Debate contribution: Belfast City Centre Dereliction

Debate contribution by Ms Diane Forsythe on 18 November 2024.

MLA

Ms Diane Forsythe

Party at the time

Democratic Unionist Party

Date

18 November 2024

Type

Debate contribution

Business

Opposition Business

Heading

Belfast City Centre Dereliction

Assembly identifier

Official Report component 4656717

Read the official Assembly record

Text

I thank the Opposition for highlighting in the motion the importance of Belfast — the capital city of Northern Ireland. As an MLA for South Down, I usually speak up to champion my part of the country and to showcase the Mourne Mountains, but, today, I am speaking to recognise the significance to us all of those issues in Belfast. The DUP wants to ensure that our capital city is a vibrant place to live, work and do business. We want to see Belfast and its city centre continue to grow and prosper. In recent years, we have welcomed investment to our city, and we want to continue to attract development, business and tourism. We would be wrong to ignore the projects that have benefited from being in Belfast city centre and have been a success. However, we fully agree that prolonged dereliction reduces footfall for businesses, reduces community morale, opens the door to antisocial behaviour and raises a number of health and safety issues. The Finance Minister must take action to ensure that land and property that are in prime locations are used to the benefit of the economy and the community. That goes for public and private land, which is something that the motion does not seem to acknowledge. There are significant publicly owned sites in the city that present issues. Our amendment seeks to widen the focus of the motion beyond the city centre. As someone who commutes to greater Belfast on four days most weeks, I am well placed to speak to the image that is presented to people when they travel along main arterial routes, including the Newtownards Road, Peter's Hill and Sandy Row. They should not see the dilapidation and dereliction en route to our city centre. That is not attractive to residents and tourists or to businesses that are considering investment. It feeds into poor perceptions of community safety. There is a key role for the local council in addressing this, and we welcome the reference to the need for action from Belfast City Council. Ministers, their Departments and other partners, such as the councils, must work together to address dereliction. In particular, we look forward to Minister Muir introducing his dilapidation Bill. Delays to urban regeneration are not only unsightly but also have real financial consequences due to the lost rates revenue from vacant properties and reduced footfall. The Finance, Economy and Infrastructure Ministers must encourage investment in Northern Ireland and work to attract developers. The DUP wants to promote continued and timely development in Belfast. However, we are aware that vacancy is a complex issue. A vacant land tax does not represent a silver bullet and risks simplifying the issues involved. It presents many significant questions. For example, would it create a chill factor for investment? What would the impacts be for publicly owned vacant land, which is also a key feature in our city centre? Would it unfairly penalise landowners for delays beyond their control? Is the SDLP proposing to apply a tax across Northern Ireland? There are derelict sites in isolated areas in my constituency of South Down for a variety of reasons, and I am concerned that a possible precedent could be set here. The SDLP has called for the introduction of a vacant land tax without any mitigation for consultation or indication of what scale or range of sites it might apply to. The Welsh example suggests that such a policy is problematic to implement. Our amendment expands the motion, noting the opposition to long-term landbanking, but records concern over introducing a new tax and highlights that land affected is both public- and private-sector-owned. A proactive solution, rather than the punitive approach suggested by the Opposition, is required. The Finance Minister should regularly review the rates across the Tribeca Belfast site. Indeed, responses to questions by the leader of the Opposition suggest that LPS is already having some success in ensuring rates reliefs are applied effectively. The full review proposed by the leader of the Opposition is unquantified and raises questions about why any future review or revaluation should be limited to one area when dereliction is a common problem across towns and villages in Northern Ireland. The Finance Minister and colleagues should absolutely engage with landowners and Belfast City Council on their proposals. The Minister should work with the investors and landowners, rather than moving to penalise them. As I said, our amendment seeks to widen the scope of the area included in the motion and notes our concerns. I commend the amendment to the House.

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

Assessment

Not flagged

Jev’s structured answers

Assessed 21 October 2026 at 11:32 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