Debate contribution: Hill Street, Belfast: Pedestrianisation
Debate contribution by Mr Peter McReynolds on .
- MLA
- Mr Peter McReynolds
- Party at the time
- Alliance Party
- Date
- 6 May 2025
- Type
- Debate contribution
- Business
- Adjournment
- Heading
- Hill Street, Belfast: Pedestrianisation
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 4930049
Read the official Assembly record
Text
I will speak in the debate on behalf of my Alliance colleague Nuala McAllister MLA, who is, unfortunately, unwell. I caution, however, that I am originally from North Belfast as well. I thank the Member for securing the Adjournment debate and the Minister for attending. Five years ago, during COVID, as a councillor in Belfast City Council, I found myself talking regularly about the pedestrianisation of Hill Street and the wider pedestrianisation of the city centre. Like most people, I saw COVID as an opportunity to take advantage of the reduction in cars and people on our streets in order to deliver the radical changes needed to reclaim and reanimate public spaces. I found myself regularly drawing a comparison between Belfast and Paris, where I lived a number of years ago. To the envy of the world, the Mayor of Paris had begun to restructure and reclaim Paris during COVID, whereas here, in Belfast, I remember a few cones being put down in Hill Street. Sadly, they were being driven over by cars. What a wonderful and poetic image for car dominance in Belfast: cones, which were there to keep people safe and to deter entry, being driven over for the convenience of a few. I also regularly found myself drawing a comparison with the Glider in east Belfast, which was opposed by a small minority at the time but made absolute sense and is now part of the furniture, bridging east Belfast and west Belfast and connecting people in ways never seen before.
The pedestrianisation of Hill Street is a no-brainer that will support the safety of pedestrians. There is, however, a wider piece that I can see as an Infrastructure Committee member, in that there is a lack of will to go for the quick wins for the benefit of the greater good. That is what the Adjournment debate is trying to achieve today. I am starting to see routinely people saying, "The computer says no", or, "Everyone must agree," or, "Let's consult again to get the answer that we know that we'll probably get". Let us reimagine our public spaces and deliver family-friendly, pedestrian-friendly public spaces that will reanimate Belfast and mirror what we see across so many major European cities. The pedestrianisation of Hill Street will involve minor works and minor costs but will achieve major change for a small but well-used area of Belfast. Damien and Michael are in the Public Gallery. Can we, please, commit to getting this sorted urgently, and can we, at worst, to quote Willie Jack's recent remarks, have it done before the fleadh gets here in 2026 and we miss out on another opportunity? Experimenting and consulting are no longer needed, but action is.
454 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: 0.03 (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 (0.89).
- 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 | 0.04 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.02 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.02 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.05 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.04 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.89 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.03 | 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 | 0.82 |
| Another identity-related subject | 0.13 |
| Sectarianism, hate crime and community relations | 0.02 |
| Irish language, Ulster-Scots and language policy | 0.01 |
| Disability (including neurodivergence and mental health), disabled people and disability or sickness benefits | 0.01 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 12:28 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.