Debate contribution: Waste Water Capacity: North Antrim
Debate contribution by Ms Liz Kimmins on .
- MLA
- Ms Liz Kimmins
- Party at the time
- Sinn Féin
- Date
- 24 March 2025
- Type
- Debate contribution (made as a minister)
- Business
- Oral Answers to Questions
- Heading
- Waste Water Capacity: North Antrim
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 4864754
Read the official Assembly record
Text
During 2024-25, NI Water invested £1·8 million at Grange waste water treatment works in North Antrim. The Grange waste water treatment works is located to the south of Taylorstown village, and construction is due to be completed in May 2025. The Grange waste water treatment works upgrade builds on the £1·1 million sewer network improvements that NI Water completed earlier in price control (PC) 21. However, the fact remains that there are several waste water treatment works in North Antrim that have no available capacity for development. Those are the waste water treatment works at Armoy Bush, Dervock, Mosside Ballymoney and Stranocum. Capacity issues have also been identified in parts of the waste water network in Ballycastle, Ballymena, Ballymoney, Bushmills, Portglenone and Rasharkin. Unfortunately, that may lead to negative planning responses for developments in those areas. However, each application will be assessed individually depending on the location and level of capacity constraints in the area. Where possible, NI Water will work with developers to identify solutions. I will continue to work with Executive colleagues to secure funding for the capital investment programme through 2024-27.
184 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 (0.77).
- 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 | 0.01 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.01 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.01 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.01 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.02 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.77 | 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 12:11 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.