Paul Givan (DUP) I am pleased to have this opportunity to discuss the development opportunities at Sprucefield and, in particular, the Westfield planning application that included the John Lewis store as the key, anchor tenant. That opportunity has been well documented and would have brought £150 million of investment to Northern Ireland. It would have created around 600 jobs in the construction phase and up to 1,500 retail jobs in Northern Ireland at a time when they are desperately needed. Furthermore, it is important for Members to note that John Lewis would have been opening a distribution centre in Northern Ireland had the application been put through. So it is not just about the retail opportunity; the distribution centre and the jobs and investment that come with it would have been part of the development located in Northern Ireland. Members will be familiar with the long history of John Lewiss engagement with Northern Ireland, which stretches back almost nine years. Let me go through, for the record, how it all started. In June 2004, plans were announced for the first John Lewis store in Northern Ireland to be built at Sprucefield, Lisburn. In November 2004, Belfast Chamber of Trade and Commerce lodged a formal objection to the planning application. In June 2005, direct rule Minister, Lord Rooker, gave the green light for the John Lewis store and 29 outlets in conjunction with it. In May 2006, Belfast High Court upheld a legal challenge from traders from Belfast and Lisburn, which effectively quashed the planning permission. In March 2007, the Government gave the go-ahead once again. In August 2008, the developer submitted new plans, reducing the number of retail outlets from 29 to 19, and vowed that, as Sprucefield was the only option, ultimately, the development would end up south of the border if the plan was refused. In February 2009, the Environment Minister, Sammy Wilson, announced a public inquiry into the application. In November 2009, Sprucefield Centre Limited applied to the Department of the Environment (DOE) for planning permission for retail, restaurant and associated infrastructural development, and the Department designated it as a major planning application — an article 31 planning application — and requested that the commission hold a public inquiry. In June 2010, the public inquiry was adjourned on its first day because of a new legal challenge by rival traders, who alleged that the DOE failed to advertise the scheme properly. In 2012, a mid-inquiry meeting was held by the Planning Appeals Commission (PAC) to ensure no further delays in the decision. That is where the process has got to since 2004. It is laughable that we are talking about something that started in 2004. Throughout the process, there has been frustration. There has been legal challenge from Belfast Chamber of Trade and Commerce and commercial enterprises. I do not blame commercial interests for wanting to challenge this legally. They have the right to do so. I do not object to that, but I object to the courts facilitating a clear conflict of interest — a clear commercial interest — over a planning application. In other places, there is provision for that to be ruled out, and that should be established in Northern Ireland so that the courts do not have to constantly frustrate planning applications because people who have a clear vested commercial interest are trying to block them. Indeed, some of the same organisations then push the boundaries to get planning permission for themselves, but it is all right for them — once they get planning permission, they will do all that they can to stop anybody else getting it. Then, of course, in January this year, the Minister announced a new area plan, limiting development at Sprucefield to bulky goods only. The nail in the coffin was administered, and John Lewis announced that it was withdrawing its application, but awaits the Executives consideration of the attempted change in planning policy by Alex Attwood. I think that it has been helpful for Members to get clear in their mind the very long process that John Lewis and those behind the Sprucefield development have been trying to follow. We then had an attempt to change planning policy through the Belfast metropolitan area plan (BMAP). It is interesting that the Minister is attempting to go against an independent Planning Appeals Commission. He is interfering with the work of that body, which, for proper reasons, was set up as an independent organisation, but this Minister has decided that he can overrule the independent Planning Appeals Commission. The Planning Appeals Commission looked extensively at what was recommended for bulky goods provision. We can go through a number of areas in which, in dealing with issues of concern, the PAC recommended that the bulky goods restriction should not be imposed. There are a number of key quotes from the Planning Appeals Commissions report. Paragraph 6.4.8, in reference to the commissions report on the original extension to Marks and Spencer, states: The appointed Commissioner in his report expressed the view that the provision of more retail warehouses at Sprucefield would not assist in achieving a regional trade draw. It continues: It is difficult to see how more of this type of retailing will enhance Sprucefield as a regional centre. Paragraph 6.4.6 states: The bulky goods restriction relates to a fundamental characteristic of the centre to which there is no reference in either PPS5 or draft PPS 5. Such a restriction on the type of retailing to be permitted in one of the three RSCs is clearly a regional matter and should have been made explicit in regional policy (i.e. draft PPS 5). In the absence of any such reference in regional policy, the restrictions now proposed through BMAP would have the effect of fundamentally changing the nature of the designation and are not appropriate for introduction through the development plan process. That is the recommendation of the independent Planning Appeals Commission, yet this Minister believes that he can supersede all that, go against those independent members and try to retain the bulky goods restriction. The PAC report states: The bulky goods restriction relates to a fundamental characteristic of the centre to which there is no reference in either PPS5 or draft PPS 5. Such a restriction on the type of retailing to be permitted in one of the three RSCs. Belfast, Londonderry and Sprucefield are the three regionally significant retail centres that have been designated. The Minister is seeking by stealth to take away Sprucefields regional designation. It is important that we point out that fewer restrictions rather than more are required. The PAC has said that that is required for Sprucefield to achieve what it wants. Hopefully, the Minister can explain his position to the House today. I trust that the Executive will now be able to deal with the issue, but when the controversy around the statement of intention kicked off, the Minister said: I am not attempting to prejudice the outcome of the Public Inquiry. That is a laudable platitude from the Minister that he does not want to prejudice the outcome of the public inquiry. He then goes on to say: I am strongly committed to putting Belfast first in these difficult times. So he does not want to prejudice the public inquiry into the application from John Lewis for a development at Sprucefield/Lisburn, yet in the same breath he says that he is: strongly committed to putting Belfast first in these difficult times. If that is not a prejudicial statement, I do not know what is. The Minister has blatantly shown the bias in his position by saying that he wants Belfast to be protected first and foremost. We need to bear in mind that that has implications not just for John Lewis. You can forget about development at Sprucefield; even if John Lewis is not able to come to Sprucefield, there will not be any form of development there. The notion that an IKEA-type retailer is coming to Sprucefield is a nonsense. The retail world and how it operates is changing, and government need to change along with that. Change is being driven by consumers, and we need to harness those changes and not try to restrict the way in which things are developing. In trying to make those restrictions, it is important that we recognise that the retail world has developed through the internet and that we will not protect Belfast by stifling development across Northern Ireland. We can take away Sprucefield as the one issue, because Members may get fixated on it, but, across Northern Ireland, the Minister is saying, I am putting Belfast first. It is about online shopping, click and connect, what is referred to as omnishopping, shopping through your laptop, iPad and through texting and about the development of Facebook and Twitter. All those new technological advances are shaping the way that the retail world operates, and, if traders anywhere, including in Belfast, do not adapt to all that, they will be in terminal decline. Belfast, as is the case in other town centres, may have been suffering the emptying of some of its units, but not because of John Lewis, which it is not even here. Other factors have been part of all that, and we, as a Government, now need to deal with this in the Executive. Quite rightly, this is of regional significance. The Minister, through BMAP, is trying to circumvent what the RDS has stipulated, which is that Sprucefield is a regionally significant centre. He is going against the independent Planning Appeals Commissions idea of how Sprucefield needs to develop by trying to impose that restriction even though it believes, and rightly so, that it should be lifted. He wants to put Belfast first purely from a prejudicial basis. We have heard of political gerrymandering of boundaries; this is the retail gerrymandering of boundaries. Putting Belfast first is gerrymandering the retail boundaries of Northern Ireland and trying to do it through a circuitous route; namely, through the area plan, even though the PAC has said that that is wholly inappropriate. It is regionally significant, and, therefore, it requires the Executive to take the decision. I trust that the Minister will yield to the Executive on this and allow them to take the proper decision. That is where the decision should have been taken rather than through the Ministers approach whereby he has sought to bypass the normal procedures in taking his prejudicial Belfast-first policy forward.
Posted on: Sun, 20 Oct 2013 20:51:16 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015