Debate contribution: Tree Protection Bill: Second Stage
Debate contribution by Mr Peter Martin on .
- MLA
- Mr Peter Martin
- Party at the time
- Democratic Unionist Party
- Date
- 21 September 2026
- Type
- Debate contribution
- Business
- Private Members' Business
- Heading
- Tree Protection Bill: Second Stage
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 5742767
Read the official Assembly record
Text
— while I am on my feet. I should thank the Bill sponsor for meeting me before the summer recess to chat about the Bill. I really appreciated having that time, and it was useful. I will now tie off the planning system aspect. I am clear — the Chair of the Infrastructure Committee could not have outlined this better — that we absolutely need to protect trees. Our environment is incredibly important to us, and trees are an important element of that environment. There is, however, a balance to be struck — the Committee will get into the nuts and bolts of this — and it concerns how we strike the balance between tree protection and building houses, delivering infrastructure and providing economic growth in Northern Ireland. That is not a question for today, but it is legitimate to pose such questions at Second Stage. From previous experience, I will further say that our planning system is under real pressure, as the Bill sponsor will know. That is not just because of the 11-council model, under which it is incredibly tough to get enough planners into planning departments to process the applications.
I firmly believe that we need planning reform in Northern Ireland. In fact, I firmly believe that we need new planning legislation in Northern Ireland. The Minister, who is sitting opposite me, may or may not agree, but that is clearly needed to try to streamline the system. As the Member knows, we also have extreme problems with waste water infrastructure connectivity. DFI is grappling with that. None of those points is an argument against protecting trees. What they are, however, are legitimate questions to ensure that, if the Bill passes Second Stage today, goes to the Committee and then comes back to the House, we can have good and effective legislation that not only is fit for purpose but does what it says on the tin, which is what legislation coming out of this place should do. I will not dwell on this issue. I put lines through this bit, because I know that my colleague has already said it. I will mention in passing, however, the reference to "wholly exceptional circumstances" in the draft legislation. I know that my colleague will pick up on the definition of that. If we can define "ancient woodland" and "long-established woodland", we absolutely need to define "wholly exceptional circumstances", because that is the drafting of an operative clause that will have a real impact on judgements should such things come before a court. I want to touch a wee bit on the issue of farms. My colleague the Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone mentioned it. I am thinking of a situation where a tree in the middle of a farmer's land gets a TPO, causing real difficulty for said farmer in how they manage their land and crops. Those crops are really important, given that they feed us all. It is about being able to get the crops in and make farms as viable as possible. There is something in that. I am happy to give the Floor to the Bill sponsor on this point. A heritage tree designation might impact on what a farmer can do on their land. It is not clear from the Bill or the EFM whether there is a mechanism if a farmer or a landowner disagrees with a tree being designated as a heritage tree? What would happen next? Could he appeal, for example?
Sorry, I meant "ancient tree".
587 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.
Assessment
Jev’s structured answers met the documented threshold for “not flagged”.
- Overall probability that the activity is being used to promote, exploit or escalate an identity-based controversy: 0.02 (flagging needs at least 0.70; at or below 0.30 is not flagged).
- None of the five culture-war criteria was met (each was below 0.60).
- Assessed as legitimate policy scrutiny (0.94).
- No identity-based framing was identified (1.00).
- The overall probability was at or below the not-flagging threshold.
This is an AI-generated assessment of the text, made against published criteria. It is not a finding of fact about the MLA or their intentions. The Assembly record itself is the fact.
Jev’s structured answers
| Question | Probability | Met? |
|---|---|---|
| Identity framing | 0.02 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.02 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.01 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.02 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.02 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.94 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.02 | At or below not-flagging threshold |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing (chosen) | 1.00 |
| Reports or questions it | 0.00 |
| Criticises or condemns it | 0.00 |
| Adopts it | 0.00 |
| Subject | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-related subject | 1.00 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 0.00 |
| Parades, bonfires and commemorations | 0.00 |
| Irish language, Ulster-Scots and language policy | 0.00 |
| Sport (including the GAA), the arts and cultural bodies | 0.00 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 16:37 UTC by jev-1.13.0 (requested as typesafe/jev) under rubric 2026.10-r9, methodology 1.9.
Disagree with this assessment?
Classifications can be challenged. A person reads every challenge, and any change is recorded publicly above with its reason.