Debate contribution: Housing: Disrepair, Damp and Mould

Debate contribution by Mr David Brooks on 24 February 2026.

MLA

Mr David Brooks

Party at the time

Democratic Unionist Party

Date

24 February 2026

Type

Debate contribution

Business

Private Members' Business

Heading

Housing: Disrepair, Damp and Mould

Assembly identifier

Official Report component 5404767

Read the official Assembly record

Text

I welcome the opportunity to speak in the debate. We have heard similar speeches by and large, which reflects our experiences with the people we work with through our constituency offices. Whilst there might be nuanced views about approach, I think that we all want to see better outcomes for our constituents. On that basis, I thank the Member for tabling the motion. This is one of the few days when we have had no rain in what has been one of the dampest starts to a year on record. With prolonged rainfall comes additional challenges for tenants, such as saturated external walls and overflowing guttering. At this time of year, there is also reduced opportunity to do simple things such as drying clothes outside. Those challenges have created the perfect conditions for mould growth. I take the Member's point that, sometimes, those things are used as excuses, but they nevertheless can contribute. The motion looks at the specifics of social and private rented homes, but it is important, first, to set the issue within the wider housing context. Across Belfast, we still live with the legacy of homes that were never designed for modern living standards. Properties were built quickly, row on row and cheaply — they were built for a very different era. They were never designed to be sealed, insulated and retrofitted like in the programmes being rolled out now. Twenty years ago, it was recognised that many properties in the Village area of the Donegall Road in south Belfast simply did not meet modern standards. Row upon row of houses were demolished to make way for newer, more energy efficient housing.

On paper, that addressed the structural issue, but, in doing so, it displaced established communities.

That challenge is now faced by communities in my constituency in areas such as the Ravenhill Road and the streets off it. A social housing provider owns a number of the properties in My Lady's Road. Those three-storey homes were built over 120 years ago. From the outside, they appear solid, but, internally, many are houses of horrors. I am aware of one case in which a tenant experienced rainwater pouring down the chimney breast in her bedroom every time it rained. There was, in effect, a waterfall inside her home. She was provided with an industrial dehumidifier while plans to deal with wider structural issues were considered, but the dehumidifier was so powerful that it tripped the electrics, and an electrician had to be found to reinstate the lighting. That tenant had tradespeople coming in and out of her house for over two years. Mould was glossed over, false walls were installed inside the house, and she was repeatedly advised to stop drying clothes inside her house. Clothes were not the issue; the issue was the structural failure of the house, the saturated brickwork, the failing chimney stack and the ageing building fabric. That same social housing organisation has advanced £25 million worth of retrofitting into the area, but that comes with a shelf life of 20 years. The investment is significant and welcome. It will improve living conditions and energy efficiency in the short to medium term. However, the projected lifespan of the retrofitting works is approximately 20 years. The investment is not wasted, but it means that we are extending the life of housing stock that was never designed to meet modern accessibility standards and the requirements of modern family living. That relates to the point made in our amendment about the importance of the Housing Executive's being able to borrow and build new homes. That brings me back to the motion. No tenant should spend their life on hold waiting for a tradesperson and enduring two years of reactive patchwork while the underlying issue is structural failure. Equally, however, when we speak about replacing homes to meet modern standards, we must understand the consequences of that decision: renewal cannot mean displacement. Raising standards cannot come at the cost of breaking apart established communities. The debate requires balance. We need clear standards and time frames for tackling —

Yes. I am happy to.

Sorry, will you repeat that?

Thank you. I am saying that a balance needs to be struck. In some working-class communities, there is a fear of displacement and of people being pushed out of their area, and that has to be balanced against the need for new homes. Providing new homes is a challenge, which I recognise. I gave the example of the Village in south Belfast, where new homes were built, which were necessary, but that meant a lot of people being displaced from the area. I am reflecting the concerns of the communities in the lower Ravenhill area that I represent. We need to be clear about the standards and time frames for tackling damp and disrepair. We also need honesty and recognition when housing stock has reached the limits of what retrofitting alone can realistically achieve. If we fail to be honest about that, we risk trapping tenancies in a repeating cycle of repair and decay.

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

Assessment

Not flagged

Jev’s structured answers

Assessed 21 October 2026 at 15:03 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