Debate contribution: Holiday Homes and Short-term Lets
Debate contribution by Mr Alan Robinson on .
- MLA
- Mr Alan Robinson
- 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 5217140
Read the official Assembly record
Text
I am pleased to speak on the impact of holiday homes and short-term lets in our coastal regions. I will focus on the unique circumstances facing our north coast, including the Causeway coast and surrounding villages, where the growth in the number of second homes and short-term holiday lets is certainly one factor that is impacting on housing access. Some go further and say that it impacts on the fabric of the towns and villages in that area. In the north coast area and across the Causeway Coast and Glens Borough Council area, data from coastal villages such as Portballintrae and Cushendun indicates that second homes and short-term lets are becoming a dominant part of the housing stock. According to a report by Causeway Coast and Glens Borough Council, up to half of the properties in Portballintrae are estimated to be second homes. The same report estimates that roughly 31% of houses in Cushendun are being used as holiday lets. For Northern Ireland as a whole, the legislation remains unchanged. A change from a permanent dwelling to a second home or a short-term let does not require planning permission. In some of our most beautiful coastal villages, a substantial fraction of the housing stock is being removed either wholly or part-time from the permanent residential stock and, instead, used for seasonal second homes, holiday lets or non-resident ownership. Those of us who represent the area will have heard how young adults who work locally in hospitality, tourism and retail increasingly struggle to find accommodation in the locality in which they grew up. We have heard of families who might have expected to buy a modest home being priced out, as demand is driven not by local need but by holiday-home demand or investment return from short-term lets. We have heard of the long-term rental sector being squeezed. Some houses that were once available for year-round rent are being moved into the holiday market where yields are higher, or the owners prefer to use them for themselves. If homes are vacant for much of the year and used not by full-time residents but by holidaymakers, the fabric of a village or coastal resort can be impacted negatively. As has been said, schools, youth clubs, sports clubs and local shops all depend on a stable population. When many homes become seasonal, the viability of local services can decline. Indeed, minutes of Causeway Coast planning meetings record concern from councillors that the inability of young people to secure housing in rural areas is impacting on local settlement patterns, schools and sports clubs. A home —.
Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. Causeway Coast and Glens Borough Council is actively considering that. A home that lies empty for months or that is occupied only for transient stays does not support the community ties that a long-term resident does. While tourism is vital, we must guard against creating a situation in which the only people who can live permanently in the area are those of significant means, thereby skewing the character of the place and potentially undermining the local workforce. A number of factors add to the issue. The cost-of-living crisis has increased pressure on housing, and there is the need for affordable new-build homes. Rural and coastal communities in East Londonderry already face demographic and economic challenges, including the outward migration of younger people and their distance from major employment centres. The packaging of holiday homes as holiday lets adds another barrier to those seeking to live and work locally. On the north coast, which is an area of outstanding natural beauty and tourism importance but also a place where people live all year round and raise families, it is said that the balance has tipped much too far. The beauty of the north coast — somewhere that I am incredibly proud to call "home" — the shopping towns nearby, the golf courses and the beaches all attract investors and holidaymakers, but what is attractive to an outsider for a week's stay also makes the property less accessible to a local, living-wage earner who is seeking a home. As one councillor noted in the minutes of a planning committee meeting in Causeway Coast and Glens Borough Council three years ago, the issue is the inability of young people to secure housing and the impact on settlements, schools and sports clubs. Some might argue that motions such as this are anti-tourism, but they are far from it. Our tourism offer is one of our greatest assets, but tourism cannot become the sole driver of the housing market. Otherwise, we will lose balanced, liveable areas and restrict who can afford to live and work here. The growth of holiday homes and short-term lets on the north coast is having a real and material impact on housing affordability, the availability of homes for local resident families and workers and the sustainability of community life in the villages and towns in that part of Northern Ireland. The evidence is becoming clearer, and the local voices on the north coast are growing louder. We must listen to those voices.
849 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 | 0.05 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.03 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.02 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.03 | 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 | 0.89 |
| Sexism, misogyny, ageism and other equality groups | 0.07 |
| Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues | 0.03 |
| Another identity-related subject | 0.01 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 0.00 |
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.