Motion or amendment: Delivering the Belfast City Airport Master Plan - Amendment 2
Motion or amendment by Ms Kate Nicholl on .
- MLA
- Ms Kate Nicholl
- Party at the time
- Alliance Party
- Date
- 6 May 2026
- Type
- Motion or amendment
- Business
- Motion Amendment · Private Members' Motion · to “Delivering the Belfast City Airport Master Plan”
- Heading
- Delivering the Belfast City Airport Master Plan - Amendment 2
- Assembly identifier
- Document 483259
Read the official Assembly record Open Data source
Text
Delivering the Belfast City Airport Master Plan - Amendment 2
Leave out all after ‘rest of the world;’ and insert: ‘agrees that economic development, environmental protection and decarbonisation do not need to be in conflict but must go hand in hand, and that major infrastructure projects must be developed in line with planning rules and statutory regulations; further agrees that the development of local airports should be designed as part of a comprehensive aviation strategy for Northern Ireland; and calls on the Minister for the Economy and the Minister for Infrastructure to present proposals to the Executive on how they intend to support the actions outlined in the Belfast City Airport Master Plan 2040 while fulfilling Northern Ireland’s environmental obligations.’
120 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).
- 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 | 0.01 | 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 | 0.03 | 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 |
|---|---|
| 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 09:23 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.