Agenda item

            The Committee considered the following report and draft Council response to the Local Government Boundary Commissioner’s provisional recommendations on the review of local government boundaries in Northern Ireland:

 

“1.0      Purpose of Report/Summary of Main Issues

 

1.1             The purpose of this report is to update the Committee on the Local Government Boundary Commissioner’s Provisional Recommendations which are out for public consultation and to seek retrospective approval for the attached Council response which was provisionally approved by Party Leaders Consultative Forum on 16th September. The Commissioner had invited written feedback and suggestions by 21st September.

 

2.0       Recommendations

 

2.1       The Committee is asked to:

 

                                                         i.          note the report;

 

                                                        ii.          approve retrospectively the attached response to the Local Government Boundary Commissioner (which has been provisionally approved by Party Group Leaders Consultative Forum) on 16th September; and

 

                                                      iii.          agree that officers make representations in line with this response on behalf of the Council at the public hearings scheduled for late September / early October

 

3.0       Main Report

 

3.1       Background

 

            On 27th July 2021 the Local Government Boundary Commissioner published the Provisional Recommendations for the Review of Local Government Boundaries in Northern Ireland. These Provisional Recommendations will now be the subject of public consultation. The closing date for written feedback and suggestions about these proposals is 21st September 2021.

 

            The Commissioner’s office has indicated that the process is about independently ensuring electoral equality and fairness across Northern Ireland, with the aim that all the wards within a district should, as far as possible, have a similar number of electors. The Statutory Rules governing the review are set out in the Local Government Act (Northern) Ireland Act 1972, as amended. 

 

            After the initial consultation period a series of 11 public hearings will be held in each council area facilitated by Assistant Commissioners. The public hearings, which will be subject to public health guidance at that time, will be held in late September and early October.  To maximise public participation in the hearings, and to mitigate against any public health restrictions that may be in place, these events will be in a hybrid format allowing for both in person and online participation.

 

3.2       Previous Local Government Boundary Review – 2008

 

            The previous Local Government Boundary review took place in 2008.  At that time the Final Recommendations of the Local Government Boundary Commissioner (Dick Mackenzie) included the placement of the area containing Forestside shopping centre and the Castlereagh Council Civic HQ building within the new Belfast district boundary. 

 

            However, the NI Executive made amendments to the Final Recommendations which resulted in Forestside and the adjacent Castlereagh Council Civic HQs remaining within the new Lisburn and Castlereagh council area.

 

3.3       Local Government Boundary Review (2021 – 2022)

 

            Provisional Recommendations – Belfast

 

            On 27 July the Local Government Boundary Commissioner published the Provisional Recommendations for the Review of Local Government Boundaries in Northern Ireland.

 

            District Boundary – Belfast

 

            The LG Boundary Commissioner recommends that the district boundary line should remain unchanged. 

 

            Wards

 

            The LG Boundary Commissioner recommends that Belfast district should remain comprised of 60 wards. The current electorate per ward (as at 4 January 2021) and proposed new electorate per ward have been circulated.

 

            There has been some alteration to ward boundaries to satisfy the legislative requirement for each ward within the district to have substantially the same number of electors. There is a total of 230236 electors within the district which averages at 3837 electors per ward and the recommended changes are designed to balance the electorate across the district.

 

            The ward boundary changes that have been proposed can be accessed by clicking:

 

            Belfast Wards

 

3.4       Belfast City Council Response

 

            (as provisionally approved by Party Group Leaders Consultative Forum on 16th September).

 

            Wards

 

            In line with previous decisions in relation to the Review of Local Government Boundaries in Northern Ireland, responses to the Commissioners recommendations in relation to ward boundaries will be left to individual parties.  Parties are encouraged to examine the table at Appendix 1 and to review the map accessible at the link above. 

 

            District Boundary

 

            Whilst the 2021 review recommends that the district boundary remains unchanged, Members will note that, in 2008, the Final Recommendations recommended that the area containing Forestside shopping centre and the Castlereagh Council Civic HQ building should reside within the new Belfast district boundary.  However, the Council notes that the NI Executive did in fact amend the Final Recommendations of the Commissioner and included Forestside in the new LCCC district boundary. 

 

            Given the LG Boundary Commissioner’s previous conclusions in respect of the Belfast district boundary, Members are asked to retrospectively approve the Belfast City Council response (attached at Appendix 2) asking the LG Boundary Commissioner to reassess the 2008 Final Recommendations with a view to placing the area containing Forestside within the Belfast district boundary as originally proposed in 2008.

 

            The Council would argue that the principles upon which the 2008 recommendations were made and those features which the Commissioner determined to constitute ‘readily identifiable boundaries’ in respect of this area (namely the A55 Outer Ring Road and the upland topography in this area) have not changed. 

 

            The Council’s response also highlights an issue with the district boundary as it pertains to the Harbour ward, and in particular the extension to the harbour which has resulted in part of the harbour infrastructure being outside of the district boundary.  The Council would note that there is a further approved extension beyond the currently constructed area shown on the plans and request that the Commissioner, when considering any modification to the district boundary, may wish to take this into account also.

 

3.5       Financial and Resource Implications

 

            No financial implications attached this report

 

3.6       Equality or Good Relations Implications/Rural Needs Implications

 

            No good relations or equality implications attached to this report.”

 

 

Local Government Boundaries Review in Northern Ireland

 

Provisional Recommendations

 

(September 2021)

 

BELFAST CITY COUNCIL SUBMISSION

 

Introduction

 

This submission in response to the Local Government Boundary Commissioner’s Provisional Recommendations 2021-22 is made on behalf of Belfast City Council.

 

The Commissioner will wish to note that, as with previous decisions in relation to boundaries review in Northern Ireland, the Council have advised individual parties to submit their own responses to the recommendations, particularly in relation to proposed changes to ward boundaries.

 

The following Council response can be categorised into:

 

(i) General Points pertaining to broad issues concerning the Commission’s approach to the identification of boundaries; and

 

(ii) Specific Points in relation to Belfast.

 

(i) General Points re Boundary Delimitation

 

A number of General Points on the approach to boundary delimitation can be distilled under the headings of (a) statutory parameters and (b) additional factors.

 

 

 

 

Statutory Parameters

 

Please note from the outset that the Council understands how the Commission has arrived at its recommendations, having regard to the statutory parameters it has to work within.  In this respect, we understand that Belfast has to be equipped with a certain number of wards that falls within the range of 55 to 65.  We appreciate that the Commission, in the desire to appear even-handed, would have a tendency to advocate the medium of this range, namely the 60-ward figure. 

 

We also accept that a degree of interpretation has to be made in respect of what constitutes readily identifiable boundaries, in terms of the importance attached to physical features on the ground – whether they be man-made (roads, railway lines, etc.) or natural features (rivers, lakes or uplands).

 

To this end, we recognise that the existing urban footprint and Development Plans, such as the BUAP and Draft BMAP, can act as reference points for deciding what constitutes ‘readily identifiable boundaries’ for District Council areas.  This is because Development Plans define settlement limits and apply land use zonings, particular those relating to green spaces between built areas, which need to be respected when defining boundaries.

 

Taking on board these points, the Council would refer the Commissioner back to the Final Recommendations from the previous Local Government Boundary Review in Northern Ireland in 2008 which made clear those features which the Commissioner adjudged to constitute ‘readily identifiable boundaries’ in the Belfast City Council area.  As the Council argued at that time, such ‘readily identifiable boundaries’ provided support for the principle of expansion of the Belfast Council Area. 

 

Additional Factors

 

Having stated the above, we would, however, like to make the Commissioner aware of a number of additional factors that may help inform her of the need to facilitate the expansion of Belfast’s council area.  There are essentially two of these:

 

1.     Firstly, we are well aware that the definition of Local Government Districts is very much premised on achieving greater efficiency in the delivery of services, in terms of securing better value for money and quality of service. 

 

The definition of such boundaries must allow for the creation of a critical mass of population within the Belfast Council Area upon which to sustain and improve upon efficiency in the delivery of services.  We say this for the very good reason that Belfast City Council has a disproportionate number of deprived wards in Northern Ireland.

 

Following the 2008 review a number of wards of similar socio-economic standing were included within the new Belfast City Council area (Twinbrook and Collin Glen, which are ranked the twentieth and the twenty first most deprived wards), making it even more imperative that the Belfast Local Government District be equipped with an optimum population size and geographical area capable of sustaining and improving services.

 

2.     Secondly, we attach appreciable significance to the Regional Development Strategy for Northern Ireland and its aspirations (under SPG-BMA 1) to create a thriving Belfast Metropolitan Area based on a revitalised City of Belfast.  In this regard, we view Belfast as the regional driver of growth in Northern Ireland and all efforts to promote this objective in the form of bolstering its population size should be welcomed.  This is especially so when it is considered that, in recent times, Belfast has endured significant population loss to surrounding districts.

 

(ii) Specific Response in relation to Belfast

 

Against the background of the general points outlined above, we would like to make the following comments in respect of the existing Belfast City Council district boundary.

 

Boundary with Lisburn and Castlereagh City Council

 

The previous Local Government Boundary Review for Northern Ireland - Final Recommendations 2008 included a recommendation to place the Galwally area (including Forestside) within the new Belfast City Council district area.  However, as the Commissioner will be aware, the NI Assembly ultimately approved the Final Recommendations with some amendments, one of which included the placement of the Galwally area within the new Lisburn and Castlereagh City Council area.  Belfast City Council would contend that this decision by the NI Assembly disregarded the logic governing the need to have regard to the ‘readily identifiable boundaries’ guidelines and was in contravention of the clear recommendations of the Boundary Commissioner.

 

This decision, as Belfast City Council argued at the time, amounted to an irrational departure from those features that have helped to shape the delimitation of the District Boundary in this part of Belfast, namely the readily identifiable boundaries of the Outer Ring Road and the upland topography in this area.  Indeed, when viewed on a map, it graphically stands out as an aberration in boundary demarcation.

 

Forestside Catchment Area

 

There are different ways to approach the calculation of catchment area figure as it can be done on a spend or population (customer) basis, both of which could be further refined in many ways to take account of the different days, times of travel, population / household composition, socio/economic group. 

 

The Council however believe that that the simple drive time catchment analysis could be utilised as it is based on published data and standard tools.

 

The appended diagram shows the extent of the catchments generated for 0-5, 5-10, 10-15 and 15-20 minutes. For the table these polygons were used to determine the number of residential properties (using the OSNI Pointer Domestic Address from 27/07/2021).  

 

 

There have been no major applications at Forestside that could provide an assessed catchment for the Centre although the Centre was assessed as part of the Lisburn and Castlereagh Retail Capacity Study 2018.  In para 6.5.4 (page 25) of that study the concluding statement is at best a simplification in terms of potential draw from outside “In the Forestside catchment, it was estimated that 50% of the comparison turnover of the centre came from outside the area; principally from the Belfast suburbs, as the shopping centre is right on the border of the Council area”.  Both the average household size and available income would have to be significantly higher to sustain such a conclusion.

 

Belfast City Council also notes that the various objections from the former Lisburn and Castlereagh councils to the Final Recommendations in 2008 in respect of this area, (whilst not being deemed sufficient at that time to change the Final Recommendations), which carry less weight now given that i) the majority of LCCC council services have since been transferred to the Island Civic Centre in Lisburn, and ii) a range of new bus routes has been introduced since 2008 (including the Glider service and the proposed Phase 2 of Glider) which extend routes into the Lisburn and Castlereagh district.

 

The Council would also make a case based on which authority is best placed to manage and address the wider implications of the District Centre’s operations, accessibility and servicing. The A55 Outer Ring Road is a significant physical barrier and much of the potential for improvements in accessibility with potential for better integration into the surrounding urban areas would naturally lie with Belfast City Council in relation to the geography of the site and the potential for integration with existing services.

 

Taking into account each of these points, and the Commissioners previous recommendations, the Council does not agree with the Provisional Recommendation at para 7.3.1 which recommends that the Belfast “district boundary line should remain unchanged”. 

 

Belfast City Council would, therefore, request that the Local Government Boundary Commissioner reassess the findings of the 2008 Local Government Boundary Review including the “Final Recommendations” report and the “Report of the Assistant Commissioner Sarah Havlin on Belfast City Council district” which clearly recommended that the Galwally area containing Forestside should reside within the Belfast district boundary based on the statutory parameters highlighted above. 

 

District Boundary with regards to the Harbour Ward

 

The Council also wishes to highlight an issue with the district boundary as it pertains to the Harbour ward, and in particular the extension to the harbour which has resulted in part of the harbour infrastructure existing outside of the district boundary (see image below).

 

Existing Situation (area currently beyond the BCC boundary)

 

 

The exercise of powers and responsibilities are normally linked to the LGD geography. This creates an issue for the Council not only in terms of rates but also for enforcement with regards to any event which may happen beyond our line and therefore jurisdiction.  The Council would note that there is a further approved extension (planning permission at appendix 1) beyond the currently constructed area shown on the plans – see red line below.  The Commissioner when considering any modification to the district boundary may wish to take this into account also.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Example of potential new boundary to encompass the extension of the Harbour

 

 

Conclusion

 

In summary, Belfast City Council does not agree with para 7.3.1 of the Provisional Recommendations report which states that the district boundary line should remain unchanged.  The Council would refer to the following two issues in relation to the district boundary.

 

Galwally Area (including Forestside)

 

The Council requests that the Local Government Boundary Commissioner reassess the findings of the 2008 Local Government Boundary Review including the “Final Recommendations” report and the “Report of the Assistant Commissioner Sarah Havlin on Belfast City Council district” which made clear recommendations that the Galwally area containing Forestside should reside within the Belfast district boundary.

 

The Council would argue that the principles upon which the 2008 recommendations were made and those features which the Commissioner determined to constitute ‘readily identifiable boundaries’ in respect of this area (namely the A55 Outer Ring Road and the upland topography in this area) have not changed. 

 

Harbour Area

 

The Council also wishes to highlight the issue with the district boundary as it pertains to the Harbour ward, and in particular the extension to the harbour which has resulted in part of the harbour infrastructure being outside of the district boundary. 

 

The Council would note that there is a further approved extension beyond the currently constructed area shown on the plans.  The Commissioner when considering any modification to the district boundary may wish to take this into account also.”

 

After discussion, the Committee adopted the recommendations contained within the report.