Debate contribution: Unadopted Housing Developments and Roads
Debate contribution by Mr Peter McReynolds on .
- MLA
- Mr Peter McReynolds
- Party at the time
- Alliance Party
- Date
- 11 November 2024
- Type
- Debate contribution
- Business
- Private Members' Business
- Heading
- Unadopted Housing Developments and Roads
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 4668062
Read the official Assembly record
Text
I welcome the motion and thank the Chair of the Infrastructure Committee for proposing it. As we have heard, it is not a new issue. To my knowledge, it was discussed here in 2012 and 2021, in councils and at the Infrastructure Committee, so the Minister and his officials will be acutely aware of the issues faced by homeowners across the country who live on those sites. I find it frustrating that we are today discussing something that has gone before. From what we heard from the proposer of the motion, it is also clear that the developer-led process for the adoption of roads and other associated infrastructure falls short of its intended purpose. Bonds, which are almost like a deposit for a developer and insurance for the homeowner, should be an incentive for developers to complete construction. We are all aware, however, of developments that are not finished, not finished on time or not finished to a financially reasonable level for DFI to adopt. That is key to the argument, with one of the issues highlighted being that the value of the bonds is not adequate to cover the costs of the remaining works, should a developer default. That leads to developments not being constructed as expected, the developer going bust and the responsibility for unfinished work reverting to homeowners, and that presents a major dilemma for families and homeowners, with their largest asset facing increased expenditure and an uncertainty that did not exist at the time of purchase. For that reason, and given that he is here today, I would be grateful to hear the Minister's thoughts on reviewing the bond limit, with inflationary pressures built in, and on the process for invoking a bond. I know that the previous Minister spoke about that in 2021, so I would like to hear from the current Minister and his Department about where we are at with that. That is essential because a house on an unadopted site is almost impossible to sell, which leaves the owner stuck where they are, with a house that is unlikely to reach its full market value and represents a loss on their investment. Moreover, it is surrounded by infrastructure that they cannot use. Street lighting, pavements, pedestrian crossings, speed restrictions, parking enforcement and proper sewerage and drainage infrastructure are all completely unusable. Not only is that an issue of equality in the provision of services, it is a risk to physical safety and public health. I am aware of residents who are consciously navigating those sites to avoid injury. That becomes even more difficult for those who live with disabilities, which raises equality-of-access issues. At the moment, there is a lot of talk about building more homes. That will require access to waste water treatment, which is linked to the underfunding of Northern Ireland Water. The sites that we are talking about cannot be allowed to be maintained at present levels or to degrade further. As we look to increase housebuilding to accommodate demand, it is important that the issues that we see with unadopted sites are not replicated. Not only do we need to ensure that new sites are not left unadopted but we need to tackle the long list of legacy sites that have remained unadopted for several years. That is why it is incumbent on the Department, alongside statutory partners, to develop a strategy for the adoption of private infrastructure. On that note, I add that we will support Mr Carroll's amendment, which pragmatically includes councils. When I saw it come though in my emails, I was reminded of taking part in a debate a number of years ago, when I was a councillor on Belfast City Council, on unadopted alleyways. One of our councillors tried to address the issue at the time, but, four years on, I am conscious of several alleyways and roads near where I live that remain littered from fly-tipping and are a health hazard to the public.
I thank the Member for her intervention. I completely agree with her. Having spoken to the estates team at Belfast City Council on several occasions, I know that there are a lot of historical issues. With ownership probably being recorded around 100 or 125 years ago, it is difficult to establish. It is important that the Department comes on board to ensure that we are able to find a way forward, because issues remain when no solution is in place.
Of course.
I thank the Member for his intervention. I thought that it was going to turn into a Belfast City Council love-in.
As a former Belfast city councillor, I am always proud to talk about the council. I completely take your point, David.
The motion is practical, ambitious and would deliver real value and impact for constituents across Northern Ireland. I appreciate that the Department's capacity and available resources are limited and that it has a multitude of competing priorities, so it will be difficult to allocate funding in the immediate term to the adoption of roads and sewers. However, several focused recommendations in the 2012 report would reinforce the process of adoption in order to mitigate loopholes that developers are exploring. The Assembly is in a better place. The fact that we are talking about these issues should remind us all of the importance of long-term, sustained government, with Ministers being able to drive issues for residents across Northern Ireland. I look forward to the Minister's response and to working on the issue more in the Infrastructure Committee.
922 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 (0.96).
- No identity-based framing was identified (1.00).
- Subject area: Disability (including neurodivergence and mental health), disabled people and disability or sickness benefits.
- 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 | 0.03 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.02 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.01 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.03 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.02 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.96 | 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 |
|---|---|
| Disability (including neurodivergence and mental health), disabled people and disability or sickness benefits | 0.99 |
| No identity-related subject | 0.01 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 0.00 |
| Parades, bonfires and commemorations | 0.00 |
| Irish language, Ulster-Scots and language policy | 0.00 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 11:35 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.