Mr. Colin Ryan:

Enforcement is complex and it can be long and there are a number of reasons for that. If there is an offence with a criminal conviction then that is matter for the courts. If you are bringing forward a case you have to be capable of making a good one for the courts to make their decision on. The courts decide on what penalties can be applied. We are looking at the application and review of penalties to make them more fit for purpose and possibly more pointed. That is something we are working on with the Attorney General's review group because we are aware of that issue.

On urgent cases, the capability at present to seek a section 160 planning injunction for an urgent case issue, in which case no warning letter is needed. A warning letter is optional and it is being suggested that it become more mandatory in the sense that it allows for complaints to be parsed and clarified before committing to a full investigation. An urgent case would be the construction or demolition of a house, for example, and there are other examples. That is how it works currently and that is the capability that is there.

The staying and withdrawing of warning letters are there as options. The staying of warning letters is there to facilitate somebody who says they are going to do something or to clarify some matter. In such cases, it allows the planning authority the capability to stay something and then it re-emerges again soon afterwards. That reflects the fact that it is mandatory and not optional. On withdrawing letters, I hear where the Chairman is coming from on letting them run out but there are issues when members of the public who have done nothing wrong get a warning letter, they clarify that matter to the planning authority and they would like it to be withdrawn. It provides an element of security to members of the public in those scenarios to clarify that there is nothing more and that the case is closed.