Arising from the foregoing analysis of the case I drew the following conclusions:
a) Once the status of the shed itself, as an unauthorised development, was brought to the attention of the Council, it was incumbent on the Council to deal with that issue. Its failure to deal with the totality of the unauthorised development arose from a number of issues that had a significant influence in the handling of the case and resulted in the Council devoting significant resources to this case at a time when the Council claimed that lack of resources was the cause of its failure to take enforcement proceedings.
b) The Council did achieve its objective of having the use of the shed and the use of the site by the plant hire company ceased but it took 18 months to achieve this and, during this time, the Council allowed latitude in relation to the unauthorised development on promises made that planning permission would be sought.
c) The success of having the use of the shed and the site by the plant hire company ceased was short-lived as the owner of the site then started to use the site, including the shed, for his own business purposes. However, the Council concentrated exclusively on the use of the site/shed and ignored the existence of the shed which was unauthorised.
d) There appears to have been confusion in the Enforcement Section relating to what the complaint was, i.e. was it about the use of the site/shed or the shed itself. The conclusion that the shed would be granted planning permission, if used for agricultural purposes (which it was not), was irrelevant and confused the matter unnecessarily and inexplicably.
e) The Enforcement Section was run by the SSO, in isolation, without adequate supervision by his line manager (the SEO), or anyone else. The failure of the Council's management structure to have in place procedures to monitor the activities of the Enforcement Section or review its workload, even when the case was brought to the attention of members of the management team on at least 19 occasions, was a major contributing factor to the faulty manner in which the case was dealt with.
f) It was the opinion and understanding of the Senior Staff Officer that the Council did not seek the removal of structures at that time. However, his line manager (SEO), the Director of Services and the County Manager did not share his opinion or understanding in this regard. Whatever the reasons for the views of the Senior Staff Officer, the management of the Council must share the responsibility for the consequences of his mistaken view that the Council would not be seeking the removal of the shed and, therefore, enforcement action in relation to it would only go so far.
g) Lack of resources was given as a reason for the failure to follow up on the case at crucial times. However, while there is some merit in this argument, the argument does not stand up in this particular case having regard to the amount of time and effort expended on the case overall.
h) Lack of urgency was always a factor in dealing with the case, even when the urgency of the matter was highlighted by the former Senior Executive Engineer in his report of 16 August 2004.
i) Having failed to use the normal enforcement provisions of the legislation in a timely manner, the Council still had the power to seek the removal of the unauthorised shed using the provisions of section 46 of the Planning and Development Act 2000.
j) Finally, fundamental shortcomings in the management and direction of the Enforcement Section were key factors in the failure of the Council to process the case in a proper manner and prevent the statute from running out. These failures were so endemic that no matter how many letters of complaint were received in the Council from the complainants, how many inspections were carried out, how many Warning Letters and Enforcement Notices were issued, this case was never going to proceed to court action because of the mistaken views that were brought to bear on the case at the crucial points, e.g. (a) that planning permission would be granted for the building/shed if used for agricultural purposes, which it was not, and (b) the perception in the Enforcement Section that the building/shed would never be demolished because the Council did not have a policy of seeking the demolition of unauthorised developments.
While it is acknowledged that the Planning Department was under-resourced and disorganised at a time of an unprecedented increase in the level of planning activity and that steps have since been taken to bring about improvements both in terms of staff numbers and better procedures, nevertheless, the processing of this case, as borne out in the evidence contained in this report, suggest that the system, particularly at planning enforcement level, was unsupervised and poorly managed.