Written question AQW 42666/22-27
Written question by Ms Cara Hunter on .
- MLA
- Ms Cara Hunter
- Party at the time
- Social Democratic and Labour Party
- Date
- 18 March 2026
- Type
- Written question
- Assembly reference
- AQW 42666/22-27
- Department
- Department for Infrastructure
- Business
- To the Minister for Infrastructure
- Assembly identifier
- Document 476647
Read the official Assembly record Open Data source
Text
To ask the Minister for Infrastructure, pursuant to AQW 42095/22-27, to detail (i) any technical measures adopted by her Department in the design and installation of LED street lighting to mitigate light pollution, including, but not limited to, (a) luminaire shielding; (b) tilt angles; (c) correlated colour temperature limits; (d) spectral power distribution; (e) dimming regimes; and (f) the use of adaptive or part-night lighting; (ii) whether these measures are guided by, or benchmarked against, any recognised standards or guidance, including BS5489 and guidance from the Institution of Lighting Professionals on the reduction of obtrusive light; (iii) whether any assessment has been undertaken of the impact of LED street lighting on light pollution, including (a) skyglow; (b) glare; and (c) light trespass; and (iv) any methodology and baseline comparisons with former sodium lighting, including the findings of any such assessments, particularly in urban areas.
144 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 | 0.01 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.01 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.01 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.01 | 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 06:17 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.