Member's statement: Whiteabbey and Jordanstown Promenade: Installation of Fence
Member's statement by Mr John Stewart on .
- MLA
- Mr John Stewart
- Party at the time
- Ulster Unionist Party
- Date
- 12 May 2025
- Type
- Member's statement
- Business
- Members' Statements
- Heading
- Whiteabbey and Jordanstown Promenade: Installation of Fence
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 4937372
Read the official Assembly record
Text
I am sure that you will agree, Mr Deputy Speaker, that East Antrim clings to the sea and has some amazing views for people who like to walk or cycle along the promenade. Sadly, in recent weeks, the Department for Infrastructure has installed something akin to a prison wall — a 6-foot-tall fence with mesh on the front of it — along a large part of the promenade at Whiteabbey and Jordanstown. I have been contacted by hundreds of people who live and work in the area and use that walkway and cycleway. I want to speak on behalf of the many thousands of people who have signed petitions against it. That fence was installed without consultation — without enough consultation, at least — with the council and certainly without consultation with local residents. In recent weeks, council colleagues and I have engaged with DFI officials and called on the Minister to look into and review that decision. We continue to hear about the financial pressures on the Department for Infrastructure, yet, somehow, it has found an excess amount of money to install that fence that, quite simply, is not required. One local described it as using a sledgehammer to crack a non-existent nut. That is fair. We are all conscious of safety, but when it comes to our promenade views and respecting the local area and the aesthetics of that area, it is very important that something is looked at. I call on the Minister for Infrastructure to look at that, engage with her officials and work with the council to do all that she can to try to find a solution. I know that a solution can be found.
281 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: 0.04 (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 (0.92).
- 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 | 0.03 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.02 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.03 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.03 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.06 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.92 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.04 | 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 12:22 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.