archaeological & built heritage assessment - The Heritage Council

access by the public to such sites with prior consent of the landowner. In addition known sites listed and
protected on both the RMP and RPS are only accessible with permission of the landowner. Incentives
should be provided to landowners to provide access to these sites through educational and monetary
measures while the Local Authorities should be given a more pro-active role by the governing bodies to
deal with issues of local interest. A pilot study incorporating these factors of accessibility, signage,
preservation and awareness could be implemented in certain areas of the study area such as the environs
of Lough Key which hosts a wide range of sites and structures of cultural heritage significance.
Upon investigating the Recorded Monuments and Places for this project it was discovered that many of
these features have been destroyed without any visible surface trace remaining or are in a poor state of
preservation (see Appendix 1). Furthermore, a large proportion of archaeological sites and monuments
that were originally listed in the Sites and Monuments Record (SMR) are withdrawn from the more recent
Record of Monuments & Places (RMP) as they are not deemed of archaeological significance. A system for
monitoring these monuments located along the waterway should be established, following the
recommendations set out by the Heritage Council. A full photographic survey of these monuments is an
element that is currently largely missing in the DoEHLG archives and should be included in any future
survey visits. With respect to the waterway, the environmental setting of these monuments should also
be recorded in detail in order to indicate whether this has an effect on the rate of destruction of
monuments within the corridor.
Recent Heritage Appraisals have been undertaken to ‘systematically, comprehensively and impartially
assess’ the effects of plans or programmes contained within County Development plans regarding cultural
heritage (Tyldesley & Associates 2001, 2001a, 1). The scoping process within the Heritage Appraisals
records the presence or absence of heritage policy with the Development Plan in question. The gaps in
policy recognized during the scoping process can be used by the Planning Authorities to modify and
extend existing policy statements in future editions of the plan (ibid.).
The Heritage Council has also suggested a series of indicators to allow the County Councils to monitor
the future impact of their respective Development Plans on cultural heritage (Tyldesley & Associates
2000, 37-8). The details are outlined in Tables 9.1 & 9.2 below.
Table 9.1: Heritage Council’s Suggested Indicators and Targets
1. Suggested Indicators and Targets for Monuments
Indicators
Targets
1.a Number of monuments in the Record of Reduce the number affected annually
Monuments / other monuments, the fabric or
setting of which has been damaged or diminished
by development granted planning permission
1.b Number of grants / refusals of planning
permission for development that may have had an
effect on the fabric or setting of a monument or an
Area of Archaeological Potential or a site in the
Record of Monuments
Check trends, monitor permissions for mitigation
and check proportion of refusals to see if more
consents are being given
1.c Number of monuments, or cases in Areas of Check trends, in areas of development pressure,
58