Findings

I found that:

1.  Meath County Council failed at every opportunity presented to it to deal effectively with the totality of the development complained about, i.e. the use of the shed and the existence of the unauthorised shed, and this failing arose from reliance on information and views that were erroneous, misleading and never challenged.

2.  This investigation has shown that there were a series of incremental misjudgements, including lack of clarity with regard to primary objective and lack of timely action from the latter half of 2000 onwards in relation to the enforcement process, as evidenced by failure in mid to late August 2004 when:

(a) the intentions of the report of 16 August 2004 setting out the urgency of the matter were not properly conveyed to the Council's solicitor, and

(b) following further delay in dealing with the solicitor's queries

(c) the statute of limitations with regard to enforcement was allowed to run out, unnoticed, by any senior official of the Council.

I found that, despite the heavy workloads of staff, this failure on the part of the relevant Council officials arose as a consequence of a particular view in relation to the enforcement policy of the Council which was erroneous and systemically contrary to good administration.

3.  All levels of management in Meath County Council failed in their responsibilities to have in place effective systems to monitor and review the work of the Enforcement Section. The Section was effectively run by a Senior Staff Officer without appropriate support mechanisms from his line manager, or anyone else, in the Council.  This was a significant failure that was contrary to good and sound administration.

4.  The failure of the Council to have a procedure in place to follow up on breaches of planning, where enforcement action is "stayed", contrary to the provisions of section 162(3) of the Planning and Development Act 2000, is an undesirable administrative deficit and contrary to good and sound administration.