Ms Rachel Kenny:

As Mr. Hogan mentioned, we cannot comment exactly on the level of activation. I note that the 70% relates to the overall permitted, some of which are currently before the courts for judicial review. Some are within the judicial review period. In fairness, it is still around 50% of those granted in 2018-19 in terms of activation because someone who just got permission yesterday would not be expected necessarily to have a commencement notice in. The 70% is not entirely reflective or fair.

We can come back to the Deputy with an accurate figure for material contraventions. It is probably predominantly since the Heather Hill judgment where the discretion on material contravention was, in effect, taken away. Whether it is the board or the planning authority, they tended not to reference material contravention as heavily as they have done since the Heather Hill judgment. It has only been recorded and related to since the Heather Hill judgment. I can come back to the Deputy with those figures. Because of that judgment, we would presume to have all the minutiae considered as material contravention, notwithstanding that the planning authorities do not actually consider them to materially contravene. Again, we need to be careful because otherwise it would assume that they materially contravene all the time, which they do not.

We noted the figure of judicial review cases as 23 in terms of the applications, the development proposals that are before the board. Sometimes there are multiple judicial reviews. Sometimes it will be a quash and remit, and it gets a new case number. It will come across as two, but it is the same one.

Even within that 23, some of those include judicial reviews against refusals. It is probably 21 against grants.