Mr. David Dodd:

It does happen on occasion that development clashes with burial grounds, but the usual way that is handled is by building around the burial ground. That is why I wanted to emphasise that the CSSA is not anti-development. It has no problem with residential homes and recognises that people need homes, so there is compromise. It just does not want the development to be on the burial ground. Bessborough is a large site and the development does not have to be on the burial ground. It can be in many other places. That is not an unreasonable approach to adopt.

While there are some instances where development has clashed with burial grounds, it is not the norm. If a developer asks an architect for a plan to build and he or she finds a burial ground, he or she will give the developer a plan but will probably say not to build on the burial ground. The problem here is there was no consultation with the survivors. The architect drew up the plans and did not realise there was a burial ground, and is now trying to claim that there is none there. That is the difficulty with saying it is not clear where the burial ground is. Development has to happen. Nobody is anti-development. We are trying to be reasonable and have engagement. That there was no consultation with the survivors before the plans were submitted is why we have ended up where we are.