UNESCO warn on damage to Giant's Causeway

In a new twist in the development of the Giant's Causeway site the National Trust has welcomed a proposed moratorium on development at the site prior to the preparation of a plan for the area by the Department of the Environment.

It has been revealed, that under plans to be agreed by the United Nations World Heritage Committee in June, piecemeal development that could cause irreversible damage to the Giant’s Causeway World Heritage Site should be banned.

Tony Burton, the Trust’s Director of Policy and Strategy, said: “The Giant’s Causeway is a jewel in our heritage crown and the stones and their setting deserve the highest possible protection. A moratorium on damaging development as well as robust statutory area plans would provide the safeguards needed to help ensure a sustainable future for the Causeway. The National Trust is keen to work with Moyle District Council and other stakeholders with a long term interest in protecting this fabulous landscape.”

The UNESCO decision was warmly welcomed by The National Trust as the organisation, which is the custodian of the Giant’s Causeway, learned of the planned call for a ‘moratorium on commercial development’ to protect the site from ‘cumulative impacts which would cause irreversible damage to the setting and environmental context of the site’.

The DOE in Northern Ireland is currently drafting a Northern Area Plan for implementation in 2003, and as a protective interim measure UNESCO will be encouraging the Government to implement a four kilometre 'buffer zone' and impose a moratorium on commercial planning.

According to the National Trust, the Government’s international commitments to the World Heritage Convention under which World Heritage Sites are designated should mean that planning permission for greenfield development in the ‘buffer zone’ would be rejected.

However, in a statement the National Trust said that they "fully supported" Moyle District Council in its efforts to rebuild a visitor centre but the conservation charity was opposed to what it described as "damaging greenfield development at World Heritage Sites".

(SP)