Interesting that you have used that phrase.
It is fairly certain that nowhere in any of the many posts in this matter has anyone accused Julia of delaying the process.
Nor is it inferred that Julia's activities will cause delay.
Is it your view, then, that you feel Julia's action will cause delay? Do you know something that no-one else knows?
Whilst it was the original contractor, with a previous history of this type of activity and not a developer who executed these works in such fashion as to be seen flagrantly to flout planning laws and to disregard their responsibilities to their client and all seemingly without compunction, it is the Council that has taken action to ensure they are "held to account". They have rejected belated and retrospective applications submitted to them and issued an Enforcement Notice. All pretty much text book activity, diligently and lawfully undertaken by the Council.
So far it would appear they have utilised every legal instrument at their disposal to police the breach. The Council has published evidence on their website in some significant detail of what they have considered and propose to accept in principle.
A reasonable view that possibly emerges might go this way.
The differences now that exist between what the Council decrees as being reasonably required and what the Archdiocese's consultants would appear to be prepared to correct is not particularly substantial. It would seem that it would not take a huge step to bridge that gap.
The activities required to reach compromise may still be in play. Council Planning Officers, in presentation, have recommended that they continue to maintain channels of communication with the Archdiocese.
What is not clear in the public domain, is how and what is occurring in these channels and if it needs a "push", who will provide it and how. Not infrequently in these situations there is a choreography - in simple terms - one step follows another
Perhaps there is only one public slogan that needs to be writ large, "FINISH BUILDING OLSPN - NOW"