Minutes of Meeting of Tentative List Expert Advisory Group – 12 February 2009.
Attendance:
Lord Donald Hankey (Chair)
Anne Costello
Dermot Burke
Brian Lucas
Dr. Peter Cox
Dr. Pauline Garvey
Dr. Rebecca Jeffrey
Charles Stanley-Smith
Dr. Claire Cave/Ian Duff
Martin Colreavy
Prof. Adrian Phillips
Dr. Jukka Jokilehto
Prof. George Eogan
Brian K Duffy
Joe Crockett
Willie Cumming
Ray Connell
Dr. Brendan Dunford
President ICOMOS UK
DoEHLG – Heritage Policy
OPW
DoEHLG – Heritage Policy
Vice-President ICOMOS Ireland
NUI Maynooth
DoEHLG - NPWS
An Taisce
UCD
DoEHLG – Chief Architect
IUCN
UNESCO Expert
Archaeologist (Retired)
DoEHLG – Chief Archaeologist
CCMA
Senior Architect
DoEHLG – Heritage Policy
Heritage Council
Apologies
Eugene Keane, OPW; Mr. Ciaran O’Keeffe, DoEHLG (National Parks and Wildlife
Service);
Adoption of Minutes of Meeting of 16 January 2009
The minutes of the last meeting were adopted with one minor amendment.
Agenda Item 1: Assessment of Reports on Sites on Current Tentative List
The Ceide Fields and the NW Mayo Boglands/Clara Bog
Dr Jeffrey stated that she revised the previous report from a natural heritage perspective
in line with the required format. These cultural landscapes are presented without a
defined site boundary and she feels that the Group could lend itself to establishing same.
Adrian Phillips, had some comments and said that while he could not formally represent
the IUCN viewpoint, he could provide the group with a good indication of the approach
they might take. He thought that it would find it difficult to support the nomination in
respect of Ceide Fields under Natural Criterion (ix), (and planned to say similar things
about Killarney). This is because only small remnants of bog survive and in general the
natural landscape has been compromised, especially because of peat extraction. While in
global terms the areas were very small, their importance at European and national levels
was recognized through designation under Habitats Directive. Dr Jeffrey clarified that
NW Mayo Boglands are of the deep blanket variety. Mr. Phillips suggested, as he had in
writing to Dr. Jeffrey and Mr. Duffy, that the area might be considered under cultural
criteria as an example of a fossilized, organically evolved Cultural Landscape, though
with important natural values falling short of OUV. The Chair stated the need to consider
planning and management issues that would arise during public consultation. Mr Lucas
outlined that we need to make a decision on all potential sites anon. He suggested that the
Ceide Fields and the NW Mayo Boglands should be included on the amended list with a
view to addressing all relevant site management issues going forward. Mr Duffy stated
that the emphasis on the Ceide Fields and the NW Mayo Boglands should be on a cultural
landscape as opposed to a blanket bog. Dr. Jokilehto feels that there is not enough
evidence to proceed on the basis of Criterion (ii) but that both Criteria (iii) & (v) were
relevant and justified. He further stated that the World Heritage Committee have ongoing
issues with OUV and he recommended that all proposals need to focus on OUV and the
site management perspective separately. The question of integrity will help to define the
site’s dimension, natural landscapes (with WHS) tend to be in excess of 1 million
hectares but cultural sites can be of smaller size.
Action:
The Report should be finalised. The cultural perspectives of the site and the principles of
site boundaries, access, presentation, and local management need to be completed. Brian
K Duffy to organise.
Clara Bog
Dr Jeffrey said that Clara Bog has no cultural ties. Mr. Phillips said that he thought that
IUCN would not consider that the area measured up to other extensive bog system in wet
temperate climates. Mr Lucas asked that a report be produced in respect of any site that
might have to be removed from the list. Dr. Jokilehto suggested that there was no harm in
leaving it on the list, particularly from the local and national perspective.
Action:
Dr. Jeffrey will provide a report in the correct format within 2 weeks.
The Burren:
The Chair feels that this paper is well researched and the site is high on the list of sites to
be considered for inclusion. It does however lack focus on the following issues; site
access, the effects of tourism, the benefits to the local economy and the prospective
demographic and employment pattern(s). Mr. Phillips felt that there was sufficient
evidence to proceed with this proposal under Criterion (viii). Dr Dunford added that the
amended paper contains a comparative study of karst landscapes and features including
turloughs which are uniquely Irish. He also felt that the time to engage with the local
authorities has arrived as they are the only ones suitably qualified to fill the gaps
identified by the Chair such as planning, access, demographic and socio-economic issues.
Dr. Jokilehto raised his concerns regarding the long term management of the Burren.
Protecting the OUV is critical. What are the limits of change before OUV is affected?
He feels that the potential for encroachment of development would compromise aesthetic
landscape and spatial qualities. He stated that Criterion (iii) should also be considered. He
also asked that the proposal should look at the limits of development from the private
housing and quarrying perspectives.
2
The Chair said that preordained management plans can be difficult to sell to the local
stakeholder when imposed by State Parties. It is imperative that the public consultation,
stakeholder involvement, building of consensus (the process of good governance) is
utilised to develop ownership by local stakeholders. Dr Dunford noted that the single
biggest issue relating to this proposal is the resourcing of any management blueprint and
the positive engagement of a very diverse range of stakeholders. Dr. Jokilehto added that
whilst the management plan is absolutely necessary it ultimately needs to be
implementable.
The Chair suggested that if the management plan takes 3 years to negotiate successfully
then the Burren might not top the revised Tentative List. Mr Lucas added that all of the
sites on the revised list will need substantial periods of consultation etc. to ensure
readiness for any formal nomination. Dr Dunford felt that a process of consultation on the
future management and evolution of the Burren should start immediately and if the
nomination process requires a long time to succeed then so be it. The Chair added that
each paper should include a 2 page summary which could be made available to the public
and would form the basis for the Tentative List submission to the World Heritage
Committee. This would help to develop a transparent process. Mr Crockett asked that
County Managers and other senior local authority figures be given copies of summary
reports in the suggested format in advance of public consultation. The Chair felt that the
local authorities should be encouraged to contribute further to proposals in their areas
thus giving the consultation process a broader consensual basis. Dr Jeffrey stated that
lines on maps are always contentious. Dr Dunford agreed and added that the proposal
needs another edit and that Criterion (iii) also needs to be developed further. Mr Lucas
said that public consultation should start in March so papers will need to be finalised by
the end of February. Some indication may need to be given to the public, at the Tentative
List consultation stage, in relation to the core and buffer zones. Mr Cumming concluded
the discussion by saying that it is a positive that Clare County Council have themselves
suggested the Burren for inclusion on the tentative list and that they have also included it
in their draft County Development Plan.
Action:
Dr. Brendan Dunford will finalise the Report and provide a Summary within two weeks.
Killarney National Park (KNP)
The Chair commended Dr Jeffrey for the amount of effort afforded this paper. He
questioned the natural landscape approach and subsequently suggested that the proposal
might adopt a cultural landscape stance. He cited Criteria (ii), (iv) & (x) at which point
Dr Jeffrey invited discussion on the criteria deemed relevant by the Group. Mr. Phillips
thought that in relation to natural criterion (x) at any rate, there were obstacles in respect
of integrity and management of the site, citing invasive vegetation and animal species.
He thought too that there were some similarities between KNP and the Lake District. The
Lake District has been a particularly difficult nomination: it had effectively failed to
make the grade as a natural site and had not yet been successfully nominated as a cultural
one. Dr Jeffrey suggested an input from a cultural expert as ecology is her own field. Dr.
Jokilehto feels that the possible strength of this paper lies in a composite site proposal as
opposed to any singular focus, adding that it should be well down the pecking order of
3
the revised list. Mr Burke suggested that it now appears that the Burren has overtaken
KNP in terms of being proposed as our prime natural landscape. The Chair urged Dr
Jeffrey to fully explore the cultural element in order to present a comprehensive paper
that might satisfy all stakeholders.
Action:
Brian K Duffy to arrange for a cultural input to the paper and liase with Rebecca Jeffrey
to provide a short summary paper.
Western Stone Forts
Prof. Eogan stated that the forts enjoy a widespread distribution and present a unique
architecture that afford any given site a great example of Irish archaeology. He felt that
the paper will require further extensive research prior to any designation or consideration
for nomination occurring. He suggested that Criteria (iii) & (iv) should form the basis of
the proposal. The Chair asked that any matters to be considered should be clearly
identified and addressed fully. Dr. Jokilehto felt that the forts represent a very different
example of a defence system. He suggested that all the other elements of the sites need to
be referenced, eg the settlements around the forts. The best examples available should be
identified and presented as a thematic proposal. He further stated that we don’t need to
know everything about the forts, there should be some elements of mystery. Fortifications
are subject to ongoing maintenance so the integrity far outweighs the authenticity
perspective. There is a need for a great dynamic study of this fortification system so that
the nomination can stand up to other examples such as the Great Wall of China. Prof.
Eogan felt that the question of chronology is very important and reaffirmed his earlier
comment regarding further extensive research being undertaken to finalise the paper. The
Chair felt that the sites should be kept on the list that they represent for Western Europe a
unique expression of bronze and iron age development e.g. cultural development over a
great span of time. The report needs to focus on the numerous gaps in this proposal.
Action:
The report needs to be written in the appropriate format and finalised. A summary report
is also required. Brian Lucas to liaise with Eugene Keane.
Agenda Item 2 Assessment of Sites not on current Tentative List
Monasticism
Mr Duff stated that each of the sites, namely; Durrow, Glendalough, Inis Caltra &
Monasterboice were monastic cities founded in the 6th Century. Mr. Duff quoted Charles
Doherty historian as saying that these monasteries were unique in the Dark Ages as
centres of learning which they exported this learning all across Europe. This has not been
replicated anywhere else. Whilst Clonmacnoise is an excellent example, any proposal
with regard to monasticism should include all of the sites as a thematic nomination. Mr
Duff suggests that Criteria (i), (iii), (iv) & (vi) could apply. Dr. Jokilehto felt that a group
nomination would strengthen the possibility of success. In relation to the suggested
criteria, Dr. Jokilehto feels that (vi) is relevant, is unsure about (i) & (iv) and that we
should should look at (ii) & possibly (iii). He added that historically some monastic sites
were found to be pagan sites previously. He asked what preceeded these cities? He said
that it is important to look at the natural heritage surrounding the sites. He further stated
4
that the intangible aspects can be factors supporting the proposal. Prof. Eogan said that
the historial aspect of these sites is very significant, adding that the highest concentration
of monuments is in North County Meath. Dr. Jokilehto suggested that substantial buffer
zones would need to be factored in to the proposal. Mr Cumming stated that these sites
are intact as collections of monuments, adding that Lusk & Kells offer an ongoing living
context to monastic sites. He feels they could also be considered for any thematic
proposal.
The Chair noted that additional sites could be added subsequently to the Clonmacnoise
nomination. Dr. Jokilehto noted the importance of the surrounding archaeology and that
not all sites need to be on the Tentative List. He recounted a Spanish proposal which
initially proposed in excess of 150 examples as a themed nomination of late medieval
sites of church architecture, the formal proposal thankfully only cited 6 such examples.
The Chair felt that the best examples lend themselves to stronger statements of OUV thus
avoiding a compromised proposal offering less chance of success.
Action:
Finalise the Report in the appropriate format incorporating the management issues and
practicalities of transport and tourism management etc protections in place. Provide a
Summary Report in the agreed format. (Dr. Cave and Mr. Ian Duff)
Blasket Islands
Mr Burke assured the Group that an amended version of this paper is still work in
progress and will be forthcoming. Dr. Jokilehto felt there is little comparison between
Dublin’s world class literary tradition and the Blaskets example. Mr Burke indicated that
there is a management plan in place for the Great Blasket Island. He further stated that a
comparison with St Kildas is being researched in tandem with the literary and storytelling
traditions of the island. Dr. Jokilehto suggested that there was a need to find something of
Outstanding Universal Value. Mr. Phillips added that political considerations cannot be a
feature of the Operational Guidelines.
Action:
A report in the appropriate format must be finalised for the Blaskets to be assessed by the
Group. A Summary Report in the agreed format must also be provided. (Dermot Burke
to deliver on this action.)
Aran Islands
Dr Dunford stated that the Islands are a geographic extension of the Burren, but that the
rich cultural landscape or the Aran Islands is unique in its own right and worthy of
consideration independently of the Burren. He felt that Criteria (v) and (viii) would form
the basis of the proposal. He considered all of the following factors when drafting the
paper; the karst landscape, the native language, the stonewall systems and the relationship
with the Atlantic Ocean. He felt that the proposal would benefit from an input, in relation
to the ongoing sustainability of the Islands, from Galway County Council. The Chair
noted that there are many intriguing similarities between the Burren and the Islands
whilst also recognising that wholly different political pressures exist in both locations.
Dr. Jokilehto suggested that the proposal should look at the significance of both sites
separately before making a comparison of any relevant commonalities and proceed from
5
that point. Mr. Phillips added that the Burren presents a superior proposal on the basis of
Criterion (viii). There are a number of issues to be considered here. Should the Aran
Islands be considered on their own, as an extension of the Burren or because of the
Western Stone Forts? The Chair suggested leaving the Islands in the list and asked that
the final report fully address the outline justification for OUV, authenticity, integrity,
comparative analysis, management and sustainability.
Action:
Finalise the report in the appropriate format and provide a summary report in agreed
format. (Brendan Dunford to carry out this task).
Royal Sites
Dr Cave reaffirmed the 5 sites being considered for this proposal, namely, Hill of
Uisneach, Tara Complex, Rathcroghan, Rock of Cashel & Dun Áilinne. She added that
the paper will promote cultural landscapes with an archaeological heritage. The Hill of
Uisneach is in private ownership with no obvious access, the Hill of Tara is state owned
and is located at the centre of the complex. The Rathcroghan Mound is easily accessed
from the road; a car park owned by Roscommon County Council is adjacent to the site.
There is a pedestrian gateway from the car park to the mound, which is on state-owned
land. The Rock of Cashel is state-owned and is heavily dependent on the car and coach
park as the only access to the site. Peter Cox sought clarity on whether Cashel was being
considered as a single nomination or as part of the Royal Sites Theme. The Group
considers that the quality of OUV is not adequate for many sites in their own right but
each could be as part of the total theme of the Royal sites of Ireland. Dun Áilinne is
privately owned and has little or no access. Dr. Jokilehto suggested that consideration be
given to adding these sites to the Bru na Boinne WHS. Mr Duffy stated that Tara
postdates Bru na Boinne by 2,500 years, the Neolithic and Iron & Celtic Ages could not
be considered to be thematic. Dr. Jokilehto further stated that the intangible aspect is
common to all of these sites. Mr Burke asked that Navan Fort be given consideration to
be part of this proposal. Mr Duff said that ICOMOS previously recognised that Bru na
Boinne and Navan Fort were very similar and this would surely substantiate the
alignment of the Royal Sites with the WHS. Mr. Philips added that the Buffer Zones
would need to be addressed and defined. Dr Jokilehto added that the WH Committee
places significance on the visual aspects of World Heritage Sites. The Chair cited the
Stonehenge WHS and the presence of the adjoining A303. Dr Jokilehto further stated that
the significance of the site can sometimes overshadow potentially negative
considerations, perhaps the Royal Sites proposal could have 1 or 2 sites initially and the
remaining sites could be added subsequently.
Action:
Report to be finalised in the appropriate format including material on practicalities such
as OUV, authenticity, integrity, comparative analysis, management and sustainability,
possible threats to the sites, transportand access to sites and the impacts of tourism. A
Summary Report is also required. (Dr Cave will provide these Reports)
Georgian Dublin
Dr Cox feels that this paper needs further research particularly in relation to literary
aspect. Mr Colreavy stated that site management, integrity and OUV have been revisited
6
for the current draft. Mr Cumming feels that there is definite potential to proceed with
this nomination but added we need to engage with Dublin City Council to seek their
endorsement for without their support the proposal will not succeed. He added that the
boundaries remain undefined but there was a clear pattern of development from the
Canals to, the Phoenix Park, the Quays and the Docks. The City Council have undertaken
major conservation works of Georgian Structures in the last 20 years. He referred to the
literary tradition and the fact that all published writers are male. He further stated that he
was looking at 2 aspects of their works, namely, the fact that Stoker was born and resided
in the city but made no reference to it in his works and the likes of Joyce who were based
in Dublin and made repeated references to the city in their publications.
The Chair revisited the question of planning and asked what conservation architecture
and planning legislation exist in the city. He also asked if the World Heritage Committee
can be satisfied that Georgian Dublin is adequately protected against detrimental
development to its OUV? Dr Jokilehto said that all cities should have proper
management mechanisms in place, adding that the buffer zones should protect the site
within the visual horizon of Georgian Dublin.
Mr Cumming suggested that the engagement of Dublin City Council would need to occur
soon. But the Chair felt that the paper would need to be at final draft stage prior to such
an engagement taking place, adding that it would not be constructive to meet with them if
we weren’t ready as it could result in an unfavourable outcome. Mr Cumming added that
St Petersburg, Nancy & Bordeaux are on the current WHL. Dr Jokilehto said that the
significance of the site needs to be fully researched and identified thus giving the
proposal more substance. Mr Colreavy stated that the lack of planning frameworks and
legislation would weaken any potential nomination. The Chair countered this view by
suggesting that it would form a surmountable challenge and a strength to preserve the
Georgian qualities of the City and to enhance its historic design integrity. Dr Jokilehto
said that the positive benefits of the potential WHS could be highlighted to combat the
current economic climate. For example, the City Council would surely be amenable to
conservation works as opposed to engaging in new construction projects. The Chair
concluded that all papers need to focus on completion and the Group should address any
outstanding practical issues.
Action:
Report needs to be finalised in appropriate format and including information on
practicalities such as threats protections stakeholders. A summary report is also needed.
(Peter Cox, Willie Cumming and Martin Colreavy )
Walled Towns
Mr Colreavy said that he had looked at integrity and comparative analysis in the interim.
He still had issues with integrity, adding that site management was also a concern.
Mr Cumming said that he wasn’t sure we could satisfactorily deal with these concerns.
The Chair stated that he can’t see OUV.
7
Dr Jokilehto added that he was doubtful about the chances of this proposal being
successful. He mentioned Carcassone in France and other walled town properties on the
WH List and could see no OUV in this proposal. Mr Colreavy said that a €16,000
investment brought about a 30 fold increase to the local economy, in Youghal Co Cork,
by way of return on the occasion of the National Walled Towns Day. This clearly
demonstrates the economic value of heritage. It was agreed by the Group that at national
level these sites have merit but not on a global basis. The site has no OUV.
Action:
No further action required here.
Agenda Item 3: Proposals received post Public Advertisement
Ms Costello informed the Group that we had received 31 formal proposals in response to
the recent public advertisement inviting submissions by the 30 January 2009 deadline.
She added that a number of new sites had been proposed, namely;












Birr Castle Demesne (proposed by Birr Scientific & Heritage Foundation),
Boyne Navigation (proposed by IWAI),
Carrigaphooca Castle (proposed by the Society of the Descendants of the Officers
of the Irish Brigades in Europe 1692-1792),
Cork Harbour (proposed by Pat Ruane/Cathy Buchanan/Cathal O’Mahony &
Cobh Tourism),
Cork Military Fortifications (proposed by Catryn Power),
Lough Gur (proposed by Limerick Co Co), McCarthy Castles (proposed by the
Society of the Descendants of the Officers of the Irish Brigades in Europe 16921792),
Rinn Duinn & St Johns Wood (proposed by Roscommon Co Co),
Shannonbridge (Napoleonic Fortifications) proposed by Roscommon Co Co,
Shannon Corridor (IWAI),
Spike Island (proposed by Mary McCaffrey/Hendrick Verwey),
St Brendan’s Cathedral and Complex Clonfert (proposed by Galway Co Co),
Tory Island (proposed by Donegal Co Co) &
Valentia Tetrapod Trackway (proposed by Dr Sarah Gatley (GSI)).
Those proposals already under consideration by the Expert Group will be circulated to
the relevant experts to feed into their deliberations and the remaining new proposals will
need to be assessed by the Group experts. Ms Costello invited the Group to take
ownership of individual proposals in order to ensure that all submissions were
acknowledged and assessed properly. Dr Jokilehto suggested a Summary proposal format
along the lines of the following;
 Brief Description,
 Statement of OUV,
 Significance of Site (1 Paragraph),
 Authenticity,
8



Integrity,
Comparative Analysis (Distinguishing features need to be clearly outlined) and
Site Management.
The Chair reiterated the need for a clear and comprehensive assessment of all proposals.
He urged the Group to focus on and address any outstanding practical issues and
obstacles.
Agenda Item 4: Local Authority Consultation/Public Consultation Process Update
Consultation with LA County Managers
Mr Lucas informed the Group that he had made arrangements to meet with the Clare &
Galway County Managers on 6 March to consult with them on the Burren and Aran
Islands Proposals. He had been advised to engage firstly with the Strategic Policy
Committee (SPC) prior to consulting with a wider public forum. SPCs would typically
consist of county councillors and local business and other interests. He suggested that the
Group should present a set of Frequently Asked Questions to Local Authorities (LAs)
and we should look at encouraging them to take the lead in consultation fora. He added
that we may need to give some clarity to the issue of Core & Buffer Zones .
Dr Jokilehto cited a previous example, namely the Bam District in Iran, where despite the
fact that one municipality initiated the nomination proposal, several municipalities
contributed to the Management Plan when the benefits of WHS were positively grasped
by all stakeholders. Mr. Phillips stated that whilst the benefits of WHS are important, the
costs and challenges need to be communicated to the public, adding that the State Party
should identify the benefits to the SPC of WHS. He also suggested the employment of an
experienced facilitator to maximize the chances of a positive consultation outcome. The
Chair said that absolute policies don’t work when seeking wider consensus. The EAG
needs to promote participation and consensus, thus hopefully giving ownership of the
project to the public as opposed to DoEHLG imposing WHS constraints.
Mr Lucas invited the Group to contribute questions and suggested answers to his FAQs.
Dr Dunford expressed reservations about being involved in selling WHS to the public
adding that the pros and cons need to be fully debated in the consultation period. Dr
Jokilehto suggested reference to current WHS sites in the debate would not do any harm.
Mr Lucas added that local authority planners and county managers could make a positive
contribution in respect of planning issues that may arise in the consultation process. Mr.
Colreavy added that DoEHLG could look at feeding into Niall Cussen’s (Departmental
Planning Inspectorate) knowledge and experience of planning and national spatial
strategies.
The Chair added that the EAG is compiling a draft Tentative List and not a formal
nomination, suggesting the need to provide support and encouragement to any potential
proposal. He also cautioned the Group about the need to be aware of the planning and
development constraints and benefits of Tentative List sites when embarking upon public
9
consultation processes. Dr Dunford felt that there is a need to pursue a carefully
constructed strategic consultation plan adding that we should look to identify the relevant
stakeholders with a view to having them buy into the WHS process. The Chair suggested
that positive press coverage will help gain public favour adding that the ground needs to
be softened to facilitate their continued support. He further stated that entrepreneurial
thinking should be used and that we should meet any doubters head-on and give them the
right answers. Dr Jokilehto suggested that a management charter should be tailored to
each site adding that WHS should be attractive if populations are to buy in to the plan.
Mr. Colreavy felt that Regional Development Authorities should be included in any
advance consultation adding that DoEHLG needs to provide valid quality information in
a transparent manner.
No issues were raised under AOB.
The Chair then concluded the meeting and suggested that the next plenary session should
take place on either Friday 17 or 24 April depending on progress made on Reports and
the public consultation process etc.
10