An open letter has been written to all Councillors in the Municipal District of Tipperary, Cashel and Cahir. The letter arose out of substantial public concern about works that have been carried out on a nearly 1,000 year old Norman Motte, known locally as Cup and Saucer, in Tipperary Hills.  The letter, shown below, details some significant differences between what was approved by the Council and what was ultimately carried out on the Motte.

In a recent opinion poll, 72% of respondents (some 536 people) stated that the stairs should be removed. Councillors have been asked to respond to the open letter by Wednesday 21 September. Any responses by Councillors will be published.

Open Email to Councillors

Dear Councillor,

I am writing with regard to the work that was recently carried out on the Norman motte in Tipperary Hills, known locally as “Cup and Saucer”.

I share (with many members of the public), serious concerns about the work that was carried out and, in particular, by the way it was carried out and approved by the Council.  I attach a list of documents that will assist in communicating these concerns to you.  I believe that there is significant public disquiet and anger about what has happened.  I would appreciate if you could assist me in providing answers to questions relating to this work.  In the interests of transparency, whether or not you respond to these questions, the content of any responses may be published, so the public can make an informed assessment of what has transpired.

Let me say from the outset that I am a supporter of the vast majority of the work that has been done in the Hills, and all who are responsible for those elements of the work are to be congratulated, in my view.  However, I believe that there are significant archaeological and legal issues arising from the way that aspects of this development has been planned and managed by Tipperary County Council.  I may be wrong, and your answers to the following questions will be useful in resolving the matter. I thank you for your time in helping to resolve this important matter.

The works were carried out following a “Part 8” process, where the Council granted permission for the works, based on preparatory work and documents that were prepared on behalf of the Council.  All of the documents are available on the Local Government Ireland website (https://planning.localgov.ie/en/part-8/application/de649812-b1fd-11ed-96e6-005056880cd6). I will refer to various of those documents in this correspondence.

Key amongst the documents is Attachment A, a report that was prepared on behalf of the Council by Aegis Archaeology Limited (“Archaeological Impact Assessment for a proposed public realm development at Murgasty townland, (known as Tipperary Hills), Tipperary, Co. Tipperary.”). Relevantly, this report identifies the significance of the Norman motte, the archaeological risks associated with the proposed works and methods of mitigating those risks.  The report states that Aegis relied on drawings that were provided to Aegis on behalf of the Council by DRLA Landscape Architects.

The Aegis report cited the intention, according to the DRLA drawings, that the proposed stairs was to “follow the existing route with minimal disturbance. Stairs to be constructed above ground and can be removed or replaced with ease”. (See Attachment B, drawing 2.3).

Presumably, the intention to create the stairs “above ground” was to avoid excavation and create “minimal disturbance.  I invite you to consider the next images (Attachments C, D & E) and conclude whether the stairs in the photo was “constructed above ground”, with “minimal disturbance”.

(Attachment C)

(Attachment D)

(Attachment E)

It was confirmed locally that the Norman motte was subjected to mechanical excavation during the works, and that heavy motorised equipment was driven to the top of the motte and operated there for the construction of the pathway. The marks of a mechanical digger are clearly visible on the top of the motte, and photos can be provided if necessary.  A track to the top was excavated to facilitate this and the stairs was later constructed on the excavated track.

The following drawing is part of Attachment B 2.3.

Please note the description of the stairs as a “floating stairs” and consider whether the photographs depict a stairs that is floating or a stairs that is substantially built into the ground through excavation.

Please note the aspect of the drawing relating to the circular path at the top of the Norman motte. The path was supposed to be built “without kerb”, in order to avoid the excavation that would be needed to install a kerb.  As the photo below shows (Attachment F), a kerb has clearly been dug in on both sides of the path, all around the circumference of the Norman motte.

The Archaeology Report (Aegis: page 32) states the following:

“Prolonged pedestrian access to the top of the motte has led to the erosion of the top of the motte. In order to give access and reduce further erosion on top of the motte a Ballulusk gravel path without kerb is proposed” (emphasis added).

Please also note the raised nature of the path shown in the drawing and the reference to the “existing undisturbed ground” below the raised path.  As shown in the photograph (Attachment F), the path that was constructed on top of the Norman motte was clearly excavated so that the top of the path is level with the surrounding ground. 

It is not known what archaeological items may have been disturbed/removed during this excavation. Also, it is not known where this excavated material was removed to. This material should be examined by qualified archaeologists to determine if any significant items were disturbed and removed.

Attachment F

The Council’s Decision to Approve Planning

Attachment G is the signed resolution of the Tipperary, Cashel and Cahir Municipal District, approving the works “as recommended in the Chief Executive’s Report”. Planning was granted based on the CEO’s Report.

You are invited to consider whether what was ultimately done to the Norman motte in Tipperary Hills was done in accordance with the CEO’s Report. That report (Attachment H), includes the Chief Executive’s responses to various submissions.  These responses include the following:

“The reason these steps must be constructed of timber is in respect of the archaeological sensitivity of the location and the requirement for them to be light weight, temporary in design and have no concrete footing to minimise disturbance to the existing ground surface.” (Ref No.5)

It is clear that the works were not carried out so as “to minimise disturbance to the existing ground surface”, and it is clear that the “archaeological sensitivity of the location” was not respected in the manner in which the works were carried out.  Therefore, the works were not in accordance with planning.

The CEO’s Report also contains the following:

Policy AH 3: Archaeology

“It is the policy of the Council to safeguard sites, features and objects of archaeological interest generally and the Council will protect (in-situ where practicable or as a minimum, preservation by record) all monuments included in the Record of Monuments and Places and sites, features and objects of archaeological and historical interest generally”

Section 9.8 Archaeological Heritage

“It is the policy of the Council to ensure that archaeological material is not disturbed so that an opportunity will be given to investigate and record any material of archaeological value that may be found or to protect them in-situ on sites.”

It must be clear to you that the works carried out on the Norman motte in Tipperary Hills was not safeguarded from an archaeological perspective. The excavations carried out may have displaced or removed (without protection) items of archaeological significance.  The extent of this will not be known until an archaeological examination of the site is conducted.

As the above policies were not adhered to in the carrying out of the development, the works are not in accordance with planning.

In signing off on the Chief Executive’s Report, the following statement is included:

“I am satisfied that the design and layout as proposed is acceptable and has been designed having regard to the archaeological sensitivities of the site.”

This clearly shows that the approval was based on the project, as designed. The clear deviations from the designs in the carrying out of the works demonstrates that the works are not in accordance with the approved planning.

The Chief Executive’s Report also states:

“The Part 8 application includes an Archaeological lmpact Assessment (AlA) undertaken by

AEGIS Archaeology Ltd. The report determines that without mitigation measures being

implemented the groundworks associated with the development will have a negative impact on archaeology and cultural heritage”

Again, it is clear that the approval is based on the mitigation measures that were recommended in the Archaeology report. Those mitigation measures were not implemented in the works and accordingly, the works are not is accordance with the approved planning.

The Report also states:

Section 6 of the AIA recommends mitigation measures in the form of archaeological monitoring at construction stage under licence from the National Monuments Service (NMS). A condition be will attached requiring archaeological monitoring as recommended.

This condition was indeed attached to the planning approval. Section 9 of the approval  states:

9. Requirements and Conditions

The development should be subject to the following

1. Archaeological monitoring of groundworks shall be undertaken under licence from the

National Monuments Service, or under Ministerial Consent (this will be decided in

consultation with the National monuments Service).

The extent of the area monitored shall be agreed with the National Monuments service.

All works to the motte (including resurfacing/widening of paths) shall be

archaeologically monitored, as well as all works in the vicinity of the St. John's famine

graveyard (i.e., the access lane, kickabout area and dog park).

Reason: Archaeological material may be encountered due to the presence of

archaeological monuments on and adjacent to the subject site.

The writer has been informed that the excavation of the motte, construction of the stairs and construction of the path at the top of the motte were not the subject of archaeological monitoring under licence from the National Monuments Service, or under Ministerial Consent.  The writer would appreciate if you could make inquiries with the Council to discover the degree (if any) of archaeological monitoring that was carried out during the works and by whom this monitoring was conducted.

On Wednesday 6 September, the writer observed (and videoed) two bone fragments that were clearly visible from the spoil of the path excavation at the top of the motte. These may be of no archaeological significance, but this is a decision for an archaeologist. Was there a supervising archaeologist on site and did they notice these clearly visible bone fragments? Did they make a decision about them? There is so much that is unknown about these works and the manner in which they were carried out. In order to restore public confidence, some answers are needed from the Council.

Requests

The writer would appreciate if you could respond directly on this important issue. It is hoped that you will agree that it ought not be necessary to resort to a Freedom of Information request to obtain this important information.

You might please also check and revert regarding any Ministerial Consent. If there was such consent, the actual documents requesting and conveying this consent would be important to resolve whether or not this condition of planning was complied with. Also, and documents relating to archaeological monitoring would be helpful in resolving this matter.

Questions

In order to achieve transparency on the important issues raised in this correspondence, it would be appreciate if you could respond to the below questions. It is hoped to publish these questions, along with any responses by Wednesday 21 September. Your assistance in this regard would be appreciated.

1. If you agree that the route if the stairs that was constructed is not in accordance with the approved drawings, that the stairs as constructed, are not in accordance with the Part 8 planning approval?
2. Do you support the remediation of the site to as close as possible to the state in which it has existed for several hundred years?
3. Do you accept that the works are not in accordance with planning, as set out in the Chief Executive’s Report?
4. Do you support that the excavated material should now be examined by qualified archaeologists to determine if any archaeologically significant items have been excavated?
5. Do you accept that the stairs was not constructed above ground, is not a “floating stairs” and that excavation of the Norman motte was carried out?
6. Do you accept that excavation of the Norman motte was carried out in order to install the pathway at the top?
7. Do you support the stairs being removed to facilitate this examination?
8. Do you agree to seek documents from the Council regarding archaeological monitoring and/or ministerial licencing regarding the works and provide those to the writer?
9. Please look at the route of the proposed stairs in the drawings that were approved by the Council in Attachment B, drawing 2.3. Do you agree that the route of the stairs shown in the Attachment C photograph is significantly different to what is shown in the drawing that was approved by the Council when planning was granted?
10. If you agree that the stairs are not in accordance with the approval, do you agree that the stairs should be removed and that the area should be remediated as close as possible to its previous condition (subject to archaeological advice and supervision)?

Public Concern

These works that were carried out on the Norman motte have caused widespread concern in the community. An opinion poll that was carried out on social media (at the time of writing) showed that 72% of respondents (536 people) believe that the stairs “should go”. Evidence of the anger is clear from some of the comments people have made. Names have been excluded, but please confirm for yourself on social media that the vast majority of those who commented either live locally or have emigrated from the locality, and most are probably voters.  They have been included here in the hope that you will read them. Please do.

“was there an archeologist on site during construction? Were the natiknal.monuments service informed of the works prior to commencement? A dog with a mallet up its ar&e would know you cant dug into a listed monument... ”

“Why was this allowed it’s an eyesore,it has destroyed a historical site and it looks ridiculous”

“it’s like putting an elevator on the pyramids”

“scandalous.. whos bright idea was that.. any archeologist in site at the time of works?”

“Should have been left as it was”

“our ancestors would be aghast. All the generations that loved the hills. St John's and the holy dead from Famine times. I was happy when St Johns was cleaned and cleared and given due respect. As regards the hills, how can you improve on perfection… The past demands respect. Any town can have a park, but the Hills are pure Tipp”

“Sitting here in my Parents garden looking up at it is a pure eyesore . It has ruined the view we have looked at all our lives . The natural look of the hills has been destroyed.

Such a pity that they touched this motte and bailey heritage site . It would not have been allowed anywhere else”

“It is heartbreaking to see what has been done, will it ever be back to its original state, it’s the jewel in the crown of Tipperary, we spent our lives boasting about and writing songs about ‘Tipperary Hills for me ‘ . WHO ever thought it was okey to decimate our historical site ??”

“Mo bhron”

“It's shameful that this was allowed to happen”

“Should be removed immediately eyesore”

“Dreadful dunno how anyone could have gotten the idea to do this”

“Disgraceful take it down”

“there shouldn’t be anything on it, this is an ancient Motte, there since Norman times and a huge part of Tipperary Town’s heritage. They have destroyed it, no way should they have cut into a national monument. It wouldn’t happen anyplace else”

“In this case, as this is a listed structure a licence to excavate should have been issued by the National Monuments Service prior to works. If this wasn't the case then the council is in serious breech of the Section 26 of the National Monuments Act.id like to know the name of the engineer who signed off on the works”

“What purpose does it serve??? people have been going up there for years so what is it there for? Who are the brains that make these stupid decisions??”

“they should be charged for vandalism!!”

“should def. be looked into as I believe its against the law to do this type of stuff to ancient monuments”

“Council elections next year..........👏👏”

“It's a disgrace what they've done put it back the way it was”

“It's not the stairs themselves, but the brutal interference with a scheduled Ancient Monument that is the problem. Is it a Red Dot site?”

“Get rid of them, who ever thought that steps were needed”

“get rid of them”

“the stairs is a blot on our heritage and should be removed”

“Is that a cattle crush on top of cup and saucer what a monstrosity”

“NO NO NO”

“for God's sake restore the motte and Bailey and take down that eyesore”

“Ifs madness what has been allowd happen in the hills, all those involved should resign. Disgusting that they think this is acceptable”

“If we had a town council it would not have happened it has to go end of”

“Unbelievable. Awful and very sad 😞”

“What an idiotic awful idea 🙄”

“It's brought a tear to this exPat's eye, what have they done to the mutton pie 😢”

“Making a mock of the place”

“It's horrific looking , the hills are been ruined”

“No steps would have kept it as it was”

“I hope there was a archeological survey done before they started to excavate a portion of the moat and as for the structure it not within keeping with what’s there something in stone would have been more appropriate it steps were really required”

“Ridiculous looking eyesore,who the hell sanctioned this load of shite??”

“It isn't aesthetically pleasing, also I thought Motte and baileys were not to be interfered with”

“This should be torn down and restored as soon as possible. Truly ugly and unnecessary”

“Those stairs are an eyesore, what value do they add? Just lay a clean, wider path and it was perfect. Digging into a motte and bailey line this is a disgrace”

“I'm lost for words”

“This is disgraceful, to do this to an ancient site. It needs to be removed. 😡”

“My god what did they do”

“There is already a man made path up to the top I think this stairs is too big and they cut into an historical landmark an archelogical study was performed on the motte and Bailey a number of years ago you wouldnt dig up an archaeological site it would have been better to have invested in a visual representation of what the motte and Bailey would have looked like centuries ago so people could learn about history on our doorstep”

“It's illegal to touch a listed archaeological site without a licence. It looks like this didn't happen here”

“This is lunacy who signed off on this. Mutton Pie was perfect the way it was. I’m all for doing up the hills a playground picnic benches etc. but please don’t destroy it. Please restore mutton pie to the way it was”

“A Lot of people will turn in there graves at this eyesore , does not fit in, who in the name of god okayed this, and whats more this is an insurance liability, council need to take a good hard look at this and get out of the office. I am all for progress but not this.”

“Totally disgraceful that one of our natural historical sites has been made into an eyesore, this monstrosity should be taken down and the motte and bailey returned to its natural state, why can't such beautiful natural places just be left alone”

“Totally agree it's herendeous.Why oh way are they wrecking the place .Total waste of money .They have totally destroyed the hill and for what.grrr.😡”

“Brutal. What idiot gave authority for this destruction?”

“I can only imagine that the designers had bonfire night in mind and created a fire escape for that purpose. But all joking aside, it's a dreadful monstrosity and completely detracts from the aesthetics of the ancient site. Those responsible have vandalised something which had survived untouched since Norman times or possibly before. Tipperary Town's unique take on architectural brutalism”

“Oh my god please take it down immediately. An eyesore”

“Absolutely terrible no thaught put into planning”

“Take it down”

“It's a disgrace and disgusting looking thing get rid of it and also how many people will have falls on it in the wet and ice weather .should a historic place be destroyed like this”

“Oh my god This is Horrendous Should never have been allowed touch anything up there Only the pavements and seating. They will destroy the Plan as well if there left in there”

“The same as taking down the beautiful entrance to Dan Breen House no one held accountable for such demolitio🥵🥵”

“Oh dear, I didn’t realise all this was going on … missed out on consultation process, I’m sure there was one …”

“Omg the beautiful Cup and Saucer destroyed. Please take it down. The hills will never be the same again. Tg I have the memories”

“Why?😡😱”

“This is an absolute disgrace, I can't believe it was allowed to happen. The Hills have always been a great place for children and adults alike to enjoy and to do this to cup and saucer is disgraceful 😕”

“Eye sore”

“Norman Motte and Baileys appeared in Ireland sometime after the Norman invasion of England in 1066 and our ‘Mutton Pie”, as it is affectionately known is probably the oldest historical structure in our town. There is so much to be learned about the area’s history. For example, we know of the existence of nearby ancient burials on the N.E. side, possibly related to the Famine (AD 1840s) of even earlier to the Battle of Sulcoit (AD 968). The Mutton Pie should be deemed a National Monument and be protected from unnecessary interference. Surely, a less intrusive solution whose appearance is more in keeping with the importance of the structure to the Town, could be found. The current solution, being made of soft wood is unattractive and constructed from materials that will need replacing in a relatively short space of time (through weathering or vandalism). It’s not too late to rethink this work”

“Was there any environmental and or archaeology impact study done before the works commence was the plan on public view, did anyone question the fact that its digging into a historic earthworks ?  Some questions need to be answered”

“I'm actually speechless 🙈😭”

“Touching something that didn't need touching how they got permission for this is beyond me”

“Should have left well alone ,if it’s not broke don’t fix it”

“No ! No, No, what have you done to our beautiful Cup & Saucer ??? It’s destroyed ! please take it down, cheap timber steps which will be set alight in no time.

Will the local authority please allow this issue be dealt with in a civilised manner.

Speak to the people of our community.

PLEASE”

“Just unbelievable what they have done to something so historical they should me made put it back to its full glory”

“Is the knockgraffon motte and bailey getting steps? Or may I rephrase, is it going to be similarly vandalised”

“This is a listed archaeological site and the election of this unnecessary and awful looking piece of work could have destroyed archaeological material below. Who was the engineer that sanctioned this?”

“In order for any excavation works to be carried out on a listed monument (which this is), a licence must be issued by the National Monuments Service to a qualified archaeologist in order to carry out investigation work prior to any further work like the erection of access infrastructure, for instance. If this wasn't done then the council is in serious breach of the laws around the protection of our archaeological heritage. So did an archaeologist supervise the work? I didn't hear of any recent dig up there. (Speaking as someone with 35 years archaeological survey experience)”

“They have ruined something that didn’t need changing. What idiot thought this was a good idea”

“When i first looked i thought someone was having a very early April fools joke. Omg who thought this was a good idea nd how did it pass”

“iv no words 🤦‍♀️😔”

“Whoever signed off on this abomination should be sacked”

“Dreadful”

“Total devastation...”

“Very disappointing indeed to see what has been done here. No regard shown for our extremely important historical heritage. Its also an eyesore, please stop now and take it down before more damage is done . Unbelieveable ❗️”

“Disgraceful take it down”

“Shocked - we spent our childhood on the hills and loved 'Cup and Saucer' as it was called, climbing the hill and feeling on top of the world. We had our own little route to the top. I never thought that in my senior years, I would live to see our beloved 'Cup and Saucer' destroyed”

Your assistance with this important local matter is greatly appreciated and your response is anticipated.

Regards

P.S. A copy of this email has been sent as a report to the National Monuments Service, to determine if damage has occurred to a National Monument that is the subject of a Protection Order, and whether any damage was permitted by law.

© TippTown.ie 2023

Any issues regarding this article can be sent to This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

Attachments to email that are not reproduced above

Tweet