Member's statement: Newtownards: Second World War Bomb

Member's statement by Miss Michelle McIlveen on .

MLA
Miss Michelle McIlveen
Party at the time
Democratic Unionist Party
Date
9 September 2024
Type
Member's statement
Business
Members' Statements
Heading
Newtownards: Second World War Bomb
Assembly identifier
Official Report component 4511120

Read the official Assembly record

Text

On 17 August, the police instructed the occupants of around 450 homes in Newtownards to vacate their premises the following day because an 1,100-lb bomb had been uncovered by workmen. The bomb was dropped in 1941 during a German bombing raid. The discovery of the Second World War bomb caused tremendous upheaval for the residents of Rivenwood, Old Forge, Stratheden and the surrounding areas. Residents were told that they could be out of their homes for five days or longer. Ards and North Down Borough Council opened an emergency support centre in Ards Blair Mayne leisure complex that included support and information from the South Eastern Health and Social Care Trust, social services, the Housing Executive and the police.

Residents who had no alternative accommodation were able to come to the complex for shelter and support. The incident really brought out the best in our local community, with offers of rooms, support and even temporary homes for pets of all types. Given that the incident affected around 1,000 people, it is incredible how many people opened up their homes. I spent some time at the hub over the three days of the incident, where I spoke to multi-agency staff, council staff and some of those who were displaced. I express my gratitude to those who were involved in the response to the emergency. I was contacted by a large number of residents, who had nothing but praise for the assistance that they received. Special mention must go to the council's chief executive, leisure centre staff, the council's emergency response team and the council's communications team for stepping up at such short notice; the PSNI and ammunition technical officer (ATO) teams for their speed and professionalism; and the staff of the statutory agencies for their support and advice over the three days of the incident. A message that came though loud and clear during and after the incident, however, was on the lack of financial support. Many residents who were displaced lost out financially. There were those who lost out on work because their vans or tools were stuck behind the cordon, as well as those who work from home but could not do so from their temporary accommodation. There were those who had to stay in B&Bs and hotels, and there was one group of elderly ladies who had just paid for an additional two-night stay when the bomb was set off and they were allowed to return home. They have been wrangling with the hotel chain ever since to refund the money. Others had to pay for accommodation for their pets. There was also damage to properties following the blast. We have no clarity as to whether insurance companies will cover the cost, and they certainly will not cover the excess. Since the incident, I have written to the Minister and I have tabled a question on whether a one-off payment can be made. I have not received a response as yet, but I hope that we can offer support to those who were directly affected. We were able to support those who were affected by adverse weather, so surely we can support those who were affected by the unforeseen circumstances of a 1941 bombing raid.

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

Assessment

Not flagged

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 (0.84).
  • 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

Probability that each statement is true of this text (0 = no, 1 = yes). A criterion counts as met at 0.60 or above.
QuestionProbabilityMet?
Identity framing0.02No
Sectarian or communal antagonism0.02No
Cultural grievance politics0.01No
Dog-whistle messaging0.02No
Controversy escalation0.02No
Legitimate policy scrutiny0.84Yes
Overall judgement0.03At or below not-flagging threshold
Context and attribution (stance)
OptionProbability
No identity-based framing (chosen)1.00
Reports or questions it0.00
Criticises or condemns it0.00
Adopts it0.00
Subject area (top five)
SubjectProbability
No identity-related subject0.80
Sexism, misogyny, ageism and other equality groups0.17
Legacy of the Troubles, victims and paramilitarism0.01
Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues0.01
Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials0.00

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.

Challenge this classification