For years An Taisce has been banging its head against a breeze-block wall to draw attention to the almost uniform failure of local authorities to enforce the planning laws, or to follow up complaints about unauthorised developments.
Not surprisingly, it applauds the Ombudsman, Mr Kevin Murphy, for his forthright finding that there is "a marked reluctance on the part of local authorities to take developers to court" for breaching the terms of planning permissions or going ahead to build illegally.
There is a "culture of contempt" for the planning laws, as An Taisce's heritage officer, Mr Ian Lumley, puts it, and it extends to the highest levels of politics, business and society. These laws are not taken seriously.
Planners spend hours writing reams of conditions as part of a planning permission, but what's the point if they know they will not be enforced? Errant developers also know that if no action is taken within five years, they will get away with it.
Most are well aware that all they need to do to legitimise an unauthorised development is to apply for "retention" - and such applications are generally rubber-stamped by county councils or corporations; few, if any, are prepared to use a bulldozer.
Though the Ombudsman recognises that many local authority planning departments are understaffed, he also cites a deeper reason - that "the thrust of economic and political pressure is towards the completion of developments in as short a time-frame as possible".
As a result, as Mr Murphy's report says, the emphasis is on processing planning applications rather than policing breaches of the law; this is perhaps understandable given that the total number of applications made annually has almost doubled over the past decade.
But taking no action has its consequences, and not just for those who will have to live next door to an unauthorised development. It also undermines public confidence in the system by creating a climate in which developers will continue to flout the planning laws.
Worse still, as his report says, it "increases public cynicism and the tendency to give credence to unfounded allegations of corruption and conflicts of interest on the part of public officials" - though, as we know from the Flood tribunal, some of these allegations may be true.
The Ombudsman says even the most basic services provided by planning departments are deteriorating, with planners not taking phone calls or agreeing to meet objectors, and his "overall impression is one of a system which is in a state of collapse".
Mr Murphy holds out some hope of change in planning enforcement as a result of new provisions in last year's consolidated Planning and Development Act and he says that he will be monitoring this area closely over the coming year - highlighting systematic flaws, if necessary.
What will be crucial, however, is the effectiveness of the regulations needed to bring sections of the Act into operation. And here An Taisce wants the Attorney General, Mr Michael McDowell SC, to intervene to devise a more streamlined enforcement process.
The existing law in this area is both cumbersome and weighted in favour of developers, which is one reason for the lack of willingness to enforce it. In Dublin Corporation's administrative area more than 1,000 complaints about unauthorised developments are outstanding.
But the Ombudsman recognises that legislative change alone will not bring about a fully-functioning planning process. The issue of staffing and resources must also be addressed - and that is a matter, ultimately, for the Minister for the Environment, Mr Dempsey.