Member's statement: Housing Executive Offices: Londonderry
Member's statement by Mr Gary Middleton on .
- MLA
- Mr Gary Middleton
- Party at the time
- Democratic Unionist Party
- Date
- 3 June 2025
- Type
- Member's statement
- Business
- Members' Statements
- Heading
- Housing Executive Offices: Londonderry
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 4985681
Read the official Assembly record
Text
I understand the need for many of our public bodies and organisations to transform and become more efficient. However, I rise this morning to raise concerns about the Housing Executive's proposal to close four of its offices in my Londonderry constituency: at Collon Terrace, Waterside, Richmond Chambers and Waterloo Place. The Housing Executive wants to consolidate those four offices into one in the city centre at Carlisle House. That proposal raises key concerns, not least for those who work in the Waterside office. I have been in touch with many of the staff there who feel that they will be disadvantaged when they move not just in relation to parking and their capacity to meet constituents but in their ability to meet with the most vulnerable in the Waterside. My constituents will suffer if the consultation continues to go in its current direction of travel because the face-to-face offering in the Waterside will cease. Recently, I met the North West Road Safety Partnership to discuss issues at the site where, it is proposed, the offices will be consolidated. There are ongoing parking issues and challenges there, and I want to highlight that this morning. I encourage people to respond to the consultation, which closes on 9 June. When we look at efficiencies, it is important that we are mindful that closing those offices is not the way to go, given the fact that many people rely on the face-to-face support that they provide.
243 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 | 0.03 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.02 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.02 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.02 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.02 | 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 | 0.97 |
| Disability (including neurodivergence and mental health), disabled people and disability or sickness benefits | 0.02 |
| Another identity-related subject | 0.01 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 0.00 |
| Parades, bonfires and commemorations | 0.00 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 12:43 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.