Motion or amendment: Tackling the high number of unadopted housing developments and roads
Motion or amendment by Mrs Deborah Erskine on .
- MLA
- Mrs Deborah Erskine
- Party at the time
- Democratic Unionist Party
- Date
- 22 October 2024
- Type
- Motion or amendment
- Business
- Motion · Private Members' Motion
- Heading
- Tackling the high number of unadopted housing developments and roads
- Assembly identifier
- Document 415168
Read the official Assembly record Open Data source
Text
Tackling the high number of unadopted housing developments and roads
That this Assembly expresses alarm at the high number of unadopted housing developments across Northern Ireland; regrets that some roads and footpaths have been left for decades without full adoption; highlights the significant challenges faced by affected homeowners when seeking to sell their property; is concerned that unfinished and unadopted sites are contributing to pollution in our waterways; stresses that those who have purchased a home in good faith must not be left to foot the bill of bringing their development up to an adoptable standard; further regrets the significant number of unadopted alleyways locally, which raises health, safety and public hygiene concerns; calls on the Minister for Infrastructure to proactively identify high-priority and legacy sites for adoption and to bring forward plans for more meaningful enforcement against developers who have entered into bonds but fail to bring roads and sewerage systems to a satisfactory standard; and further calls on the Minister to work alongside Northern Ireland Water and Executive colleagues to develop, and publish, a new strategy to address the backlog in unadopted roads.
185 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: 0.02 (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 (0.96).
- No identity-based framing was identified (1.00).
- 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 | 0.02 | 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 | 0.96 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.02 | 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 |
|---|---|
| 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 08:58 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 reviews every challenge, and any change is recorded publicly above with its reason.