Debate contribution: Defective Premises Bill: Consideration Stage
Debate contribution by Mr Colin McGrath on .
- MLA
- Mr Colin McGrath
- Party at the time
- Social Democratic and Labour Party
- Date
- 11 June 2024
- Type
- Debate contribution
- Business
- Executive Committee Business
- Heading
- Defective Premises Bill: Consideration Stage
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 4495960
Read the official Assembly record
Text
Thank you, Mr Speaker, for my late addition to the list of Members to speak. I appreciate being called. I welcome the amendment that my colleagues tabled. I want to speak for the many people whose homes are in danger owing to circumstances beyond their control. Last week, during the Second Stage debate, I referenced the pain felt by residents of Hunter's Mill in my constituency. The development is, in part, sinking. The houses are listing, and some have been knocked down. The sewerage infrastructure is compromised, and the development's roads are uneven. NI Water has suggested that it might be 30 years before the land settles and it can do any work on the sewers, because otherwise they will simply give way once again. That has caused a difficulty with flushing toilets in some houses and with water flowing away. The road in that small development is bumpy in places, and, as a result of the land movement, it has not been adopted. Here is a list of things that the residents are facing: their neighbours' houses have already been knocked down because they were collapsing; the sewerage pipes are cracking and giving way, which is causing sewage issues; the road network is breaking up and unadopted, which causes problems for bin collections; and no yellow grit boxes have been placed in the development, because it has not been adopted. All of that became evident after the 10-year deadline had passed for residents to use the new building insurance scheme. They have struggled to rest easy. They are having difficulty sleeping at night. They cannot sell their houses, because people cannot get mortgages to purchase them. One significant issue is that, when planning was approved, the houses were not on the floodplain, but the floodplain has moved. Subsequent planning decisions resulted in its redirection, and that has compromised residents' homes. Planning applications in other parts of the town have thus contributed to the pain that the residents are feeling. That is why the amendment may give them some hope, because proposed new article 4B(1)(d) states:
"any other construction details as the Department may consider appropriate".
There is an opportunity, if the amendment were to pass, for the Department to assess whether external decisions resulted in the state that the homes are in. Like the residents of Victoria Square, as well as other examples on these islands, those people bought their home in good faith. The houses are, in some instances, crumbling around them. The houses are not functioning as they should, and the residents are being left to deal with the situation, because they purchased them when none of the issues was evident. The amendment would provide some support and give the residents a glimmer of hope that, down the line, there may be a resolution. The residents have invested their life savings in their home, which is being ruined before their eyes. I therefore hope that the situation can be assessed as a result of the amendment, which I support.
502 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: 0.03 (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 (0.94).
- 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 | 0.02 | 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 | 0.94 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.03 | 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 10:43 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.