Irish ecclesiastical site. Public access is inalienable."
Four private individuals also appealed.