HomeUpSearchMail
NEW

Victor Reijs' comments on draft management plan for Brú na Bóinne world heritage site

Important information missing

• Which party has the final responsibility for the document and the realization of the actions: Dúchas or Department of Arts, Heritage, Gaeltacht and the Islands? It is now unclear in many sections.
• All the references to RMP: County Meath (1996) and Archaeological Inventory (AI) of County Meath (1987) are in some way vague. Both seem to be called together Recorded Monument designation (RM) in the National Monument Acts 1930 - 1994 (section 3.5.1)
In the rest of my comments I assume that the RM is the reference inventory.
• I understand Appendix 2 is the RM (as in the title), why is it related to RMP in section 3.5.1?
• Section 4.5.1 The first bullet uses four terms: monuments, sites, associated land and access routes. But in the following bullets or the term monument or site is being used.  What is the difference? I assume in principle one should repeat everywhere these four terms?
In the rest of my comments I will use monuments for all the above terms.
• Section 4.5.2 only talks about the RMP: County Meath. Is the RM not important anymore? I assume there is only one list!
• Section 4.10.1: Ireland must follow the highest international standards. Can you provide information of these highest international standards in the world concerning WHC's? Which country/ies has/ve these?
• Section 4.11.1
• The concept archaeological potential is quite vague and open, why is RM not mentioned?
• What are heritage buildings and why only when reasonable and necessary? What is the relation with the RPS?
• In the document, terms like small-scale (section 4.11.2) and large-scale (section 4.7.1) are used. I assume there is also a defined term as medium-scale?
• What is the period of this management plan, mentioned in section 5.1?
• Second bullet of section 5.3.3. Which passage is describe here: it is rather vague if it is the east, west or both?
• Is the chamber discussed in section 5.3.3 forth bullet, the same as mentioned in 6.3.2? In section 5.3.3 it reads as if it is a modern rebuilt of something that already exists. In 6.3.2 it seems something totally new?
• Why is Appendix 2 (the official RM!?) missing monuments?
Missing for instance:
• Oldbridge mill
• All the satellites around Knowth site 1. Perhaps it is the Archaeological complex, but if buildings are know, lets make them explicit in this list.
• etc.

Minor issues

• Chapter 3: What is the importance of Craul in Figure 1 and 4 (never referred to in the text or appendices)?
• I assume section 4.5 until 4.10 (or 4.11) are all sub sections of 4.4?
• Appendix 6: What is Oldhouse in VP6? Should it be Oldbridge?

Proposed additional actions

• If my points in the section Important information missing can not be acknowledged in the future text of chapters 1 to 6, then they are part of my proposed additional actions.
• The maps used in the document don't provide an accurate location of the monuments (sometimes even the location differs in different maps). The management plan is not the proper place for have accurate maps, but now it looks like they were specially made for this document, which should not be the case, it should be from the selves... So a proper database plus GIS information must be made available (related to chapter 3)
• Systematic and periodic updating of the RM list is needed (related to section section 4)
• If beside small and large scale developments also medium-scale developments exists, rules for medium-scale developments need to define for the buffer zone and an area (to be defined) around the buffer zone (related to section 4.11).
• Dúchas needs to actively study all planning permissions and provide active and prompt responses to these (related to section 4.11.2).
• Actions must be instigated/maintained to remove hedges (like the hedge at Knowth west and Dowth South /North) and artificial blocking (like the concrete wall at Knowth east, see also my proposal for this) where celestial alignments/directions are expected (related to section 5.4.3)
• Procedures must be set up to determine who can have access the monuments (related of 6.3.6)
• All information (past, present and future) should be made available through as much media as possible. The Internet should be actively stimulated for dissemination of information (related to section 6.4)
• A systematic program to investigate monuments is indeed needed. A relation with the International institute on Astroarchaeology could be helpful.
P.S. Don't be alarmed by the name of this institute. It is not only about astronomy, but also other sciences/streams have an important rôle. The institute stimulates a transdisciplinary study of monuments (related to section 7.4.1)
• Action 3: A plan is needed to provide for proper (financial) compensation for farmers so that monuments will be save guarded by them. Farmers must be stimulated to registrate a find.
• Action 6 of the draft should be reworded: there must be an option in the management plan for acquiring land if needed.
• Action 18. This should include roads that are used to guide tourist to these monuments. It is a disgrace that tourist are now leaded along the cement factory with it's very dirty roads!
• Action 22: Any future research that will be done in the region (whom ever does the work: professional, amateur, etc.) needs to have a mandatory reporting clause. Part of this reporting must use public means (like the Internet). If research has not fulfilled this item, no (or only partly) financial compensation for the work will be provided.
• Action 29: Stimulate non intrusive research including geophysics and not only the mentioned aerial photography.
• A continuous action point: Keep communicating with people in this environment (like the Irish Stones community). The present provided feedback loop by Dúchas is unique, and I hope this cooperation is kept alive.

Your own comments

Disclaimer and Copyright
HomeUpSearchMail