Debate contribution: Tribeca, Belfast: Development
Debate contribution by Ms Carál Ní Chuilín on .
- MLA
- Ms Carál Ní Chuilín
- Party at the time
- Sinn Féin
- Date
- 30 September 2025
- Type
- Debate contribution
- Business
- Adjournment
- Heading
- Tribeca, Belfast: Development
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 5143432
Read the official Assembly record
Text
I thank Phillip for bringing forward the Adjournment topic today. I am from the area. I still occasionally call over and go for a walk with my friends and their dogs around there. I do not stray into the Deer's Head, but I have seen some of you at the Duke of York when we have walked up there with the dogs. Those are great establishments, by the way. Phillip is 100% right that all that you are met with around there is dereliction and scaffolding. No attention or care is paid, and that sends out a message to residents, and, potentially, to developers. One of the most iconic parts of the city, including its architecture, is being lost. I remember — this is not a dig at the SDLP, Matthew — the announcement in 2003 about Royal Exchange. It was really ambitious. Phillip is right: it was retail, and then it became office space. Hopefully, it will end up as a mixture of both. Following the awful fire in North Street Arcade in 2004, there has been mission creep. Royal Avenue used to be bustling, from Lower Donegall Street through to Donegall Place, but now it is not. As someone who has been there in the evening, on dark nights, I can say that it is a scary place; even the businesses there say that. I completely agree with everything that Phillip said about Castlebrooke. Deirdre and I, along with our team, have been involved. Phillip is right about the cross-party team in Belfast City Council that has led the charge on that. Our party is adamant about the Assembly Rooms. The cross-party support to try to get the whole thing done is sustaining us all, to be frank.
Castlebrooke need to be put on notice. I am not getting stuck into South Belfast, but this would not be allowed to happen in BT9 or elsewhere. It should not be allowed to happen anywhere, regardless of postcode. I would like the Department to use its regeneration powers and act as the leadership on the matter. I know that businesses pay a lot of money in rates, but Belfast ratepayers have coughed up more than anyone else. The developers have led us all a merry dance. We have all been clear about what we want and what we do not want. Every time you think you are getting somewhere, they come back. I would go as far as to say that, in my experience, they have been very disingenuous. I can only imagine the frustration felt by potential developers. We have had meetings with housing associations and other housing providers, as well as developers, to look at using the 80:20 social/private ratio. Everybody has stretched themselves and then some, and it is still sitting there. The engagement all depends on correspondence from Belfast City Council's planning committee, which reminds the developers that they need to engage. Engagement and communication should be a constant. We know that in this place. Even if it is good — we have good days and bad days — most people know exactly where they stand. We thought that we knew where we stood with Castlebrooke. I hate the name "Tribeca"; it is just rubbish. That whole development needs lifted, and we would all welcome the opportunity to do that. The only body that has the ability, the authority and, indeed, the credibility to do this is the Department for Infrastructure. It can bring other agencies to a round-table discussion to bring everyone together. It has regeneration powers, with the kudos of acting on behalf of the Assembly and the Executive, even just to lever other Departments. I am glad that Hill Street is to be pedestrianised. It has taken too long. If developers are watching how we do things, they will do nothing in haste. We all need to be honest about that. There is an opportunity for us all to come together and put Castlebrooke and others on notice, along with our community, business and statutory partners. I am up for that. Thank you. Phillip, for securing the Adjournment debate today.
687 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: 0.05 (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 (0.81).
- 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 | 0.06 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.04 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.03 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.05 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.06 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.81 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.05 | 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 | 0.81 |
| Sectarianism, hate crime and community relations | 0.10 |
| Another identity-related subject | 0.07 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 0.01 |
| Parades, bonfires and commemorations | 0.00 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 13:17 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.