Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown County Council has initiated High Court proceedings to overturn a previous court order preventing it from demolishing or removing archeological remains at Carrickmines Castle, on the route of the new South Eastern Motorway in south Dublin.
The action could clear the way for the completion of the motorway but the proceedings may be opposed.
The President of the High Court, Mr Justice Finnegan, has given lawyers for the council permission to bring their application before the court on Monday.
Last February, two men won a Supreme Court injunction preventing the council demolishing or removing a medieval fosse, or ditch, at Carrickmines Castle. The three-judge court granted an injunction preventing interference with the fosse without a valid consent under the National Monuments Act (NMA).
Later, the Minister for the Environment, Mr Cullen, had issued an order allowing for a motorway interchange to go through part of the site. The order could only come into effect after both Houses of the Oireachtas had sat for 21 days. That period has expired.
The original proceedings were taken by Mr Dominick Dunne, Collins Square, Benburb Street, and Mr Gordon Lucas, Willbrook Lawn, Rathfarnham.
In an affidavit yesterday, Mr Eamonn O'Hare, director of transportation with the council, said the plaintiffs had essentially claimed the council was required to obtain the joint consent in writing of the Minister under section 14 of the NMA. The council pleaded its intention to apply for this consent, without prejudice to and having regard to the Supreme Court order.
On July 3rd last, the Minister had entered into a joint consent and this was approved on the same day by the Minister.
In accordance with the requirements of Section 14, the National Monuments (Approval of Joint Consent) Order, 2003, was laid before the Dáil and Seanad for the requisite period. Mr O'Hare said he was advised there was now a valid consent under Section 14. In light of the Supreme Court judgment, the complaint which gave rise to the granting of the injunction by that court no longer existed and he was seeking to have it discharged.