Conservationists have put forward what they describe as an "ingenious plan" that would save the remains of Carrickmines Castle in south Co Dublin, while allowing the South Eastern Motorway to go ahead without further costly litigation.
The plan is presented on behalf of the Carrickmines Castle Preservation Group, comprising representatives of 20 historical and environmental lobby groups as well as Dr Mark Clinton, who was the site director on the original two-year archaeological dig.
Mr Vincent Salafia, spokesman for the umbrella group, said the plan calls on Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown County Council to omit the proposed Carrickmines interchange and "bend" the motorway to avoid any interference with the castle site.
He maintained that the interchange, one of three on the motorway, is "totally superfluous".
One of its functions would be to serve nearby land owned by Jackson Way Properties, the mystery company under investigation by the Flood tribunal.
"We've been portrayed as holding up the M50, but we're not trying to do that," Mr Salafia said. "What we're saying is that this plan would get the road through and leave the rest to be sorted out later.
"It would also take the issue out of the courts.
"Yes, there would have to be a new EIS [environmental impact statement], but the ensuing delays have been seriously exaggerated," he said, as the county council had conceded that design changes would be necessary at the Lehaunstown interchange.
He said another lawsuit in the saga would be filed if the Minister for the Environment, Mr Cullen, consents to an application from the county council to destroy the medieval fosse, which is the subject of a recent Supreme Court injunction.
In making the application on April 15th, Mr Salafia said the county manager, Mr Derek Brady, had "completely circumvented" the judgment delivered by Mr Justice Hardiman referring the case back to the High Court for decision.
He said the application also attempted to "side-track" the Attorney General, Mr Rory Brady SC, who became a plaintiff in the case after the Supreme Court ruling, on behalf of the two original plaintiffs, Mr Dominick Dunne and Mr Gordon Lucas.