The argument
was about the allocation of two sites for residential development, one being on
the edge of an area seen as Protestant/ unionist and the other in an area seen
as Catholic/ nationalist. With housing need in North Belfast being
disproportionately in the latter community, the debate was about whether the
sites had been allocated in order to respond to housing need, or was it a
political compromise. Which, according to Spotlight, we couldn’t judge because
the Housing Executive hadn’t been consulted.
So let’s take
a step back and look at what we do know.
There can surely be no disagreement that the site is the most contested regeneration project in Northern Ireland, which means it’s likely to be one of the most difficult in the world. The area consists of the land previously occupied by Girdwood Barracks, which closed in 2005, but also the Crumlin Road Gaol, closed in 1996 and redeveloped as a tourist attraction without significant community opposition, and the burnt out eyesore of the privately owned Courthouse which is consequently not included in any of the regeneration plans.
An Advisory Panel was established in 2006 and a consultation process led to a 2007 Masterplan on which there was more consultation. The 2007 document proposed
housing as part of ‘mixed use development’ in the main body of the site. The
consultation responses to the 2007 document, summarised in the updated 2010 plans, show that there continued to be no agreement on housing – where it should
go, or even on whether there should be housing on the site at all. See also an
interesting research paper (subsequently published in Urban Studies, for readers who have access to academic journals).
The 2010
Equality Impact Assessment and updated Masterplan still located housing on the
main site, but now at the back and separate from the ‘mixed use’ element. It
stated:
... the preferred way forward is to
advance the Masterplan in a staged or incremental manner. The experience of
successful implementation at each stage will help build good relations between
local communities and so increase the chances of success for later
projects. In this way, the climate for
resolution of more contentious issues attached to the Masterplan may be
improved over time (p.1).
Specifically,
the proposals relating to housing included to consider ‘locating part or all of
the housing to specific parts of the site’ (p. 5); a shared future housing
scheme to be worked on with local community; housing for sale to include
affordable homes for first time buyers; and that social housing must reflect
local need.
In the
following year, electoral considerations intervened briefly to highlight housing
issues and to set the boundaries of the current debate. In March 2011, the then
Minister for Social Development Alex Atwood of the SDLP announced 200 homes on the Girdwood site, apparently without local consultation. After the May 2011 Assembly
election, the new Minister – the DUP’s Nelson McCauseland – overturned the decision. The positions of the respective parties were set out in an Assembly debate
about the site later in the year:
Alban Maginness (SDLP): ‘Housing is an overriding need of
such proportions that it requires to be satisfied as soon as is
practicable..... Lack of consensus around those issues should not be used as a
veto’.
Nelson McCausland (DUP,
Minister): ‘My
approach is to develop the site on an integrated and comprehensive basis rather
than through piecemeal developments..... housing development alone cannot
regenerate or sustain communities.... Girdwood represents a significant
opportunity to regenerate this part of the city in a way that both communities
can buy into and benefit from. It must be delivered for the good of all the
community in a genuinely shared manner’. 15th November 2011.
But in the
meantime, a more positive development looked like at least one aspect of the
regeneration could at last get started. Belfast City Council obtained £10m from
the Peace III programme for the Girdwood Community Hub. Very good, except that
the Special EU Programmes Body (SEUPB) not unreasonably wanted to know that the
project would be viable (in other words, would not be burnt to the ground). They requested assurance by June 2012 that there would be a
plan for the wider site and that there would be ‘community and public buy-in’. Without meeting that timescale, the SEUPB doubted that the Hub could be built
within the funding period, and had made it clear that other projects would be
funded instead.
So the timing
of last week’s announcement is likely to be in response to the Community Hub funding
deadline. That’s why there are no numbers for the housing elements – it’s not
the most important part of the package as yet. The significant factors are the
non-housing elements listed in the press release such as training and leisure
facilities, plus the overriding importance of high profile cross-community
support of a document that is not available to the public. Smoke and mirrors.
And housing
is the red herring. Of course it’s important to try to meet housing need in
North Belfast, and the continuing delay on this site isn’t helping. But the
most significant housing aspect of this announcement is that the two housing
sites have been moved to the edges of the development. No specific details of
the schemes have been given and if the Housing Executive haven’t been consulted
then the sites won’t be in the Social Housing Development Programme, which is
actually how social housing gets built. I suspect it’ll be a long time before
construction begins – by which time two shared schemes may be more possible than
they are now. Nelson McCausland is right to say that all social housing on the
site will be allocated on the basis of need, whichever community is involved.
The question is how long applicants have to wait, with waiting times much
longer if you want to live in a Catholic/ nationalist area because there are
more households in the queue.
But the
hardest decision of all has been kicked down the road yet again. The real
question for housing on Girdwood is whether to go with the demographics and
with housing need as measured by the Housing Executive, in which case the
majority of the new housing will go to Catholic/ nationalist households; or to
argue that sustainable regeneration requires a mix of different communities and
that therefore measures should be taken to ensure some housing is provided for
the other community. And if as a Minister you intend to get agreement on one of
these approaches, you need to keep the support of parties representing the
other community through the entire process of site identification, programme
allocation, design, construction and allocation to tenants. This is the heart of the
debate that’s been ongoing since 2006. It has been fudged again, but, to be
fair, is any other outcome possible at the present time?
4 comments:
Sound Analysis Jenny with none of the nostril-flaring and stomping the dust we have witnessed from the "story" broke I have to ask since Housing Executive aren't building (fir now anyway( why are NIFHA so quiet and why no response from North Belfast Housing Associations or the procurement groups?
Thanks Soozle! And the answer to your question is - poitical power. I was very struck, in the Spotlight programme, by how no-one from the Housing Exec would go on camera, they are terrified about the result of the ongoing fundamental review. And the housing associations/ procurement groups equally don't want to get on the wrong side of the politicians. (Even I thought more than twice about whether it would be wise to post this - no research access ever again??) The new relationship between politicians and bureaucrats under devolution has not yet really setlled down.
Surely there is an even simpler argument than the 'demographics one promoted by the Housing Executive' and the 'different communities' model both of which you highlight above.
It's one based on need. And those in desperate need of a house should be allocated one. It's only complication is that it refuses to acknowledge that there are 2 communities opposed to one another through sectarianism in Northern Ireland and that the priority is human beings not tribes.
I know it's a radical departure from what we know and how we do business here but I'm all for the philosophy of fairness based on individual need for all above allocation on the basis of sectarian identity anytime
Peter - no-one is arguing that housing should be allocated on the basis of need, although I would point out that entitlement to social housing is determined by law and policy guidance and so there are always arguments about which kind of need should have priority. As I said in the post, the question at the moment is how long applicants have to wait.
Housing allocation is in two parts: assessment of the applicant and finding them a home that fits their criteria e.g. number of bedrooms, and of course area of preference. The Housing Executive is now mainstreaming its old Shared Future programme, which means that for new build it tries to make the scheme mixed if at all possible, but the question of course would be whether that would be possible in a contested area like Girdwood. Maybe in a few years it will be. Otherwise anotehr alternative will be that a lot of families who need social housing will move out of the area into shared scheme elsewhere, and inner North Belfast will become depopulated and even more run down.
Post a Comment