Debate contribution: Unadopted Housing Developments and Roads

Debate contribution by Mr Stephen Dunne on .

MLA
Mr Stephen Dunne
Party at the time
Democratic Unionist Party
Date
11 November 2024
Type
Debate contribution
Business
Private Members' Business
Heading
Unadopted Housing Developments and Roads
Assembly identifier
Official Report component 4668112

Read the official Assembly record

Text

I welcome the opportunity to speak on an important issue that affects so many parts of Northern Ireland. At the outset, I declare an interest, as I plan to move into an unadopted housing development shortly. I just want to keep myself right

We will have to hear what the Minister says. I might have to change that. As has been said, this is not a new issue for the House, but we have a useful opportunity to remind the Minister again about the need for action. I certainly hope that the Minister is in listening mode, as he always is when it comes to us on the DUP Benches. There are many things to consider for those purchasing a new home, and one factor is whether the roads and footpaths have been adopted. As our motion rightly points out, there are a litany of problems that can come from that, particularly, as has been said, with the public services that flow both outside and below the property. In my constituency of North Down, I have recently been working on a number of examples of problems in developments. People have invested heavily in purchasing properties in the context of ever-rising house prices, and, when they tried to get their road upgraded, they faced an extensive list from DFI to get it up to standard.

The associated costs were eye-watering for them and simply unaffordable.

That situation sometimes gives the opportunity where developers can, unfortunately, wash their hands of responsibility in getting those areas properly upgraded. Indeed, statistics provided by the Department show that the southern division, which covers my constituency, has the highest number of unadopted bonded phases of developments with 80% occupation, with 485 developments; 303 being the next highest and the lowest 205. Indeed, in my council area, we have 151 unadopted housing developments, which highlights the significant scale of the issue. That is reflected right across our country. It is an unacceptable backlog, and, each year, unfortunately, it gets worse. Homeowners can face deteriorating road and footpath conditions and, as has been said, experience difficulties in selling on their property. The current situation is such that, should a developer default or dissolve, the bond can be used by DFI and/or NI Water to complete the roadworks and sewers. As my colleague Deborah Erskine said, legislation is indeed outdated and ineffective. That is where there is room for improvement. Some action has been taken, particularly on the bond rates, when they were increased by around 70% in 2023. We understand that the Department plans to adjust that bond rate at the beginning of 2025, and we look forward to hearing more detail on the Minister's intentions. Homeowners must not be left to foot the bill or be liable for bringing the development in which they live up to an adoptable standard in cases where that developer has defaulted. As has been said, some people can reappear in close proximity, under a new name sometimes. That emphasises that homeowners need to be protected.

Yes, certainly.

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, and I thank my colleague Mr Brooks for that. There are opportunities to improve things for everybody in this process. That opportunity is there, and, hopefully, it will be taken forward by the Department and the Minister. That is why we call on the Minister to do more, and, in the case of unadopted alleyways, a partnership approach is needed between local communities, the councils, the Housing Executive, DFI and others to adopt those areas and instigate a programme of basic maintenance. That is why we are happy to support the amendment to bring in the councils. It certainly strengthens the motion. The motion calls on the Minister to put the interests of ordinary homeowners first and to take the necessary steps to identify high-priority and legacy sites for adoption. As was mentioned, many of those are historical issues, and it can be tricky to get clarity on ownership and so on. There is definitely room for improvement, given the issues that we are having, as we seek to make this more effective and efficient.

686 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 (0.95).
  • 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 framing0.03No
Sectarian or communal antagonism0.03No
Cultural grievance politics0.01No
Dog-whistle messaging0.05No
Controversy escalation0.02No
Legitimate policy scrutiny0.95Yes
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 subject0.83
Another identity-related subject0.10
Sectarianism, hate crime and community relations0.05
Constitutional question, Brexit, the Windsor Framework and sovereignty0.02
Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials0.00

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.

Challenge this classification