I welcome the latest draft of the regional strategic framework document and the Minister's comments on brownfield sites. I am concerned that so little time has been allowed to consider this important and far-reaching document. We have only had the document for two days; that is an inadequate amount of time to do it justice. The report will have a tremendous impact on many aspects of life in Northern Ireland, and we must get it right.

The Environment Committee, the Regional Development Committee and the Social Development Committee had concerns about previous drafts of this document, and I am pleased that some of our suggestions have been taken up.

I welcome the inclusion of the 60% target for regional brownfield development, and I hope that that is a minimum target. I am, however, concerned that no specific target has been set for Belfast, the largest urban area in Northern Ireland. If the Department can undertake the complicated task of setting a target for the whole of Northern Ireland, I cannot understand why one cannot be set for the Belfast metropolitan area. Unless a specific target for brownfield development is set at this point, Belfast may face years of drift and insecurity until a goal is finally reached. That may not happen until the Belfast metropolitan plan is in place in 2005 or 2006.

We need to implement policies that will swell the capacity of the brownfield building industry. By setting specific brownfield targets for an urban area such as Belfast, site flow will be stimulated and the brownfield site base increased. The Department must take the lead in supporting that transition.

I welcome the University of Ulster's work in conducting the urban capacity project. It is essential that we know the location and extent of the brownfield sites before we can set realistic targets. A specific target for brownfield development is needed to support planning policies and enforcement in Belfast. It would ensure that planners direct developers to brownfield sites and encourage them to create attractive areas, rather than simply taking the easiest pickings. If we are to protect what is left of our greenfield sites, it is vital that we do not disrupt our settled community any further and cause even more social problems, as is happening in Belfast at the moment.

The option of providing additional housing by converting existing buildings was mentioned. Incentives equal to the tax incentives for new build, to encourage the reuse and conversion of buildings rather than their demolition, would be welcome. I encourage the relevant Ministers to make strong representations to change the current situation. That would encourage the regeneration of our towns and cities, and at the same time maintain the character of the built environment. In general I welcome the strategy and hope that it becomes a reality.

I also welcome the proposals. I know that they are only in draft form at the moment, but they are nonetheless very important.

The Minister has raised several key issues that concern people in my constituency of Strangford and those further afield. These proposals form the basis for a regional development strategy.

I will mention a few issues that are important to the people whom I represent. We welcome the conclusion that the strategy should not designate major or key service centres or regional towns, a decision that is important for several reasons. The way in which the major service centres were designated in the former draft strategy was disastrous to the future of the borough of Ards, because it was based on the perceived ability of the district town to accommodate housing growth.

The problem was exacerbated when 'Strategy 2010', the Department's economic development strategy, followed the 'Shaping Our Future' draft proposals and suggested that the emphasis on jobs growth should centre on the major service areas. That made it difficult for Ards Borough Council to attract much-needed industrial development.

The borough of Ards, as many Members know, has suffered greatly, especially in recent times. Some 1,000 jobs, mainly in the textile industries, have been lost. Any new strategy must pave the way for the attraction of new industries and ensure not only that sufficient land is available for industrial development but that the quest for new jobs is facilitated. We want to make sure that boroughs such as Ards have that opportunity, and I believe that that can happen as a result of this proposal.

I urge the Department to carry out further consideration of how the strategy should be revised in order to strike a balance between the efficiency of investment and inclusiveness. They would thereby find a solution to keep areas experiencing problems, such as the borough of Ards, at the forefront in the quest for jobs. We want to ensure that there is fair play in attracting jobs; that is why this regional development strategy is so important.

I also welcome the fact that the report refers to link corridors, especially the A20. We strongly believe that it is important for us to develop the route between Ards and Belfast from an industrial point of view. It is the key to taking our products further afield, whether to the harbours at Belfast or Larne, or other areas.

We also feel that there should be a strategy that advocates the extension of the E-way, which is mentioned in the strategy, to Comber and Newtownards. This is a light rapid transit route, and it is important that something along those lines be at least considered and financial assistance set aside for it. There is a vast build-up of traffic in all the areas coming from Ards and Comber, with people from Ards and Killinchy coming through Comber, and those from the Ards peninsula coming across from Bangor and using Ards town. This E-way may be a way of addressing some of our concerns in relation to transport.

I will quickly hit on some other issues that we are concerned about. We believe there is a developer's charter, which the Planning Service seems to be presently operating. We are concerned that the developer seems to be able to almost call the tune or fire the shots in relation to any development. Many Members have touched on brownfield development. Obviously, we believe that brownfield land should be used first. However, it is important that councils have the vesting powers to acquire that land, and we ask the Minister to look at this. The Minister mentioned diversification in the rural economy. That is certainly an issue of great importance for the area I represent. I ask the Minister to ensure that the rural economy is given that opportunity.

Regarding coastal zone management, one issue that some Members have touched on today has been global climate change. I make this point because when it comes to development, whether for the fishing industry in our area, or housing or business, the global climate change can be a significant factor in forcing or driving change in the area that we represent.

One last point is in relation to the need for councils to be the catalyst in their areas. I am sure the Minister will touch on the role of councils and the role he perceives for them. The council role is vital for the regional development strategy framework, and together the councils and the Assembly can reach the objective to enliven and revitalise the communities we represent. I support what the Minister has said.

Mr Hussey, I ask you to be brief to allow the Minister time to respond.

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, for allowing me to get in very briefly. I will go straight to the couple of concerns I have. We are looking at a draft document, and I certainly hope that the final document will reflect what those responsible will feel necessary.

I will begin by making a complaint that Strabane is not identified as a gateway on the map on page 45. On listening to radio reports, I note that there is a huge volume of traffic using the Strabane/Lifford crossing. This is a major North/South gateway and should be recognised as such.

On page 81 there is reference to the north-west development corridor running from Londonderry to Letterkenny. I would have thought that the Northern Ireland Assembly should be considering the development corridor running through the Foyle valley. The reference on page 83 to the extension of the natural gas pipeline to Londonderry should refer to Londonderry and beyond.

I agree with P J Bradley's comments on the vibrancy of the rural communities. This strategy reflects the ability of people to build, live and work in the rural community, should it be via greater recognition of existing sites in the countryside; and I would further extend that because there are always small pieces of land on a farm that cannot be used. The rural community should have greater leeway to utilise such land through the provision of additional housing.

The spatial framework for tourism is covered on page 146. Is anybody in the Assembly going to tell me that Sion Mills does not have any industrial heritage? Are we being told that there are no castles in Tyrone and County Londonderry? That appears to be the case when you look at the map on that page. Apparently there are no forest parks west of Omagh, nor is there horse riding beyond the Mournes.

I agree with Mr McNamee's remarks, which were supported by Mrs Carson, about the re-establishment, or at least the thought of re-establishing, the circular rail route that once existed in Northern Ireland.

On page 150 of the report, which covers activity- based holidays, there is no mention of hunting, shooting and fishing. We all know that these are major sources of foreign income from tourists participating in those particular activities. Finally, on page 178, are we being told that there are no areas of natural beauty and no scenic quality west of the A4? I close with those remarks.

I sympathise with Mr Beggs, who struggled a little with his paperwork towards the end of his speech. Given that I have had to listen to 17 contributions on a variety of topics, I am sure that he and others will sympathise with me as I try to respond to as many of them as possible. If there are issues that I inadvertently do not refer to specifically or in sufficient detail, my staff and the officials who are diligently taking notes will respond in writing.

I thank Members for their response to the document. It took a considerably long time to prepare, and it has been through the mill on several occasions with the Committee for Regional Development and other Committees. I respond positively to the Deputy Chairperson of the Committee, who asked for assurances that the monitoring of the strategy would be tackled diligently, and that an annual progress report be presented to the Committee. I assure him that that will be the case.

The Deputy Chairperson and several others referred to public transport and railways. Given the knowledge that Members have about what formerly was called the "consolidation option", I do not need to mention the difficulties we had in recent months regarding the railway system in Northern Ireland. I do not like the term "consolidation option". However, it was used in the task force report, and the adoption by the Assembly of that option meant £105 million being spent merely to get the consolidation option. It is hoped that the money will be spent over the next three years on preserving the existing railway infrastructure.

Members will understand that the expansion of the railway system to Armagh, north and south, Fermanagh, Tyrone, west of Omagh, and to all points north, south, east and west would require hundreds of millions of pounds.

Nonetheless, I remain in favour of railways and public transportation in general. I will require resources to put that into practice. I want to emphasise the commitment that exists in the regional development strategy to the transport proposals that will flow from it and be a part of it. I also want to assure the Deputy Chairperson that any non-compliance in the implementation of relevant measures will be closely monitored and acted on.

Several Members referred to harbours in their own areas. Warrenpoint and Londonderry harbours, and the others, have caused me much consideration. Members will also be aware that I am currently exploring what legislative changes could be brought about to allow those harbours to develop and to diversify. Naturally, I want to see a regional development strategy that would allow that to occur. I will be monitoring that closely, and I hope that the strategy will not only permit that, but will prompt harbour authority officers to take advantage of that change.

Several Members referred to the issue of brownfield development. As I suspected, that issue was to dominate Members' contributions. Before focusing on it, I want to refer to an issue of general conformity that has taken up many hours in the Department for Regional Development and in the Department of the Environment: what steps can I take to ensure flexibility between the strategy and the development plans?

Following receipt of legal opinion, I am going to promote amending legislation in the next session to substitute the regional development strategy for the requirement that development plans and development schemes must be in general conformity. These statutory provisions, including the proposed amendment, provide the legal framework in which implementation of the strategy will proceed. However, these provisions will be kept under review to ensure that they provide a sufficiently flexible, yet effective, legal framework. I am satisfied that the proposed change will still preserve the authority of the regional development strategy. I hope that that is helpful.

Many tributes were paid to the senior civil servants working on the strategy, and I concur with those. Mr Peter Robinson referred to a number of senior civil servants, notably the permanent secretary who will shortly be retiring after many years in the Department. I want to take this opportunity to commend him and to wish him well in his imminent retirement.

I did not schedule today's debate to coincide with any possible resignation or recess. In fact, as I said earlier, the regional development strategy has been through the mill several times with the Regional Development Committee and other Committees.

Any consideration of timing is in regard to the commitment I gave to the Minister of the Environment to try to present the current draft to the Assembly before the summer recess.

I will discuss the important issue of brownfield percentages, which many Members mentioned. For many months a wide range of views has been expressed on this highly topical issue. Some were concerned that the Department would set too low a target for brownfield housing development. They felt that the target should be more in line with the English target of 60%. That concern was expressed by the Belfast Metropolitan Residents Group.

Others, however, were equally concerned that the target might be too high and would unnecessarily stifle the supply of land for greenfield suburban residential development, which consumers want. That point was made by greenfield housebuilders and the Construction Employers Federation. I have weighed up those arguments, and I have listened carefully to Members' views.

My view, which is shared by the Assembly Committees, is that, as in other parts of the United Kingdom, policy can influence the actions and performance of the housing market. I am therefore signalling a clear direction of policy change towards seeking to achieve substantially more housing in our urban areas. That will greatly assist the continuing revitalisation of our cities and towns. I stress that, in practice, this will be worked out primarily through the development plan process, taking into account urban capacity studies. I expect the level of brownfield performance to vary from town to town, in the light of local characteristics and capacity.

The strategy sets an ambitious regional target to double, over 10 years, the recent level of achievement - which was 25% to 30% - for the location of housing growth within existing urban areas of cities and towns with a population of more than 5,000. Effectively, this sets an ambitious regional target of up to 60% to be met before the first full review in 2010. That target has been increased from the 40% figure recommended by the public examination panel, and it reflects a genuine move towards more sustainable patterns of development for the region. In setting the target, practice and achievement throughout the United Kingdom has been taken into consideration.

In regard to the restriction of greenfield sites, I am committed to a change in direction that emphasises the development of brownfield sites. That does not rule out greenfield development but places an emphasis on more housing in existing urban areas. Progress towards the regional target will be monitored, and after five years an assessment of whether any adjustment is necessary will be made.

The issue of town cramming was also raised. The strategy aims to encourage an increase in the density of urban housing, particularly in existing urban areas, which is appropriate in scale and design to the cities and towns of Northern Ireland. The aim is to encourage higher-density housing schemes, through imaginative and innovative design, without town cramming. However, the strategy makes it clear that the aim of achieving an overall increase in town densities must not be interpreted as a broad mandate to impose overdeveloped and unsympathetic housing schemes on existing residential areas. Redevelopment of existing houses and the development of infill sites in such areas need to be handled with sensitivity. The overriding objective in such areas must be to avoid any significant erosion of the environmental quality, amenities and privacy enjoyed by existing residents.

Ms Morrice raised the issue of provision for children. Her view was that it should be kids, not cars. She said that the children of Northern Ireland were not catered for in the document. I urge Members to read the document carefully. They will see that in every respect we have endeavoured to ensure that people from throughout Northern Ireland, regardless of age or geographical location, are catered for.

Will the Minister give way?

I am not sure what the procedure is, Mr Deputy Speaker.

It is not normal for a Minister to give way when he is making a winding-up speech.

I would have given way, had I been allowed to.

I encourage Members to read the entire document. Other Members spoke about the growth of villages and towns. The spatial development policy will address that.

I take on board the issues raised by Members from west of the Bann, such as Mrs Carson, who mentioned the A29. I am sure that my officials will respond to her query. Mrs Courtney spoke about the regional capital of the north-west. Londonderry is recognised as such in the document, and she will agree that that ought to be the case. Mr Carrick raised some issues affecting Craigavon and Banbridge. Members must understand that the Belfast metropolitan area is the largest conurbation, but that other expanding areas such as Craigavon and Banbridge, and areas west of the Bann such as Omagh, and areas in Fermanagh, are also recognised.

I apologise for not being able to talk about the E-way or about Ards Borough, Strabane, Larne and the many other areas that were mentioned. I will ensure that my officials respond to those individual queries, however long that may take. I commend the regional development strategy to the House.

<< Prev