Motion or amendment: Fundamental Appraisal of Planning System
Motion or amendment by Mr David Brooks on .
- MLA
- Mr David Brooks
- Party at the time
- Democratic Unionist Party
- Date
- 6 February 2024
- Type
- Motion or amendment
- Business
- Motion · Private Members' Motion
- Heading
- Fundamental Appraisal of Planning System
- Assembly identifier
- Document 387043
Read the official Assembly record Open Data source
Text
Fundamental Appraisal of Planning System
That this Assembly acknowledges the importance of the planning process towards growing the Northern Ireland economy and creating places that people want to work, live and invest in; expresses alarm at lengthy delays in determining major applications as well as the often disjointed and ineffective approach to taking forward major projects that have been approved; highlights the need to support thriving rural communities by opposing policies that further constrain development in the countryside; believes the planning process must have the needs of our ageing population and those living with disabilities embedded as first principles; notes that planning and design processes must enable delivery of key Programme for Government outcomes as well as promote green solutions; and calls on the Minister for Infrastructure to commission an urgent and fundamental appraisal of the planning system, including a review of the Strategic Investment Board and its functions.
149 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.
Also tabled by
Each MLA who tabled or co-signed this item has their own record:
Assessment
Jev’s structured answers met the documented threshold for “not qualifying”.
- Overall probability that the activity is being used to promote, exploit or escalate an identity-based controversy: 0.03 (qualifying needs at least 0.70; at or below 0.30 is not qualifying).
- 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).
- Subject area: Disability (including neurodivergence and mental health), disabled people and disability or sickness benefits.
- The overall probability was at or below the not-qualifying 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 | 0.03 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.02 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.02 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.02 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.02 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.94 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.03 | At or below not-qualifying 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 |
|---|---|
| Disability (including neurodivergence and mental health), disabled people and disability or sickness benefits | 0.83 |
| Sexism, misogyny, ageism and other equality groups | 0.16 |
| No identity-related subject | 0.01 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 0.00 |
| Parades, bonfires and commemorations | 0.00 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 08:47 UTC by jev-1.13.0 (requested as typesafe/jev) under rubric 2026.10-r9, methodology 1.9. The text was identical to an already-assessed record, so the same answers were reused.
Disagree with this assessment?
Classifications can be challenged. A person reviews every challenge, and any change is recorded publicly above with its reason.