Debate contribution: Planning System: Fundamental Appraisal

Debate contribution by Mr David Honeyford on 12 February 2024.

MLA

Mr David Honeyford

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 4218239

Read the official Assembly record

Text

Thank you, Mr Speaker. First, congratulations. This is my first time speaking since you have taken your new role, and I wish you well in it. I want to start with a sincere thanks to everybody in Lagan Valley who put their trust in me and my party colleague Sorcha Eastwood. We are both committed to working every day for everyone across Lagan Valley. I moved to Lisburn at the age of 13, when my dad, a Presbyterian minister, was posted just outside the city at Magheragall. I met my wife Elaine in that small country church, and we have lived and raised our family around the area ever since. Lagan Valley is an increasingly diverse constituency, and that change is fantastic to be a part of. To help lead change and to push for better is the reason that I am here. I like to think that I represent a Northern Ireland where we no longer need to be constrained by the traditional fault lines.

I have gone from being a teenager in a manse to a development officer in a GAA club. I try to live out what is a truly shared society, a society that I want to see.

I want to pay tribute to my predecessor, Pat Catney. It is not difficult to pay tribute to Pat. When I was first elected, my first comments were to say that I was sorry that it was Pat who was missing out. He is one of life's really good guys, and I wish him well. I know that he will do a first-class job representing Lisburn North in Lisburn and Castlereagh City Council. On the motion, our planning system needs to be reformed to assist our economic growth, our rural applications and growth in renewables, as has been said. Those are just a few of the issues around planning. The process needs to be reformed to bring applications to a conclusion much more quickly and it must be much less onerous on applicants. We support the principle behind the motion, although I have reservations about some of the details in it. I will state these but will not force a Division on it. As we know, PPS 21 sets out planning policy for the countryside. However, although I agree with the principle of planning reform, I cannot agree with the motion in its entirety. The Alliance Party's relatively straightforward amendment to the line, "by opposing policies that further constrain development in the countryside" was not accepted. I accept that, but how can you call for a fundamental appraisal of a system if your starting point is to oppose any change that it will bring? I acknowledge that the proposer of the motion said in her speech what she meant, but we have to go by the words in the motion. PPS 21 made the process based on the principle of development for farmers much simpler, and that is overall a good thing and important to our farming community. A large part of Lagan Valley, which I represent, is in that community. It makes it easier for the next generation to stay in the rural community, to live on the land that they farm. In my office, I deal with a huge number of planning applications for constituents in Lagan Valley, from major business applications to rural countryside dwellings. A large number of those have been caught up in the countryside infill change in the conditions of COU8 in the adoption of Lisburn and Castlereagh City Council's local development plan. We heard from a Member about a similar issue in Fermanagh. Therefore, as a Member for Lagan Valley, I am well aware that public trust in our planning system has been damaged over the past number of years. Substantial legal bills have had to be paid by the local ratepayers. I need to put on record that, in my view, the wording of PPS 21, and CTY8 within it, has been stretched and misinterpreted, where tree houses, domestic garages and garden sheds have been used as buildings to apply for infill permissions. We have seen a string of judicial reviews against this policy in my area, and that has led to vast expense and frustration. Unfortunately, lots of innocent people have been caught up in this. It has caused considerable anxiety and the planning system has been delayed dramatically. That is an obvious reason why reform of that policy has been required for some time to clear up any ambiguity. As reform is introduced, the motion does not provide enough detail to address the hurt and real-life issues that ordinary people are suffering right now in my constituency. Instead, the immediate help would be that, during the approval of local development plans, consideration would be given to allowing an actual grace period to allow for applications that are already in the system, some for many years, to be dealt with.

I will finish there. Cheers.

826 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.

Assessment

Not flagged

Jev’s structured answers

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 reads every challenge, and any change is recorded publicly above with its reason.

Challenge this classification