Debate contribution: Holiday Homes and Short-term Lets

Debate contribution by Mr Maurice Bradley on .

MLA
Mr Maurice Bradley
Party at the time
Democratic Unionist Party
Date
4 November 2025
Type
Debate contribution
Business
Private Members' Business
Heading
Holiday Homes and Short-term Lets
Assembly identifier
Official Report component 5217117

Read the official Assembly record

Text

I rise to speak not just about housing but about the future of rural Northern Ireland and whether we will act or continue to manage decline with half measures. On the north coast, in areas such as Portstewart, Portrush, Ballycastle, Portballintrae and beyond, even into the town of Coleraine, the sharp edge of our housing crisis is being driven by the unchecked growth of second homes and short-term lets. Since 2013, house prices in the Causeway Coast and Glens area have surged by almost 70% while wages have barely moved. The price of an average home now sits at about £245,000, and over 85% of properties are out of reach for the median earner. That is not a market: it is a locked door to local families, young people and key workers.

Yes.

The Member raises a very valid point. There is a proliferation of Airbnbs in coastal areas. People find it more profitable to have Airbnbs instead of permanent rental people in their houses. It is a massive problem that needs to be addressed along with the rest. Behind the postcards and summer football on the north coast, communities are hollowing out. Streets that once echoed with school runs and neighbourly chat now fall silent for months. Shops, GP practices and bus routes struggle when year-round residents are displaced by properties that lie empty for most of the year or churn over with short-term visitors every weekend. We are building a visitor economy without residents to make it liveable. When people look at the social housing safety net, they find threads. Nearly 4,000 people in our area are on the waiting list. Over 2,000 are in housing stress, yet we are delivering roughly 52 social homes a year. That is not a strategy; it is a managed scarcity. This is about more than roofs and rents; it is about the character and cohesion of our coastal towns. High concentrations of short-term lets mean transient occupation and constant turnover. Neighbourhoods do not have time to become communities. Local schools lose pupils, clubs lose volunteers and the fabric frays. Noise, litter and poorly maintained properties follow when regulation fails, deterring the very visitors who value the north coast for its clean, peaceful environment. The economic picture is no less stark. Economic inactivity remains stubbornly high, and too many of the jobs that we are creating on the north coast are low wage and seasonal. If we want a resilient economy, we cannot push the workforce out of the places where work should grow. I see no effect of the Executive's regional balance. I see no investment in employment opportunities, higher education or equitable healthcare. To me, it seems like, "Let's look at what Coleraine and the Causeway coast have so that we can move it here, there or anywhere", rather than investing in what is already there and working well. So what must we do? First, we need to introduce robust planning controls where second homes and short-term lets are harming community cohesion. That means a primary residence test in pressured areas; a distinct change of use class for short-term lets so that councils can set caps; a licensing regime with real enforcement; and the power to levy council tax surcharges on homes that are kept empty for most of the year. Secondly, we need to prioritise building truly affordable and social homes where demand is greatest; set binding targets for the north coast and fund them; use public land proactively; and tie planning approvals for new developments to local occupancy and affordability conditions that actually bite. Thirdly, we need to rebalance our economy; bring public-sector and high-quality remote jobs to Coleraine and East Londonderry; invest in digital infrastructure, transport links and childcare so that people can get to work and stay in work; invest in equitable healthcare and job creation; and make sure that training aligns with year-round sectors such as advanced manufacturing, green energy, health and social care, not just summer tourism. Finally, we need to back communities to lead and give councils the data, tools and discretion to act street by street if needed and support residents' groups that are holding their places together. Without urgent intervention, we risk becoming a postcard economy: beautiful to visit, impossible to live in. Let us choose better. Let us invest in people and not just in visitor numbers. Let us deliver housing justice and economic dignity on the north coast and ensure that our towns are living communities 12 months of the year. I support the motion.

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

Assessment

Not flagged

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 (0.96).
  • 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

Probability that each statement is true of this text (0 = no, 1 = yes). A criterion counts as met at 0.60 or above.
QuestionProbabilityMet?
Identity framing0.05No
Sectarian or communal antagonism0.02No
Cultural grievance politics0.02No
Dog-whistle messaging0.03No
Controversy escalation0.03No
Legitimate policy scrutiny0.96Yes
Overall judgement0.04At or below not-flagging threshold
Context and attribution (stance)
OptionProbability
No identity-based framing (chosen)1.00
Reports or questions it0.00
Criticises or condemns it0.00
Adopts it0.00
Subject area (top five)
SubjectProbability
No identity-related subject0.93
Sport (including the GAA), the arts and cultural bodies0.04
Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues0.01
Sexism, misogyny, ageism and other equality groups0.01
Another identity-related subject0.01

Assessed 21 October 2026 at 13:46 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