Debate contribution: Planning System: Fundamental Appraisal
Debate contribution by Mr Peter McReynolds on .
- MLA
- Mr Peter McReynolds
- Party at the time
- Alliance Party
- Date
- 12 February 2024
- Type
- Debate contribution
- Business
- Private Members' Business
- Heading
- Planning System: Fundamental Appraisal
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 4218163
Read the official Assembly record
Text
Thank you, Mr Speaker. Before I commence, I congratulate the Member on becoming Chair of the Infrastructure Committee. I look forward to working with her. I take this opportunity to put on record my thanks to all staff in this Building who have made us all feel so welcome since the election in 2022 and the subsequent restoration of the Assembly. It truly is fantastic to see a buzz and energy about this place again, and I look forward to contributing to Assembly business in the Chamber. Before I begin the customary pleasantries, I would like to note that my parents are watching online. I think that it is the first time that they have ever done so, but I did not mention that it was a debate about planning legislation reform that I would be speaking in.
So, mum and dad, apologies for this. I remember the first time that I visited Parliament Buildings, as a human rights law postgraduate, over a decade ago. If someone had told me then that I would one day have to give up my dream of living in and gallivanting around France on account of being diagnosed with multiple sclerosis but would then receive the honour of representing the people of Ormiston as their local councillor for five years, become a deputy lord mayor for the city I love and become an East Belfast MLA, I would have responded by asking whether they were feeling ok. However, here I am, and I am honoured to have had the Alliance values that I share with my colleagues beside me and the work ethic, for which I think I am recognised by the people of East Belfast, acknowledged in the May 2022 election, and to now have the opportunity to build upon the hard work of my predecessor, Chris Lyttle. Longer-standing Members will know that Chris served East Belfast for 12 years as its MLA, was well known for asking questions that few had thought of and was diligent in his approach to all aspects of public life. If I can hit even half the height that he ascended to — wow, I will be doing well. Turning to the motion, planning reform must be high on the agenda of the Assembly, the returning Minister for Infrastructure and the Committee for Infrastructure. As someone who sits on that Committee, I look forward to delivering on the multiple recommendations and reports that have been written about what needs to be done over the past number of months and years. On that note, I extend my gratitude to the Audit Office, the Northern Ireland Chamber, the previous Public Accounts Committee, the Department for Infrastructure and RenewableNI. I am sure that many more conducted reviews or made recommendations on what changes are necessary. We all know that our planning system needs to be addressed urgently to deliver on the potential that Northern Ireland has, and that it is linked to delivering improved standards of living through an improved economy, employment and opportunity for everyone. Key within that will be, first, balance, but also diligence. While we are content to support the motion and the principle behind it, we do not support the articulation of it in this motion. That is why we had tabled an amendment that would have addressed the inclusion of the Strategic Investment Board, which is the responsibility of the Executive Office and not accountable to DFI, and highlighted the essential role that planning improvement would play in addressing the climate emergency through addressing the significant gaps that are a barrier towards helping us to meet our net-zero targets. Currently, our planning system is a key reason why 82% of renewable developers do not see Northern Ireland as an attractive place to invest. On average, it takes more than three years for a wind farm application to be determined, with data in July 2023 showing 125 applications for wind and solar farms as pending, the earliest of which was submitted in November 2012. As my predecessor would say, that is a farce. Moreover, reform and better resourcing of the Planning Appeals Commission will be essential in helping us to address an outrageous number of backlogged applications, which the proposer of the motion referred to in her speech. We hope that the outrageous number of backlogged applications plays a key role in any future reform of the planning system. These are highly important areas that are well known for requiring attention. I am sure that we will hear a number of others during the debate, and I look forward to addressing them during the remainder of the mandate. It is clear that the planning system needs to be reformed, but not at the expense of the environment or biodiversity. Accuracy and attention to detail are required if we are to overhaul this complicated but important system. I look forward to working on that as a matter of urgency.
822 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.
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 (0.91).
- 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 | 0.02 | 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 | 0.91 | 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 |
|---|---|
| Disability (including neurodivergence and mental health), disabled people and disability or sickness benefits | 1.00 |
| No identity-related subject | 0.00 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 0.00 |
| Parades, bonfires and commemorations | 0.00 |
| Irish language, Ulster-Scots and language policy | 0.00 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 09:36 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.