Debate contribution: Belfast City Centre Dereliction

Debate contribution by Dr Caoimhe Archibald on 18 November 2024.

MLA

Dr Caoimhe Archibald

Party at the time

Sinn Féin

Date

18 November 2024

Type

Debate contribution (made as a minister)

Business

Opposition Business

Heading

Belfast City Centre Dereliction

Assembly identifier

Official Report component 4656747

Read the official Assembly record

Text

I welcome the opportunity to speak on the issue. We all want to see our town centres and shopping areas thrive. The difference that a bustling business, new homes or a vibrant community can make to once empty properties is striking. Regeneration, however, must be carried out in consultation with communities and done with communities and not to them. Local communities must benefit socially and economically from such regeneration. As Deirdre set out, redevelopment cannot exclude the communities that are already there. Regeneration must be done in a way that maximises the potential for all. The motion is cross-cutting and spans a number of ministerial portfolios. The motion partly concedes that by recognising that there are fundamental responsibilities across the portfolios of the Communities Minister and the Economy Minister, as well as for Belfast City Council. There is also a key role not mentioned in the motion for the Agriculture Minister and the Environment Agency, which is a key arm's-length body pertaining to the issue and holds records dating back to 1834 on around 14,000 brownfield sites. The policy issues with Tribeca arose not because of the rating system, which already imposes a liability on vacant commercial property — I have written to Executive colleagues about my intentions on that policy — but because of a wider civic policy on regeneration strategy at central and local government level, planning policy and the general ability for a group or entity to control a major area of land in one city or town. It is important to highlight that any ownership or management of contiguous or associated properties will increase the potential for a management entity to make opportune use of the features of a property tax system. That risk is, perhaps, the fundamental factor in any future decisions on whether paramount oversight of a fixed area should be permitted within the planning and regeneration systems. While those issues are outside my remit, I am willing to work collectively at an inter-agency level to resolve the issue. The question now, though, is how to address the issue that has arisen and how to manage future development work that could lead to a similar situation. Neither of those points is neatly contained in the central two elements of the motion, which have been addressed to my portfolio, as the Minister of Finance, but they have been touched on in the wider debate. The first element in the motion refers to:

"the introduction of a vacant land tax to discourage long-term land banking".

The question, of course, is this: what is meant by "vacant land"? My Department holds no such data set. While I am happy to be corrected, I am not aware of a central registry of such land being held at either central or local government level. On the DUP amendment, while I am not sure about the "chill factor" that it references, there is a clear requirement for an evidence-based approach to such a significant tax intervention. As with the motion, the amendment asks me to do many actions that sit outside my policy portfolio, although I support the wider Executive's work to facilitate regeneration alongside local government bodies. In order to implement a new and novel tax, establishing a vacant land data set would be the first step required to assess feasibility. That database would then need to incorporate the number and size of the individual sites that qualify, along with their ownership profile, location and other characteristics such as current zoning, the socio-economic context, the market context and previous use. What exemptions should apply in such a data set, and how do you distinguish between urban, rural and mixed areas? None of that detracts from the potential value of such a measure. However, the timescales for researching and establishing even the fundamental data to begin looking at the economic value of such a tax measure, let alone creating the administrative and IT infrastructure for developing and maintaining such a tax base, mean that that is not a short-term fix for the immediate situation pertaining to Tribeca. Of course, the rating system already imposes a liability on vacant commercial property. That brings me to the second element of the motion, which calls on me to:

"work with Land and Property Services (LPS) to conduct a full review of rates due across the Tribeca Belfast site".

As implied in the text of the motion, the fact that rates are due for the Tribeca site is the first key point. Earlier this year, my Department concluded a consultation that looked at non-domestic vacant rating and increasing the liability level to raise revenue. That work highlighted that the policy issue was not one of simply escalating the liability level. Over 70% of respondents raised issues with such an approach in the immediate term for valid reasons. There are particular concerns about the increase in stranded assets in the office and retail sectors due to wider market changes, many of which have been accelerated by the COVID pandemic.

We need to ensure that, in increasing the liability, we do not simply increase the dereliction that often accompanies higher property tax levels in other jurisdictions. Despite that, I am attracted to the option of increasing liability in that area in a managed and coordinated way, and I have outlined to the Executive how I want to look at the area in the context of my strategic policy direction. That will, however, need to be coupled with work across the Executive on sequencing any increased liability in the area with our wider work to regenerate and decarbonise our built environment. LPS assesses liability or grant relief in accordance with the statutory framework for the rating system, which, in turn, is set by the Assembly and the Executive. If a property qualifies in line with the statutory framework, it is entitled to that support. Of course, rates can be applied only to a property that is there. Occupiers of properties that are granted relief are awarded the support after a process of application, assessment and decision by the district valuer on the basis of the facts and evidence in each case. LPS will, however, update and backdate liability when changes in the area are identified. LPS is reviewing procedures to ensure that changes of occupier for properties benefiting from such rate reliefs are identified. Likewise, valuers in LPS continue to work with relevant stakeholders to provide professional valuation advice on proposals for the area. The Member who proposed the motion spoke of using financial transactions capital coupled with land acquisition. Although that was not outlined in the motion, I will elaborate on the points made. FTC can be deployed by the public sector only as a loan or an equity investment in a private-sector entity. The investment fund that is managed by CBRE is an innovative way of using FTC to invest in long-term transformation, thus supporting economic development and regeneration and tackling regional imbalance. I have met representatives of a number of projects that have benefited from the investment fund, including two hotels in Belfast. The fund has also supported the provision of prime office developments in Belfast city centre, as well as new, purpose-built student accommodation. I have encouraged, and I continue to encourage, all project developers to check the fund's criteria and engage with the fund manager to see whether they are eligible for support. On the distinct point about land acquisition, or vesting, I refer the Member to a previous report from Belfast City Council on the powers of vesting for the Tribeca Belfast development:

"The process of obtaining a Vesting Order in respect of the site will be complex and require a significant officer resource to satisfy the various steps set out within"

section 97(1) of the Local Government Act 1972,

"not least of which is securing the approval of the relevant Department, that being the Department of Communities."

As I highlighted in my earlier comments, I suspect that the party that tabled the motion is somewhat misguided in its attempts to lay responsibility for the Tribeca situation on me, as Finance Minister. I understand and support the rating point that was made on revenue potential, but the rating system serves to assess and bill the built environment that is there, not that which is intended. Like the rest of the Executive, I am eager to see regeneration in the area, not least because of the anticipated revenue from rates. Since day 1 as Minister, I have spoken about how I want to realise tax-based growth here for that very reason. The vesting action that the Member advocates is for the council and the Department for Communities to take, but it would no doubt prove a difficult matter and one of cross-cutting legal complexity. In any event, it is a much more difficult and protracted process than tabling a motion for debate in the Assembly. Although the council's assessment seems to be that it would be for the Communities Minister and the council to take forward that complex work, I am of course willing to do whatever I can, through my ministerial portfolio or as a member of the Executive, to facilitate and assist that consideration. We all want our town centres and shopping areas to thrive. As I have highlighted throughout my response, addressing the issue of long-term derelict properties is multifaceted, requires partnership working from all involved and must be done in consultation and agreement with local communities. I am happy to play my part in conjunction with Executive and other colleagues to take forward that work.

1,597 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