Debate contribution: High Street and Town Centre Rejuvenation
Debate contribution by Ms Connie Egan on .
- MLA
- Ms Connie Egan
- Party at the time
- Alliance Party
- Date
- 4 November 2024
- Type
- Debate contribution
- Business
- Private Members' Business
- Heading
- High Street and Town Centre Rejuvenation
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 4625946
Read the official Assembly record
Text
The centres of our villages, towns and cities play an absolutely vital role in providing space for people, community and creativity. That is why we have tabled the motion today to urge the Economy Minister and our Executive as a whole to put in place a comprehensive strategy to rejuvenate our high streets and town centres. Whilst the motivations of consumer culture have evolved over time, we as legislators and political representatives of this place have a responsibility to ensure that our policies and strategies evolve just as quickly. Moving at pace with rapidly developing technologies, we need to build experiences and vital community consultation. We must listen to the will of the people who live and work in those areas to lead our delivery of change. Alliance is fully committed to protecting our high streets, because they hold the key to not just economic vibrancy but strengthening the social fabric of our communities. The motion calls on the Economy Minister to produce a strategy to lead on rejuvenation of our high streets in his Department, although we recognise that this ambition involves more than just one Executive Department. As a member of the Executive Office Committee, I will bring the responsibilities of TEO into focus. The First Minister and deputy First Minister have oversight of the high street task force. That group was chaired by the junior Ministers in the previous mandate and comprised cross-departmental senior civil servants, industry experts and community organisations. In 2020, the group delivered a series of recommendations on how we evolve our high streets and the centres of our villages and towns for the betterment of our people and our economy. The aim of that work was to deliver a shared, agreed vision of creating thriving places to do business, socialise, shop, be creative and use public services, creating great and fulfilling places to live. I bring that up because it is important to reflect that the content of the motion is the consequence of lack of follow-up and formal responses to these asks. We have ended up in a limbo space where work is not being progressed at the pace that we would like due to its sitting in TEO. There has not been as much progress as we want to see in implementing this report's evidence-based recommendations to push transformative change for our local economies. This is unacceptable. It speaks to the failures and lack of clarity in our government. The high street task force report brings together what has been discussed around the Chamber today: delivering destinations that are clean, green and diverse; addressing social need; and creating solutions shaped by the communities in the space itself. It puts forward a comprehensive and encompassing case for developing funds to support creativity, creating rate relief, supporting workers, reviewing planning and tackling the changing landscape of our economies alongside technologies and innovations. Town and city centres, and the high streets within them, are changing, including how they look and what is on them. Whether it is the rising place of the food-to-go industry, the need to support micro and small businesses or incentivising activity that is experience-based away from traditional retail, we have to match this pace of change. From my constituency of North Down, l will take the example of Bangor and its city centre. Our city centre is filled with people who have enthusiasm and hopes for the future of this place, wanting to see it evolve into an even stronger district of experiences, whether that is through visiting our food spots, getting involved in leisure activity in and around the seafront, engaging with arts and cultural hubs or supporting independent and small businesses.
Whilst there has been positive progress in Bangor over recent years — we have seen the regeneration of the Court House, the transformation of the Old Market House into a community hub and momentum building towards the creation of a business improvement district — businesses and people in Bangor feel that they have been left behind. They have been left behind with the delays in the Queen’s Parade regeneration, the lack of progress in waste water infrastructure, which stifles redevelopment, and small businesses facing high levels of rates in our city centre. We need to invest in our high streets for both economic and social value; set policies that prioritise town centres; create experiences for people; update our planning infrastructure; simplify our business support infrastructure; and deliver for people and communities. As my colleague has pointed out, we support the SDLP amendment.
755 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 (0.94).
- 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 | 0.03 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.02 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.02 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.02 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.02 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.94 | 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 | 0.98 |
| Sport (including the GAA), the arts and cultural bodies | 0.01 |
| Another identity-related subject | 0.01 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 0.00 |
| Parades, bonfires and commemorations | 0.00 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 11:28 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.