Debate contribution: Planning Consultations: NIEA Response Times
Debate contribution by Mr Andrew Muir on .
- MLA
- Mr Andrew Muir
- Party at the time
- Alliance Party
- Date
- 26 January 2026
- Type
- Debate contribution (made as a minister)
- Business
- Oral Answers to Questions
- Heading
- Planning Consultations: NIEA Response Times
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 5340430
Read the official Assembly record
Text
As a statutory consultee in the planning system, my Department has a duty to respond to a statutory consultation within 21 calendar days or an otherwise agreed timescale. Statutory planning consultations are formal applications submitted to a local authority for permission to carry out development, as required by the Planning Act 2011. They include a full application for development, an outline application for development and environmental impact assessments. The Department also receives planning consultations that are non-statutory but considered relevant to the planning system due to policy or other interests. Those include pre-application discussions. The current year's performance on statutory consultations is 65%. From 1 April 2025 to 31 December 2025, 2,956 statutory consultations were received, with responses being issued for 2,528. Of those responses, 1,916 were issued on target. An additional 725 non-statutory consultations were received in the same period, with responses being issued for 686. I am fully aware that our response times for applications need to improve, but I am also aware that there are challenging factors such as the complexity of some cases, staff and resource pressures and the variable quality of the applications presented for consideration. To improve our response times and service to planners, a planning improvement plan has been developed and is being implemented at pace.
213 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: 0.02 (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 (0.71).
- 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 | 0.02 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.01 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.01 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.01 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.02 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.71 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.02 | 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 | 1.00 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 0.00 |
| Parades, bonfires and commemorations | 0.00 |
| Irish language, Ulster-Scots and language policy | 0.00 |
| Sport (including the GAA), the arts and cultural bodies | 0.00 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 14:25 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.