Eoin Ó Broin (Dublin Mid West, Sinn Fein) | Oireachtas source

I will go back to some of the questions I had asked earlier that the witnesses did not get an opportunity to answer. I asked a specific question about section 177D(2)(g) which contains the phrase "such other matters as the Board considers relevant". Will Mr. Kelly give us an indication of what such matters these are likely to be? Was legal advice sought on the appropriateness of that provision?

While I know that, again, this is in the existing legislation, we will tease out another concern of mine since the departmental officials are here. The Planning and Development Act 2000 uses the term "shall have regard to" as opposed to, for example, "must comply with". Does that mean that the board can take a pick and mix attitude to the seven or eight conditions listed in section 177D(2)? Do they all have to be adhered to? Will Mr. Kelly talk us through that a little more?

Will the witnesses explain the rationale behind head 11? I am a little bit unclear on that from reading the text. Under section 177K, the board will be obliged to conduct an appropriate assessment or EIA Given that one of the reasons that substitute consent applications are being made is that an EIA or appropriate assessment was not carried out in the first place, how often is the board required to carry such assessments out at this stage?

I will come back to the issue of enforcement. We all know of cases in our constituencies in which local authorities have worked hard to try to enforce the regularisation of developments that have been found to be in breach of the conditions of their planning permission. It is incredibly difficult. Given that the board has far lower levels of staff and far greater numbers of cases on hand, albeit very specific cases in this instance, did the Department examine whether the levels of enforcement of existing remediation conditions are adequate or how long it takes to enforce those conditions? I know I keep going back to the case of Derrybrien but it is one of the most extreme examples. I can think of quarries in my own constituency and other unauthorised developments. In these cases, enforcement is the most difficult phase, even more so than getting a decision. The negative impacts of unauthorised development can carry on for long periods, even when enforcement orders or remediation conditions have been applied. Is this an area that needs to be strengthened?