Debate contribution: A5 Western Transport Corridor: Impact on Local Communities

Debate contribution by Mrs Deborah Erskine on 13 May 2025.

MLA

Mrs Deborah Erskine

Party at the time

Democratic Unionist Party

Date

13 May 2025

Type

Debate contribution

Business

Adjournment

Heading

A5 Western Transport Corridor: Impact on Local Communities

Assembly identifier

Official Report component 4948309

Read the official Assembly record

Text

I declare an interest, as my husband's family are landowners along the A5. I thank my party colleague Tom Buchanan for securing this timely and important Adjournment debate. It is disappointing, though, that the A5 project has been beset by misinformation and misconceptions. There is loss on all sides of the argument, and that must be recognised by all. I sympathise with all those who have lost a loved one on the A5.

The devastation of a road death cannot be overstated. That impact stays with you for ever. Road safety is always paramount, and, no matter the road, we can never do enough to promote road safety.

Recently, the DUP agriculture spokesperson, Michelle McIlveen, and I met landowners, one of whom had lost a family member on the road. Whilst landowners whom I speak to recognise that the road project needs to happen, they ask only that there be fairness in the process. Unfortunately, that has not always been the case. The media and some organisations have created such a sense of annoyance and frustration that the legitimate concerns of landowners have not been heard in the wider debate. There has been some demonisation of that group of people, and I want to highlight some of the concerns that have been brought to my attention. First, we know that work on the road has been progressing since the vesting orders in November. However, we still await the outcome of the legal judgement. One person asked how that is allowed to happen, given the already vast amount of land clearance and ecological damage. Should a situation arise in which the legal challenge is successful, the continuation of that work would, as that person succinctly described it, be akin to a farmer building an agricultural building without planning permission. Perhaps the Minister can mention that in her response, because it seems presumptuous to continue with works at this time. Indeed, there are high stakes involved in the Minister's allowing that work to continue, given the impact on the environment and the fact that we await the court judgement. That brings me to my next point, which is about planning permission for replacement agricultural sheds and buildings. That is a major issue, given the concern in the farming community about the ammonia strategy and the planning constraints that that may create. It is sad that we do not have the Agriculture Minister in the Chamber to hear this. I have raised concerns that landowners have about planning, including whether there will be any special circumstances or expediency for such planning applications. Unfortunately, no answers have been forthcoming, so, Minister, can you clarify whether your Department is actively working with the Agriculture Minister and whether you will consider mitigations that can be put in place for such planning applications? That would be useful not only for this project but for any future road projects. Another fundamental point is the pricing of land. We know that, right now, land prices are very high, but that does not seem to be reflected in what is being offered to farmers. The A4 dualling from Dungannon to Ballygawley was officially opened in December 2010. Compensation paid for agricultural land at that stage ranged from £11,000 to £28,000 per acre. Fast-forward to today, and, given inflation and everything else, I was flabbergasted to learn from one constituent that they were being offered just over £13,000 per acre. They are one of the largest landowners set to lose land, and they are on what is deemed very good ground. Whilst I recognise that the Minister may not be able to speak to that directly, there seems to be a slight unfairness, as I see it, in how values are being reached. There are many points that I would like to touch on during the Adjournment debate, but, unfortunately, time has beaten me. There are points that have been adequately raised, such as the single farm payment and issues like that. However, today, we should have sympathy with those who are dealing with the situation before them. I am talking about the landowners who belong to our biggest industry: the agriculture industry. It is tough for that industry at the moment, so let us ensure that there is fairness in the system when it comes to infrastructure projects.

718 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.

Assessment

Not flagged

Jev’s structured answers

Assessed 21 October 2026 at 12:37 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