Debate contribution: Holiday Homes and Short-term Lets
Debate contribution by Ms Diana Armstrong on .
- MLA
- Ms Diana Armstrong
- Party at the time
- Ulster 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 5217132
Read the official Assembly record
Text
I welcome the opportunity to speak to the motion, which highlights the growing impact of second and holiday homes on our rural and coastal communities, particularly along the north coast. The motion recognises the impact of holiday homes and short-term lets on local communities. That recognition is important. There are 549 registered self-catering properties in Portrush, and, as has been mentioned, there are a further 532 such properties in Portstewart. Those figures from Tourism NI show the extent to which the market has become concentrated in a small area. The effect of that on local housing availability is significant. When hundreds of homes are occupied only part of the year, that drives up prices and reduces supply for those who wish to live and work locally. The result is that many young people, who would once have started families or built careers in those towns, are now forced to look elsewhere. The consequences of that can be seen clearly on the ground. In the off-season, streets fall silent, and communities that were once thriving year-round are left with fewer permanent residents.
Local schools such as Mill Strand Integrated Primary School and Nursery and Hezlett Primary School have seen their enrolments decline as young families have moved away. This is not simply a housing issue; it is about the long-term sustainability of our communities and the services that support them.
The motion rightly expresses concern about rising house prices and the availability of affordable housing. However, our response must be based on data, not assumptions. The Department for Communities has confirmed that around 6% of homes across Northern Ireland have no usual residents. In the Causeway Coast and Glens area, however, that figure, as Sian said, is 13%. That includes vacant, renovated and holiday homes, but we still do not know precisely how many of those are genuine second properties. We also need to acknowledge that our wider housing challenge runs deeper that this one issue. The shortage of affordable and social housing has persisted for far too long. Placing the blame solely on the tourism sector will not resolve that. The problem is far more complex and demands long-term investment in new and affordable housing stock. The motion warns that the issue threatens the social fabric of communities. That is true, but we must not overlook the fact that tourism — the self-catering sector in particular — supports thousands of jobs and businesses across Northern Ireland. The challenge, therefore, is to find balance and protect community life whilst sustaining livelihoods. The motion calls on the Executive to bring forward proposals to address the impacts. I support that call, provided that the proposals are targeted, proportionate and informed by reliable data. The Ulster Unionist Party believes in empowering local authorities to manage concentrations of holiday homes through their local development plans, in line with the Executive's housing supply strategy. We must avoid blunt, one-size-fits-all restrictions that could damage our tourism economy. The motion focuses too much on absolutes and lacks the balance that our communities deserve. Holiday homes and short-term lets are not inherently negative, but, without effective regulation, they can become problematic, and we have heard good examples of that this evening. We need policies that safeguard local families, ensure that housing remains affordable and support tourism — an industry that so many rely on. The Ulster Unionist Party supports the motion.
562 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 (0.95).
- 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 | 0.04 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.02 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.01 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.02 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.02 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.95 | 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 | 0.93 |
| Education structures, integration and community division | 0.02 |
| Sexism, misogyny, ageism and other equality groups | 0.02 |
| Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues | 0.01 |
| Another identity-related subject | 0.01 |
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.