Mr. Eamonn Kelly:

The planning Act is clear on enforcement. The local authority has an obligation and a duty to investigate. If an enforcement case is ongoing, the difficulty is sometimes more to do with the courts. It is a practical reality that there is no prohibition on enforcement continuing if a substitute consent case is ongoing. As the Deputy alluded to, it is more the situation that if a judicial review is ongoing, and this may be very specific, a judge in an enforcement case might be hesitant to process or to proceed with enforcement if a separate judge is looking at the same case. That is more of a legal matter. The planning Act is clear. If there is unauthorised development, and it is still within the time period - which is seven years for most developments but there is no time bar on prosecution for quarries and peat development - that holds true. The Act is clear that enforcement must proceed if it has been commenced.

I do not know if that answers the question. It is not necessarily something this amendment can specifically address because it is the case, as I said, that there is certainly no prohibition on enforcement being proceeded with under the planning Act, notwithstanding a substitute consent happening at the same time. The Deputy gave an example of a judicial review. Perhaps someone from the Attorney General's office or a barrister would be better placed to answer why or how that might be delayed in the courts. Hopefully, that somewhat answers the Deputy's queries.