Debate contribution: Hill Street, Belfast: Pedestrianisation
Debate contribution by Mr Brian Kingston on .
- MLA
- Mr Brian Kingston
- Party at the time
- Democratic Unionist Party
- Date
- 6 May 2025
- Type
- Debate contribution
- Business
- Adjournment
- Heading
- Hill Street, Belfast: Pedestrianisation
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 4930056
Read the official Assembly record
Text
I am happy, in following my colleague Phillip Brett, to speak in support of the proposal. I thank Matthew O'Toole for bringing the matter to the Floor, as Phillip did previously when he spoke in support of it. Listening to Peter McReynolds reminded me of some of the debates that we had back in Belfast City Council days about traffic lanes, pedestrianisation and impacts on congestion. We did not always agree on those matters, but here we have one on which we do agree. There seems to be cross-party agreement on the value of pedestrianising Hill Street. It is a special street in the Cathedral Quarter and should be valued as such: it is a narrow cobbled street with the closeness of buildings around it. As part of the Cathedral Quarter, it has the hospitality venues that have been mentioned, most prominently the Duke of York; the music venues, such as the Oh Yeah centre and the Black Box; and the Ulster Scots heritage centre. The lack of pedestrianisation has, to use a music analogy, been a cause of 'Hill Street Blues', if you remember that series, but we can now see progress being made, and I look forward to the Minister's comments. I do not dismiss the need for consultation. We need to think about all the users of the street, including the businesses there that might need deliveries to happen. I was once in a taxi that, not at my request, took a route down Hill Street. I told the driver off, saying, "Why are you going down this route? It should not be used". It saved a tiny amount of time, maybe, and I was quite annoyed that he went down Hill Street and then Skipper Street to take a short cut. I was annoyed that he did it, and I told him never to take me that route again.
Yes, briefly.
I do. As it happens, there was little saving in journey time, and it was obviously an inconvenience to the pedestrians who were on the street at the time. There is little demarcation between the road and the footpaths on that street. Most importantly, the street has character. We sometimes create areas in order to try to create authentic character, but here we have character that has existed for centuries in one of the older streets in Belfast, and it should be valued. It has the cobbles, which might not be suitable for everyone, depending, as you mentioned, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker, on people's footwear, and I recognise that they might not be suitable for people with disabilities, but, again, they have character, and that is what people want when they visit a city, especially for its cultural and music venues. I also recognise that the number of people who live in the city centre is increasing, particularly in the northern sector, where there is accommodation for students and there are the night-time venues that attract them. I am happy to lend my support — let us get this done; let us iron out any difficulties — and I look forward to the Minister's comments.
520 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 (0.70).
- No identity-based framing was identified (1.00).
- Subject area: Disability (including neurodivergence and mental health), disabled people and disability or sickness benefits.
- 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 | 0.05 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.02 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.03 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.03 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.04 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.70 | 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 |
|---|---|
| Disability (including neurodivergence and mental health), disabled people and disability or sickness benefits | 0.58 |
| Irish language, Ulster-Scots and language policy | 0.27 |
| No identity-related subject | 0.11 |
| Sport (including the GAA), the arts and cultural bodies | 0.03 |
| Religion and belief (including people of no religion), churches, faith communities and religious prejudice (including antisemitism and anti-Muslim prejudice) | 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.