Debate contribution: Planning System: Fundamental Appraisal
Debate contribution by Mr Jim Allister KC on .
- MLA
- Mr Jim Allister KC
- Party at the time
- Traditional Unionist Voice
- Date
- 12 February 2024
- Type
- Debate contribution
- Business
- Private Members' Business
- Heading
- Planning System: Fundamental Appraisal
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 4218257
Read the official Assembly record
Text
In or about 10 years ago, the House exalted in the fact that it had devolved planning to local councils. I have to ask this: how did that work out? I must say that it has been a great disappointment. My experience, and that of many of my constituents, is that it has introduced chronic disparity into planning across Northern Ireland. Take my constituency of North Antrim. The lower part of the constituency is under Mid and East Antrim Borough Council, and, because it has a new area plan, a gap site is now one building. In the upper part of my constituency, a gap site is two buildings. I regularly meet planning agents who tell me, "I am having trouble with this application. If I had made this application in Mid Ulster, it would have been through long ago". The devolution of planning has therefore brought about that chronic disparity, which is pleasing very few. The great burden of what I want to say is about the farming community, however. Our farming community, particularly our poultry industry, is being crucified by an overzealous ammonia policy. That has become worse with the Department's move away from its consultation in December to make it even more extreme. I could cite multiple cases. In one case, a constituent of mine has been waiting for approval for a new broiler house for six and a half years. There has been ping-ponging between the Shared Environmental Service (SES), the NIEA and Planning NI. They seem to take great delight in frustrating the application and never reaching a decision, giving no thought to the fact that the motivation behind the application is that a second generation wants to join the farming enterprise and can do that only if planning permission is got. No regard is shown for their livelihood or anything else. The manner in which the ammonia direction is being abused to penalise planning applicants is beyond a disgrace. I will give Members another case, concerning a farmer who is both a dairy farmer and a poultry farmer. He wants to upgrade his houses on the poultry side and needs planning permission to do so. He is willing to offer a reduction in his dairy herd in mitigation so that he can get extra on the poultry side, but a silo mentality leads the planning department to say, "We're not interested in whether you diminish your dairy side. We are interested only in the fact that you are going to increase your poultry side". Where is the logic in the supposed mitigation policy that applies to ammonia? It is not there. I find that to be very frustrating for so many of our farmers, particularly in North Antrim, where we have these precious bogs, about which the incoming Agriculture Minister will no doubt be more excited than he will about helping farming. If you are within 7·5 km of one of those bogs, dear help you: you will have no chance of even modestly increasing your farming enterprise, even though you are moving to better housing with fewer emissions than you currently have. I gave the example of the dairy farm and the poultry house. In that case, because of the layout of the farmyard, the farmer could increase his dairy herd through permitted development — asking no one — therefore increasing his emissions. When, however, he comes along and asks, "Can I please mitigate the increase in the poultry side through a reduction on the dairy side?", the response is, "No. We're not interested". Unless and until those issues are addressed, farming will continue to be crucified by an insensitive, inflexible, overzealous agenda in the planning sector.
614 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.
Assessment
Jev’s structured answers met the documented threshold for “not flagged”.
- Overall probability that the activity is being used to promote, exploit or escalate an identity-based controversy: 0.04 (flagging needs at least 0.70; at or below 0.30 is not flagged).
- None of the five culture-war criteria was met (each was below 0.60).
- Assessed as legitimate policy scrutiny (0.92).
- No identity-based framing was identified (1.00).
- The overall probability was at or below the not-flagging 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 | 0.04 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.03 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.02 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.05 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.03 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.92 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.04 | At or below not-flagging 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 09:36 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.