Debate contribution: Dilapidation Bill: Update
Debate contribution by Mr Andrew Muir on .
- MLA
- Mr Andrew Muir
- Party at the time
- Alliance Party
- Date
- 6 May 2025
- Type
- Debate contribution (made as a minister)
- Business
- Oral Answers to Questions
- Heading
- Dilapidation Bill: Update
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 4929684
Read the official Assembly record
Text
It will have a particular impact on that, because, during the policy consultation, stakeholders expressed concerns that, under existing legislation, there was no special consideration or protection afforded to listed buildings and no requirement to consult planning colleagues prior to the issuing of notices. Stakeholders suggested that that had resulted in the loss of a number of buildings that had been allowed to fall into disrepair by owners. We have sought to ensure that the Bill will afford protections to listed buildings and that it will be binding on councils to consult relevant planning colleagues before taking any action. That will properly address heritage issues and be more proactive, allowing actions to be taken at a much earlier stage, thereby preventing avoidable decay in those important buildings. Councils currently have powers under section 161 of the Planning Act (Northern Ireland) 2011 to carry out urgent remedial works for the preservation of a listed building. I also declare for the record that I am a member of Ulster Architectural Heritage.
169 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 (0.93).
- 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 | 0.01 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.03 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.01 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.03 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.93 | 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 | 0.45 |
| Sport (including the GAA), the arts and cultural bodies | 0.42 |
| Another identity-related subject | 0.11 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 0.01 |
| Legacy of the Troubles, victims and paramilitarism | 0.01 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 12:26 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.