Debate contribution: On-street Parking Charges in Lisburn
Debate contribution by Mr David Honeyford on .
- MLA
- Mr David Honeyford
- Party at the time
- Alliance Party
- Date
- 11 November 2025
- Type
- Debate contribution
- Business
- Adjournment
- Heading
- On-street Parking Charges in Lisburn
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 5349804
Read the official Assembly record
Text
I am really delighted to speak on the issue today. I thank my colleague and friend Robbie from Lagan Valley for securing the Adjournment debate. I also thank the Minister for being with us to listen. Parking might seem like a small issue on the surface, but, in Lisburn, it is tied to the life of our city centre, how people use it and whether businesses thrive or survive. I am deeply passionate about the regeneration of our city. I have talked about it regularly in the Chamber and in Committee. I continue to look at how we can repurpose and revitalise the Bow Street and Market Square area to bring it into 2025 and think about what it will look like in 2035 and 2045. In my discussions, parking in the city centre is something that is raised time and again. Over the past year, I have been asking people for their views on the city centre, and parking has always been part of the discussion. I continue to engage with people and listen to their opinions. I am currently carrying out a survey on the topic. Surveys are often carried out: for example, the Federation of Small Businesses (FSB) came to the Economy Committee with a survey about British businesses and the Windsor framework.
Four times as many people have responded to my survey than responded to the FSB survey. That is the level of engagement that we have had: responses from people who live, work and shop in Lisburn, who come from our city and who visit our city regularly. Those are the voices of people who actually use the place. They are not views or opinions but real experiences, and their voice is what I want to highlight tonight.
Robbie dealt really well with the issues. I just want to put some substance to that, because the message that came back was really clear, and I want to highlight a few of those points. First, it was around cost. At the moment, it costs £1 an hour to park on the street. We asked what people thought of that. Two thirds — 67% — of the people who responded said that it was not good value. A lot of the comments were not just about the price but about the principle, with people feeling that they were being charged simply to try to keep their local city centre alive. They pointed out that neighbouring towns — Robbie referenced this — are either cheaper or do not charge for parking. We are seeing footfall drop and flow to those towns instead, and we all know what happens: when the footfall goes, the businesses and everything else go too. The second issue, which has also been raised, is the one-hour limit. That really hit a nerve when the question was asked: 90% of people who responded said that one hour was not long enough. It makes absolute sense, and I declare an interest as well. I have regularly got one of those yellow stickers on my car — once for a stay of one hour and six minutes, when I had nipped into the office and got on to a phone call. I paid, and that is fine, but an hour does not let you go to the shop. It does not allow you to meet friends, to go for a coffee, to grab lunch. One person in the survey said, "You go in looking at the time rather than enjoying what you are in the town for." That tells the entire story. When we asked the obvious follow-up questions: "Would two hours work better? Would two hours of free on-street parking make you more likely to shop in Lisburn?", the answer came back, and 82% said yes; 82% of everybody who posted said, "That would make a difference". Most of those people said that they would be much more likely to use their town centre, so it is not a marginal preference. It is a clear ask from local people for something practical that would help. Finally, I want to highlight another issue that has been raised. Actually, Paul raised it. It is not about being anti-regulation or anti-enforcement. I have just told you that I got a ticket for parking for an hour and six minutes. People understand that there have to be rules, but what came through really strongly is the tone of the enforcement. Many people described it as "really too heavy-handed", the kind of approach that makes you think twice about even getting out of the car. If the experience makes people feel stressed, they will simply choose to go elsewhere. As Paul was speaking, I was reminded of an elderly gentleman who came into my office in the past month. He had a blue badge and was parked just outside. He had left his grandkids in the car to go to the bank. When he came back, he saw that his grandkids had lifted the badge to look at his picture and had turned it upside down — the same way up, but upside down. He got a ticket because the badge was not sitting clearly for people to see. That is the kind of tone that we need to call out and change. We ask the Department to review on-street parking for a couple of issues. I genuinely thank the Minister for joining us and listening to all of us as we raise these issues. I would say that we need two hours' free on-street parking and, at the very least, the maximum stay should be extended to two hours. Those are things that we absolutely need in Lisburn. Secondly, it is that piece: we all understand that there needs to be enforcement. Paul referenced it, and I agree. We need people to move on and to keep that flow of people coming through the city, but we need to ensure that enforcement supports our town.
995 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 (0.94).
- 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 | 0.03 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.02 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.02 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.02 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.03 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.94 | 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 | 0.76 |
| No identity-related subject | 0.18 |
| Constitutional question, Brexit, the Windsor Framework and sovereignty | 0.05 |
| Sexism, misogyny, ageism and other equality groups | 0.01 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 0.00 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 13:38 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.