Debate contribution: Unadopted Housing Developments and Roads
Debate contribution by Mr Mark Durkan on .
- MLA
- Mr Mark Durkan
- Party at the time
- Social Democratic and Labour Party
- Date
- 11 November 2024
- Type
- Debate contribution
- Business
- Private Members' Business
- Heading
- Unadopted Housing Developments and Roads
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 4668096
Read the official Assembly record
Text
I also declare an interest as someone who lives on an unadopted street. Unadopted housing developments, footways, roads and alleyways are a massive concern that impacts on countless people to varying extents, but it is a problem that has evidently gone unchecked. It is frustrating that, 12 years since the Regional Development Committee presented its findings to the Assembly and three years on from a motion presented by the former Infrastructure Committee, we are no further forward. Not only are we no closer to resolving the matter; the problems that householders face around roads and sewerage systems have intensified. Currently — I think that this is right, Mr Stewart — nearly 1,900 housing developments remain unadopted. However, the Department has been unable to provide me with details of how many of those developments are stalled due specifically to issues with water and waste water infrastructure. That is indicative not only of the woeful data held on unadopted areas but of the lack of communication between the Department, Northern Ireland Water and other statutory agencies and bodies. We will happily support the amendment as well as the motion. We have heard again today that some housing developments have remained unadopted for decades. In some cases, developers have gone into liquidation, leaving residents to shoulder the costs themselves. That is the case in Burnside Manor in my constituency, where residents have been left in a situation in which DFI holds the bonds for the site, but, due to water defects, it does not meet Northern Ireland Water's standards for adoption. The Department has now shifted the responsibility onto residents, requiring them to pay for the repairs necessary to bring the site up to an adoptable standard. Some homeowners feel trapped and unable to resell their homes due to the poor condition of the infrastructure. That not only limits their ability to move but impacts their property value and financial stability, leaving them stuck in a worsening situation that has an extremely negative impact on their health and well-being. Sadly, it is not an isolated situation. We have seen it repeatedly across Derry, including at Ivy Mead and other developments. In 2016, there were 80 unadopted housing sites in Derry and Strabane. That number has now increased to 147. It is clear evidence that the problem and the solution do not lie solely, Mr Carroll, with developers. I have to make the point that, believe it or not, some developers are responsible and responsive in addressing residents' concerns, sometimes, dare I say, even more so than DFI.
Certainly.
I thank the Minister for his intervention, but, in the space of eight years, we have seen an additional 67 unadopted sites. The number has increased by 67. That perhaps indicates a resource issue in the Department, but it certainly indicates — how should I say it — the Department's inability to adopt even the sites that are adoptable in a timely manner. The lack of action has allowed the situation to worsen. The Department's failure to implement recommendations made in 2012, including the Law Society's call for redress options for homeowners in developments where, despite bonds being in place, roads and sewerage remain unadopted for extended periods, has only compounded the problem. Any further slippage risks us reaching the point of no return. The recorded data on alleyways and footways is scant at best. However, daily enquiries, which, I am sure, are received by all of us, make it clear that it is a widespread concern that impacts on safety and accessibility. We receive countless reports of elderly residents slipping on moss-covered pathways or tripping over in badly lit, litter-strewn alleyways when simply trying to take out their bins. It is a concern that affects people's daily lives.
I have a wee bit more to get through. Most of the time, residents and agencies navigate the maze of ownership before hearing the dreaded phrase: "This is a no man's land". We definitely need to see a more strategic and centralised approach from the Department on unadopted spaces. The issue affects public safety, well-being, community pride and property values. While there is no denying the financial challenges facing the Department, budget constraints will not absolve the Minister or the Department from a lack of meaningful intervention on the issue. Additional legislation and action is needed to grant the Department more authority, create a more streamlined approach and support the long-term sustainability of our infrastructure.
739 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).
- 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 | 0.96 | 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 |
|---|---|
| No identity-related subject | 0.86 |
| Sexism, misogyny, ageism and other equality groups | 0.07 |
| Another identity-related subject | 0.03 |
| Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues | 0.02 |
| Disability (including neurodivergence and mental health), disabled people and disability or sickness benefits | 0.02 |
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.