Heritage in Danger Sunday 8th February 4.00‐5.30 Cardiff University, Julian Hodge Building
Moderator: Brendon Wilkins Speakers: Prof Gabriel Cooney and Dr John Barrett Panelists: Gwilym Hughes, Christopher Jones, Janet Miller, Dr Keith Ray.
Background The ‘Heritage in Danger’ session will discuss the potential conflict of interests that can arise when archaeological remains are threatened by new development. Highlighted by internationally visible cases such as the Tara/M3 issue in Ireland, the Stonehenge motorway debate in the UK and the Ilisu Dam project in Turkey, this will be the main debate of the festival and close the first day’s proceedings. This session will be structured with two 20‐minute presentations followed by 50 minutes of discussion, with the audience encouraged to participate and actively contribute. The session will begin with Professor Gabriel Cooney of University College Dublin (Case study 1 ‐ the proposed new port development at Bremore) and Dr John C. Barrett of the University of Sheffield (Case study 2 ‐ the approach taken by Framework archaeology at Heathrow Terminal 5). The two speakers will be supported by a discussion panel including Janet Miller of Atkins Heritage, Gwilym Hughes of Cadw, Christopher Jones of the Highways Agency and Dr Keith Ray, County Archaeologist, Herefordshire. Following an initial focus on the two case studies, the panel will discuss projects that are currently polarising the heritage community, and seek to find a middle ground where constructive debate might have a positive impact.
Summary
When large infrastructure projects are proposed, controversy is never far from the news. Headlines usually depict the impact of development on the historic environment as a conflict between preservation on the one hand and destruction on the other. Public opinion is polarised, and commercial archaeologists ‐ engaged by the developer to service a planning condition ‐ are caught in the crossfire. Bremore port (Case study 1) offers the opportunity to discuss an infrastructural development at its genesis. Similar debates have focussed on contentious sites that have already been subject to a lengthy planning process. Significant discoveries at
excavation‐stage are seized upon by those opposed to development as ‘showstoppers’, but by the time the first excavators begin digging, the planning process is so advanced that subsequent public debate can make little difference. The proposed development at Bremore port is a challenge to the archaeological community to clarify the issues – archaeological, social, political and economic ‐ and present these to the wider public at the beginning of the decision‐making process. The innovative approach adopted by Framework Archaeology at Heathrow Terminal 5 (Case study 2) will provide a counterpoint to the Bremore discussion. Framework is a joint venture agreement between Wessex Archaeology and Oxford Archaeology to undertake work for BAA, and can be described as research archaeology delivered in a commercial environment. This project is often cited as a benchmark for what can be achieved by infrastructural archaeology in balancing the social and economic benefit of development against the knowledge‐gain and wider dissemination of the archaeological results. A pioneering digital recoding system was developed emphasising the interpretative role of the excavator, with the fundamental objective of the project to construct an on‐site human history of the human inhabitation of the landscape. The T5 project was highly commended at the 2008 British Archaeological Awards for ‘the best archaeological innovation award’. Professor David Breeze, Chairman of the awards panel said “the whole project stands as an exemplary exercise in execution, interpretation and dissemination with absolute commitment to the highest professional standards at every point.”
Case study 1: The Bremore port development Gabriel Cooney Drogheda Port Company in partnership with Treasury Holdings proposes to develop a world‐class deepwater port, logistics centre and business part at Bremore in Fingal, north of Dublin. The project is proposed in three phases and Drogheda Port Company/Treasury Holdings state that it is intended that it would be designed and operated to provide the highest environmental standards and respect for the local community. The aim is to create a diverse business district around the port. It is clear that here there is a potential conflict between the recognised value of the historic landscape and the needs of a major infrastructural project. As proposed the footprint of the port facilities will directly impact on the promontory at Bremore. Here there is a range and diversity of archaeological features of varying date, terrestrial and maritime, including a cemetery of megalithic tombs dating to the Neolithic. A significant additional factor is the possible relocation of Dublin Port to Bremore. This is based on the shortage of land for further port facilties in Dublin, the extension of the Dublin Bay Special Protection Area for wild birds and the enormous potential of the Dublin Port holdings as an extension of the high‐end Docklands development. Consideration of the development of the port at Bremore and assessment of its national strategic value should include not only its direct environmental impact but also the wider landscape impact of creating a new hub within the Dublin‐Belfast corridor for industrial and quasi‐urban activity in what is now a largely rural landscape north of the town of Balbriggan.
Case Study 2: Heritage and Development ‐ Resolving the Conflict? Heathrow Terminal 5 and beyond. John Barrett The conflict between the demands of heritage interests and those of the developer are normally depicted as a conflict between preservation, and destruction. The current solution to this conflict in relation to archaeological deposits is that developers are required to work towards a level of preservation commensurate with the importance of the archaeology. The key problem here is to determine levels of importance and to determine them in a way that the developer might recognise. An alternative is to cast development as building the social, economic and heritage environment where the latter is defined as an environment of inquiry, exploration and understanding of the past in terms that are understandable to the widest possible community, and not as the preservation of material remains whose value is often obscure.
Links Bremore Port http://iai.ie/PressReleases/Statement31‐03‐2008.html http://www.friendsoftheirishenvironment.net/paperstoday/index.php?do=papersto day&action=view&id=10921 http://www.droghedaport.ie/cms/publish/port_generalinfo.shtml http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bremore_Port Framework http://www.framearch.co.uk/t5/ http://www.framearch.co.uk/award‐2008.html
Institute of Archaeologists of Ireland (IAI) Press Release 31/03/08 The Institute of Archaeologists of Ireland (IAI) recognises the growing expressions of concern within the profession in relation to the proposed development of a deep‐water port at Bremore, County Dublin. This is the first large scale maritime infrastructure project which has been proposed within Ireland in modern times. IAI first made direct contact with the Drogheda Port Company in 2006 to articulate the concern of its members regarding this proposed development and the need for a detailed and comprehensive assessment of the potential impact of such a development, in advance of detailed design, so that an informed planning decision can be made. The proposed location is an area with a rich, recorded and designated prehistoric and historic archaeological heritage. The most well known element is the passage tomb cemetery on Bremore Head which extends along the coastline to include outliers at Gormanston. The Bremore tombs are designated National Monuments, with the attendant significance and protections this implies. Acknowledged experts in the archaeology of prehistoric Ireland suggest that this cemetery group is comparable to the complexes at the Boyne Valley and Lough Crew in County Meath as well as Carrowmore and Carrowkeel in County Sligo. Archaeological survey in the area has also recorded evidence for settlement and occupation in the vicinity of the tombs from the Neolithic (4000‐2400BC) and Bronze Age (2400‐500BC). The site of the post‐medieval port of Newhaven is located immediately to the south of Bremore Head reflecting the numerous historical references to the Meath/North Dublin coastline as an important entry point into the country from the early medieval period (5th‐12th centuries AD) onwards. The coastline also possesses a significant number of recorded and designated, historic wrecks. A survey of the passage tombs at Bremore was published by Etienne Rynne (Journal of
the Royal Society of Antiquaries, 1960) and recent publications in Archaeology Ireland (Cooney, 2008; Condit, Moore and Brady, 2008) have stressed the significant and integrated nature of the prehistoric and historic archaeological remains in the area. In addition, recent modern developments in the locality, including the Interconnector Gas Pipeline and the Gas Pipeline to the West have given rise to the discovery of numerous prehistoric and early historic sites. These are recorded in the annual Excavations Bulletin. IAI expects that a project of this nature will be subject to the highest professional standard of multidisciplinary, scientific archaeological survey, investigation and assessment in order to articulate the significance of the Bremore tombs and to ensure that appropriate and informed planning decisions can be made in relation to the location and nature of the proposed development. The project, with its maritime component, poses a unique challenge in an Irish context, though projects of this scale have been undertaken in a wider European context. International standards of best practice have been developed and used on projects such as the Storebælt Bridge, in Denmark. Equivalent standards should be implemented on this project, if not improved upon. The protection, designation and management of natural landscapes and cultural landscapes are important strands in the on‐going Review of Archaeological Policy & Practice and also the proposed National Landscape Strategy of the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government. IAI expects that a detailed and comprehensive assessment of the potential impact of such a development will take account of this and anticipates that any planning decision taken will have full regard for the work of the department in this area. At this juncture, IAI urges all interested parties within the profession to engage in open‐ handed and informative dialogue on the matter .