Mr. Tom Flynn:

The Deputy has raised a couple of issues. He is correct that the architecture of the new Bill replicates the architecture of the 2000 Act in terms of enforcement. That is probably a reflection that, generally, most people would say those provisions are pretty solid in terms of the remedies and they give a fair range of remedies across to the planning authorities. The difficulty, in our experience, is the lack of resources that are available to the planning authorities. My experience of this would be that many planning enforcement officers retired or were let go during the recession and they were never replaced. It seems that planning enforcement is not the greatest of priorities on local authorities and planning authorities. I am sure they would say that they have so many demands on their resources, but there is an issue in that regard.

The remedies are quite good. There is a range of remedies and enforcement notices which are almost quasi-administrative, to touch on a point mentioned by the Deputy. There are criminal prosecutions and there is the statutory injunction, which, in my view, is underutilised, particularly by planning authorities. We do not really see planning authorities taking them, although they may say there is a resourcing issue and a cost issue in that regard. Overall, the remedies are quite good.

We had raised several technical points. Regarding the new regional enforcement proposal, which replicates what is going on in waste, this is potentially a good idea. The only difficulty is that we would say there is a need to be very careful concerning the interaction between the regional authority and the planning authority and to ensure that they synergised.