Debate contribution: Holiday Homes and Short-term Lets

Debate contribution by Mr Andrew McMurray on .

MLA
Mr Andrew McMurray
Party at the time
Alliance Party
Date
4 November 2025
Type
Debate contribution
Business
Private Members' Business
Heading
Holiday Homes and Short-term Lets
Assembly identifier
Official Report component 5217148

Read the official Assembly record

Text

I thank Ms Hunter and the Opposition for tabling the motion. The issue is certainly raised with me in my office regularly. I am lucky that South Down is a brilliant part of Northern Ireland, as Mrs Mason has already pointed out. Colin McGrath will no doubt get in there too. It is famously a place where the Mourne Mountains swoop down to the sea, and it boasts wonderful beaches, forests and the peaks and crags of the hills. It is easy to understand why people wish to visit the area, and, accordingly, they need somewhere to stay. The tourism industry is making important economic contributions to the area, and there can be no doubt about that. All that is positive, within reason. However, increasingly, the balance is tipping the wrong way. I hear from constituents who want to live in the area but have been completely priced out of doing so in towns such as Newcastle and villages such as Dundrum and Bryansford. Young couples soon to be married are not able to move to an area that is geographically central to their family and their work, and parents express concern that their children will not be able to afford a property in the area in which they grew up. It is as much about economic growth as anything else. At this stage, I thank the Minister — the Minister is not here; I will need to rejig my notes. I acknowledge that the motion calls on the whole Executive, so there must be various messages to various Ministers. I have also heard from constituents who find that, at times, every other house in a development is rarely occupied. Indeed, at this time of the year, when the clocks have changed, that is certainly a bit more prominent, and there is many an evening when many a house is unlit. Again, that really contributes to the sense of community detachment. Likewise, some properties are occupied for mere weeks of the year. Tourism NI statistics show that the number of self-catering units in the Newry, Mourne and Down District Council area has increased by almost 50% in two years, from 414 in 2022 to 619 in 2024. At times, that presents a difficult conundrum for tourist areas to grapple with. Yes, they understand the need to accommodate visitors and the economic benefits that come with that, but they also feel that the balance is not always fairly struck at the minute. Some of the previous contributors referenced that.

Certainly, Mr Brooks.

I certainly do, yes. One bit of feedback that we get is about that undercutting and the lack of regulation. The bona fide tourist operators have really well-cared-for and safe properties. The Member referenced the electrical checks. That is something to bear in mind. The motion calls on the whole Executive and for good reason. It is a complex, cross-departmental issue, and Ministers need to work together to find a sustainable way forward. I have a couple of thoughts on that. One of the moves should be towards diversification and sustainability.

Towards the end of the summer, the National Trust held a symposium on sustainable tourism. One of the strongest themes to come out of that was that there is a need to ensure that communities are supported and sustainable. If we get it right for the community, we will get it right for the tourists; if there is no community, tourism will not survive.

Mr Bradley quite rightly pointed out that other economic drivers can be utilised to drive sustainability in housing and get people into the area. One driver that I can think of is the offshore renewable sector, as represented in Kilkeel in South Down. If it is supported, that sector could develop, meaning that companies would keep and offer well-paid jobs in South Down rather than further afield. Therefore, although I appreciate the sentiment of the motion, which is very much about tourism and second homes, wider economic development can go some way towards easing the pressure and ensuring that young families can stay in their locale. The fact that we need stronger regulation and a stronger planning response to short-term lets was touched on. The current situation is putting unsustainable pressures on housing in certain parts of the country, and we cannot let that continue. Councils have a role to play, but so do the Communities Minister, the Infrastructure Minister and the Economy Minister, and we are yet to see decisive action from some of those Departments. The Infrastructure Minister has stated that she has no plans to restrict the conversion of residential properties into short-term holiday lets but that she is open to looking at the issue under the planning improvement programme. We encourage her to do that. I hope, too, that the Finance Minister will have another look at the rates response and see what can be done from that angle. There are areas such as the Lake District in Cumbria — Ms Hunter referenced some others — that have utilised that tool to offset the broader socio-economic costs for an area that is facing this issue. Ultimately, we can all agree that we cannot elevate the needs of the tourism industry above the basic needs of the people whom we serve, and there are few needs more basic than a safe and stable home. I urge all parties to do their best to support this issue.

905 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: 0.03 (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

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 framing0.04No
Sectarian or communal antagonism0.02No
Cultural grievance politics0.02No
Dog-whistle messaging0.02No
Controversy escalation0.02No
Legitimate policy scrutiny0.93Yes
Overall judgement0.03At 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 subject0.97
Sexism, misogyny, ageism and other equality groups0.02
Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues0.01
Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials0.00
Parades, bonfires and commemorations0.00

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.

Challenge this classification