Member's statement: Housing: Unadopted Developments
Member's statement by Mr John Stewart on .
- MLA
- Mr John Stewart
- Party at the time
- Ulster Unionist Party
- Date
- 8 October 2024
- Type
- Member's statement
- Business
- Members' Statements
- Heading
- Housing: Unadopted Developments
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 4581504
Read the official Assembly record
Text
I speak on behalf of the many thousands of people across Northern Ireland who currently live on unadopted roads, streets and developments. Across my constituency of East Antrim, and across Northern Ireland, thousands of people are stuck in limbo without the basic provisions that most of us take for granted. They are living in the absence of street lights, sewerage services, road repairs and, often, bin collection; the list goes on, and the frustration of those residents grows. The reasons for that are often multifaceted but invariably involve housing developers either going bust or simply not completing work to the required standard before they move on. That leaves residents in a dreadful position, unable to access the basic services that they pay rates for and stuck in the middle of a convoluted legal process between the developer and the Department for Infrastructure. It also invariably impacts on the price of the house that they paid so much for and, often, on their ability to sell that property. Some owners in my constituency bought their houses in good faith over 15 years ago and are still without access to street lighting and functioning sewerage facilities. That story is replicated across Northern Ireland. Rather than getting better, the situation is getting worse. A 2012 report by the Regional Development Committee showed that there were over 2,500 instances. I understand that that has increased in the past decade, rather than having got better. Clearly, the system is not working, and people are paying the price. The bond that DFI demands from a developer before work on a new housing development starts is meant to act as an incentive for developers to complete the work on time and to standard, but that incentive simply is not working or is not working enough. I raised the matter with the Infrastructure Minister at last week's meeting of the Infrastructure Committee. I am glad to see that he is looking into it, but I believe that we need a two-pronged approach. First, we need to look at all outstanding developments across Northern Ireland, create a plan to bring them up to standard and then adopt them. If that means taking legal action and being harsh with former developers, whatever their current situation, then so be it. That needs to be done in collaboration with departmental officials in Northern Ireland. Secondly, there needs to be a full review of the bond system to ensure that it will cover the works that need to be carried out should a developer not do them. Bonds are meant to be in place to do that, but, again, invariably that is not happening, and people are being left in limbo. I also suggest that we look at banning developers who serially offend. For a homeowner who has bought a house from a developer and is unable to access services, there is nothing more annoying than seeing the same developer start a new project 100 yards down the road while they are left wondering when they will get access to the services that they are paying for through their rates. If that requires legislative change, I hope that the Minister will do something about that, but we need to do everything that we can in the House to represent those residents.
548 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 (0.97).
- 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 | 0.97 | 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 11:12 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.