Debate contribution: Traffic Chaos Affecting Villages in Lagan Valley
Debate contribution by Mr Paul Givan on .
- MLA
- Mr Paul Givan
- Party at the time
- Democratic Unionist Party
- Date
- 25 June 2024
- Type
- Debate contribution (made as a minister)
- Business
- Adjournment
- Heading
- Traffic Chaos Affecting Villages in Lagan Valley
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 4498781
Read the official Assembly record
Text
In speaking on the issue, although I will highlight some concerns, I will point to where significant progress has been made in Lagan Valley over the years. Of course, there have been fatalities, and with each of those is a family that has been deeply impacted. People have been seriously injured on our roads throughout the Lagan Valley constituency. It is about how we seek to find the solutions by working with the Department for Infrastructure and community organisations and how new housing areas are developed and developer-led schemes are tied in. When I was first elected in 2010 and spoke in the House, one of the biggest areas that we campaigned on was the LD1 development zone in Lisburn. That was along the Prince William Road/Knockmore Road, where thousands of houses were given planning approval. Part of the condition that was attached to that was the improvement of junctions. The Ballinderry Road/Knockmore Road crossroads, the Prince William Road/Knockmore Road junction and the Ballymacash Road/Prince William Road/Knockmore Road junction were three significant junctions that were tied into conditions for that development, but those conditions were not enforced. This goes back to when I met Danny Kennedy, who was the Minister at the time, and I was not able to get the progress that was needed back then. That is how far back it goes. Houses continued to be developed despite being in breach of that condition, and the planning authority was not enforcing it. It then transferred to the councils, which took on responsibility. They did not enforce the conditions. There was an exponential increase in traffic volumes. Over the years, we engaged to try to get those junctions improved, and I remember going past that Ballinderry Road junction after a gentleman had just been knocked over and, sadly, passed away. I can visualise that body as I drove past, frustrated that we still had not improved that junction. We got the junction improved. We worked with the Roads Service, as it was then called, and it worked with the developer and designed a scheme. Traffic lights were put in, and the junction was much safer. Then we got to working on the Prince William Road/Knockmore Road junction beside Laurelhill Community College. That was a multimillion-pound enhancement, and we got it delivered. At Prince William Road/Ballymacash Road, only in the past number of weeks, another major scheme has been completed, and we then tied that into a housing development in the Ballymacash area so that that could be achieved. Therefore, whilst I certainly agree that there are traffic problems in the Lagan Valley constituency, it is about how you go about finding solutions. I have worked over the years with colleagues to get those solutions, but more needs to be achieved. I look at those three major junction improvements and at the north Lisburn feeder road, which was put in many years ago. All of those were funded by developer-led contributions. None of them was funded by the taxpayer. Therefore, the question and the challenge, I think, is to find out why developers are funding all these schemes. On the one hand, I agree with that practice but, on the other hand, it adds to the cost of purchasing a house. We need to look at the balance between developer-led and publicly funded schemes. To the credit of DFI Roads and the Department for Infrastructure, I think of the Ballinderry Road/Lissue Road/Moneybroom Road crossroads. That was a dangerous junction, but DFI Roads stepped in, widened it and significantly improved it to provide safety. There are examples where the taxpayer has stepped in and changes have been made. However, I share the frustration when I see the daily commute through Moira to Magheralin, Dollingstown and on into Lurgan. I think of the lost opportunity to have a bypass put in place in Moira, given the significant increase in housing there. Are we ever going to have a publicly funded bypass put in place there? I would certainly support one, but I also know the significant expenditure that would be involved. My colleague Jonathan Buckley and I were at the public meeting in Hillsborough, and he addressed those who were in attendance. We recognised the frustration that residents were expressing about future housing development. There is a balance to be struck when it comes to allowing development in certain areas if you know that doing so will increase demand on an already overstretched roads network. It is about how we make that safe for people. Those are the challenges. I know that the Minister will want to support us in Lagan Valley to try to address some of those issues. There has been good work and there are challenges that remain. I am committed to working alongside the Minister and colleagues to find solutions. In Lagan Valley, the public expect us to not just point out the problem but to identify the solution.
821 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: 0.02 (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 (0.93).
- 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 | 0.93 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.02 | 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 10:57 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.