At the public Inquiry, Blackstaff Homeowners' Association had arranged for Craig Dunford BL to represent the views of its members. The opening remarks by the inspector gave us the impression that he wanted to rush the process, for example he said that he did not want a whole lot of people saying the same thing. Although this may not seem to be serious it nevertheless gave a very bad impression that he wished to have the inquiry over as quickly as possible. We then became concerned about the interruptions by the inspector when our legal representative was dealing with the fitness survey that was carried out by VB Evans on behalf of the Housing Executive in 2003. During one of these interruptions the inspector made remarks that clearly gave support to the application for vesting in order for the Housing Executive to demolish 538 properties. His words caused delight to the officials of Greater Village Regeneration Trust (salaries paid by DSD) and their supporters and this was manifested inloud applause and cheeringfrom that quarter. Supporters of 100% redevelopment extending to include the improvement area clearly understood that theinspectors words meant support for the demolishing all the 538 properties in the redevelopment zone by their enthusiastic response to the inspectors words. This caused great concern in the minds of the homeowners and from conversations afterwards, many were convinced that the inspector had already made up his mind. Craig Dunford was clearly concerned by the inspector’s words and attempted to get a clear assurance that he had not made up his mind and that he would be impartial. It is our understanding that Craig Dunford during an exchange of words with the inspector was not convinced that the inquiry would be fair and impartial. He consulted the few members of the Homeowners' Association who were present at the time and informed them that he had no confidence in the inspector and as far as he (Craig Dunford) was concerned the inspector had already made up his mind. Our legal representative then withdrew from the inquiry along with Billy Dickson, the chairman of the Homeowners' Association. On the second day Craig Dunford returned as an observer and Billy Dickson returned to make a presentation on behalf of Blackstaff Community Development Association which is separate from the Homeowners' Association although he is chairman of both.

"This Inquiry in your person has shown itself to be partial, to be in breach of the rules of natural justice and on behalf of the Homeowners Association of Blackstaff, I will not prostitute myself before it any further, I withdraw. (The audience applauds)" Mr Craig Dunford BL.

 The fact is that the Blackstaff Homeowners' Association were without legal representation for most of the public inquiry. Individuals did speak at the inquiry but the opportunity to challenge the case put forward by Housing Executive was lostand the Homeowners' Association were left without their legal representativethey had appointed to represent them.

 The public inquiry was clearly flawed and so was, in our opinion the outcome of the public inquiry. After years of hard work and campaigning for the public inquiry, we got absolutely nothing. Our views (if they were seriously considered) were rejected.

 We had also written to the DSD requesting that the Department provide us with a breakdown of the written objections street by street. We just wanted the total for each street and the main reason(s) for objection. This request was also refused. In regard to the 77 objectors, we believe it is unfair to continue the impression that they were local residents in the redevelopment or improvement zone if they are not? We believe that by providing this information that it will confirm that most were 'outsiders'. We also think it strange that assuming that the 77 were local residents from the two zones that only one spoke at the public inquiry? We have very strong reservations about the 77 letters of objection in support of 100% redevelopment as we know a large bundleof pre-printed letters of objections was hand delivered by an active memberof the Village Housing Focus Committee who has been to the forefront of campaigning for 100% redevelopment. This was the day after the final date for written objections although the date was extended. If what we say is true (and we believe it is because of our local knowledge), then it is very unfair to have treated these 77 objectors with equal consideration as the other 43 objectors who face the loss of their homes and also unfair to hide the facts. We would point out that we believe that the 43 letters were posted through Royal Mail and over a period of time and that the majority of the letters came from residents living in the redevelopment zone. The Department for Social Development 'cannot' provide us with details of the number of letters of objections from each street and the dates they received them. When we asked why not? we were informed that they do not keep this information.

 We had made repeated requests over the years to meet the Ministerand she has never once held a full meeting with us. We had also a number of points we wished to discuss with the Minister but due to her refusal to talk with us, we arranged for a few MLAs to make them on our behalf as questions at the Assembly. We are far from happy with some of the answers we have received and will support our view that the whole process was irrational, unfair and biased.

ALL SIX SOUTH BELFAST MLAs WERE

 MISSING FROM THE PUBLIC INQUIRY  

 

 We have reproduced below the beginning of the report, up to the point when the homeowners legal representative withdrew.  ( We would first like to draw your attention to 33 and 34 at the end of this page )

(At 10.15 am)

THE CHAIRMAN: Good morning ladies and gentlemen. My name is Jim McCormick
and I am instructed to hold this inquiry pursuant to a notice which appeared in the
local press on 30 September 2009 and reads as follows:
The Department for Social Development, Notice of local Inquiry.
Application for vesting order and scheme by the Northern Ireland Housing
Executive, urban renewal area 144, Village, Belfast. The Department for Social
Development has instructed an inspector to hold a public and local inquiry as to the
propriety of, confirming the order applied for at 10.00 am on Tuesday 20 and
Wednesday 21 October 2009 at Donegal Road Methodist Church, 381 Donegal
Road, Belfast BT12 6FR. All persons interested in the lands may attend and be
heard at the time and place aforesaid, signed Heather Cousins, Director of Housing,
3 September 2009. Before we take this any further, could I just ask that anybody
who wants to give evidence, to take the chair just here please, so if you put your
hands up if you want to give evidence and I will invite you, not just now, and I will
invite you up to this chair and you can give your evidence there. It is so that we
can see you and hear you, and would you please give your name and address before
you start to speak so that the Stenographer who is taking a verbatim report for the
department can get a completely accurate record of who said what and of course,
could I ask you not to all speak at once from the from the floor or interrupt from the
floor because when you do that nobody can hear anything. After the Inquiry I am
to report to the department thereon and I now declare the Inquiry open and may
I have the appearances please, for the Housing Executive?

MR CAREY: My name is Thomas Carey and I am the solicitor representing the
Housing Executive at this Public Inquiry.

THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you.

MR DUNFORD: Good morning, Mr Chairman, my name is Craig Dunford. I am a

barrister at the Bar Library here in Belfast and I appear for the Blackstaff Home
Owners Association.
THE CHAIRMAN: Could you spell your surname, please?
MR DUNFORD: DUNFORD.

1

THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you.
MR DUNFORD: Mr Chairman, could I raise a couple of matters of housekeeping just
at the very outset, which are these? A number of people put their hands up and
indicated that they wanted to give evidence to the Inquiry. I am aware of certainly
one gentleman who wants to do that, who has been working all night and wants to
get away to his bed and it occurred to me that it might be prudent, matters of
procedure are for you, of course, to do a bit of timetabling so the residents can
know, be assured as to when they would be able to speak; maybe better for
example to put them back until tomorrow so they can be heard then?

THE CHAIRMAN: Yeah. Well, what will happen now will be the Housing Executive
will give its evidence and present its case. I think there is one other person wants
to do a short presentation in favour of the proposal.
MR DUNFORD: Who is that?

MS BRADSHAW: My name is Paula Bradshaw and I am representing the Greater
Village Regeneration Trust, I have already presented my presentation to the
Stenographer.

MR DUNFORD: Thank you.
THE CHAIRMAN: And I would then propose to take any other evidence in favour of
the Housing Executive's proposal and then I will go to those opposed.

MR DUNFORD: So, we can maybe take it then that today in practical terms is likely to
be a hearing and a testing of the evidence in favour of the proposal; it is probably
what will happen?

THE CHAIRMAN: Yes.
MR DUNFORD: And that those who want to speak against it are likely to be heard
tomorrow is that the probable way forward?

THE CHAIRMAN: It is a possibility but, we may well finish today; it depends. I have
looked at all of the evidence I have received in writing from those opposed and it
would appear to be, it would be possible to group that evidence into groups. There
is absolutely no point in 140 people all coming up and saying the same thing.
MR DUNFORD: I am simply saying that if there are individual voices that want to
make themselves heard, not necessarily that I represent them, just be made aware of

2

those concerns, so it is only proper I report that to the chair and allow you to make
the procedural decision to accommodate that, but just so the Inquiry is also aware
that the stance of the Home Owners Association that I represent intends through me
to cross-examine those who put forward as witnesses on behalf of the department.
Then there will individuals who wish to give evidence to you, not being called by
me, but they will give evidence on their own behalf independently. They will
include professional witnesses, architects, and they will include residents who will
want to give oral evidence to the Inquiry.

THE CHAIRMAN: And you expect, in your knowledge you expect that to go into
tomorrow?
MR DUNFORD: Yes, I do.
THE CHAIRMAN: Well, certainly the evidence by individuals would be probably then
going into tomorrow.
MR DUNFORD: So, if any individuals for reasons of sleep deprivation need to leave,
do they have an assurance that if they come tomorrow they will be heard?
THE CHAIRMAN: Yes.
MR DUNFORD: Thank you very much.

MR DICKSON: Chairman, Billy Dickson, Blackstaff Community Development
Association and my address is 31 Broadway Parade. It may help you, sir tomorrow
for a collective submission from the Blackstaff Community Development
Association, which is separate from the Home Owners Association, it may facilitate
you for the sake of time, we would prefer to do that tomorrow morning as
a collective submission to you, a statement of evidence.

THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Would you like to come up to the speaker please, we
will be able to hear you, please?

MR JORDAN: Mr Chairman, I am the gentleman that has been on night shift all night
and I would like to be come tomorrow morning. My name is James Jordan, 11
Monarch Street, Belfast, BT12 6 G and I am the gentleman, if it is all right with
you, I would leave now?

BY THE CHAIRMAN: Yes.

MR JORDAN: And return tomorrow morning and I have a witness statement on behalf

3

of the people that I represent, if that is all right?

THE CHAIRMAN: That is okay.

MR JORDAN: Thank you very much.

SPEAKER FROM THE FLOOR: Could I speak--

THE CHAIRMAN: Would you like to come up to the chair, please?

MRS DICKSON: I just wanted to speak for Mrs Elizabeth Dixon, that is DIXON. She
will be here today but can't be here tomorrow and she is one of the objectors and
would it be possible for her to speak this afternoon?

THE CHAIRMAN: This afternoon?

MRS DICKSON: Yes, she is working and will be here after 1.30. Tomorrow she can't
be here because of--

THE CHAIRMAN: Well, I can't guarantee that, sorry. You know, we have to follow
a formal presentation of evidence but she could give a written submission of her
objection if she can't be here tomorrow but I will do my best.

MRS DICKSON: She won't be finished work until 4.00 o'clock tomorrow and
according to your information it closes--

THE CHAIRMAN: 4.00 o'clock tomorrow?

MRS DICKSON: Yeah.

THE CHAIRMAN: That would be okay.

MRS DICKSON: If she came at 4.00 o'clock?

THE CHAIRMAN: Yeah, we will still be here, we can stay here. Today the Inquiry
will be closing at 3.00 o'clock. Tomorrow the Inquiry will finish at whenever it
finishes.

MRS DICKSON: So, there will be somebody here to listen to her case at 4.00 o'clock
tomorrow if she doesn't get speaking today?

THE CHAIRMAN: Yeah, but if she comes in today we will try and accommodate her.

MRS DICKSON: Okay, thank you.
MR DUNFORD: Sorry, just one more matter, Mr Chairman that occurs to me; have
you heard the opportunity yourself of speaking to any of the parties who are going
to give evidence to this Inquiry ahead of the Inquiry starting or will it all come as
fresh to you as to many of us?

4

THE CHAIRMAN: It comes fresh to me.
MR DUNFORD: It does?

THE CHAIRMAN: Yes. Are there any other appearances? Well then--

MR CAREY: Mr Chairman, we are here today to hear the objections that have been
raised by the residents to the Executive's proposal to vest the particular area in
question and just as a preliminary point, Mr Chairman, can I ask please that you
can confirm that you are satisfied that all statutory obligations have been fulfilled
and all the necessary procedures have been followed in the establishment of this
Public Inquiry? I don't this there is any issue that they have been followed by the
Executive. I just want to say that have been followed by the Executive and I will
just ask you to confirm that you are satisfied?

THE CHAIRMAN: Yes, I am satisfied.

MR CAREY: I am obliged to you.

THE CHAIRMAN: Just before we move on, could I for Mr Dunford's benefit, lest there
be any confusion, I have obviously been talking to the DSD and the Housing
Executive on the procedures
MR DUNFORD: Yes.

THE CHAIRMAN: Because obviously I am an experienced inspector and I go through
the procedures with them in advance of the Inquiry so that if there is anything left
out, then they can get it assisted; I didn't want you to think that I hadn't been
speaking to anybody in the Housing Executive.
MR DUNFORD: I am grateful to you, sir, for that clarification.

THE CHAIRMAN: There are certain things I have to go through.
MR DUNFORD: Thank you.

MR CAREY: With your permission, Mr Chairman, we will proceed to call our evidence
and the first witness I would like to call in Mr Robin Hawe please. For the purpose
of the Public Inquiry, could I ask you just to confirm your name and state your
position in the Housing Executive?

MR HAWE: My name is Robin Hawe and I am an area planner with the Housing
Executive.
MR CAREY: And I understand you have prepared a presentation for us in support of

5

the Executive's proposal and if you could give that presentation now?

MR HAWE: The area proposed vesting is a very important element in delivering what
we call the approved plan for the regeneration of the Village and fundamentally,
the purpose of my presentation is to explain the decision-making and approval
process which shapes this regeneration plan and why we actually need to vest this
area. So, I want to have a look, as an introduction, the street context of the area
which surrounds the area and clearly that is out of the boundary for the issue of the
area we all know what we are talking about and say very little bit about the
consultation. This slide shows the area itself. The areas shaded in brown are
former redevelopment areas, the areas shaded in yellow is what we call the village
urban renewal area and the areas shaded in a lilac colour are areas where we have
retained and approved properties. I suppose the area contains about roughly 3,000
properties and there has been considerable intervention by the Housing Executive
in the surrounding areas and the areas to the east, that is Sandy Row and street; they
were redeveloped in the 1980s together with the Glenmachan and Tavanagh Street
to the wrest and more recently, we have a small redevelopment area in Roden
Street, which the second phase is on site at the moment. So, really the areas that,
again I say is represented in purple, represent considerable vestment in terms of
retaining and improving and retraining, so again trying to strike a balance between
redevelopment and improving and retaining in the wider Donegal area, and this
considerable vestment has shaped the housings market to such an extent that the
Coolfinthalia area some years ago we were significant and now most of it is
privately owned. So, it has had an impact in the wider housing market. The actual
Urban Renewal Area is bounded by Donegal Street to the north and the main
Belfast Dublin railway line to the east and Frenchpark Street to the south and also
Glenmachan Street to the west. Also included is the Monarch Parade, Lower
Rockview Street area to the north of the other side of the Donegal Road and I don't
intend to say very much about the consultation. My colleague Liam Kinney will
cover the details of how we were consulted. Just at this stage I would say that
consulting and listening to views were a very important part of the overall process
in terms of the said future plans. What I would like to do next is really talk about

6

the actual process itself, the urban renewal assessment process and to take you
through the steps of the process and discuss the main findings that we found as we
worked through the process. Fundamentally, the urban renewal assessment process
is a comprehensive assessment of a wide range of indicators, trends and
characteristics that we feel influence the housing market and the first thing we do is
we complete a detailed analysis of housing conditions, identifying levels of
unfitness, disrepair and vacancies and blocked up properties. And secondly, what
we looked at and determining as the impact of the main social characteristics and
we analyzed these trends and identify what we feel is important. Thirdly, as I said
earlier, we consulted widely with groups, community groups, with politicians and
we also carried out detailed social surveys to ensure that we have a good grasp and
a good understanding about how the community feels. And fourthly, the private
sector is very important in the area. We commissioned Ulster Property Sales to
give us an understanding of the dynamics of the private sector market, and fifthly,
we carried out what we call a housing age assessment that is looking at the social
housing market in terms of examining, supply and demand. And finally, once we
had pulled all this information together, we were in a position to create a cost and
appraisal development options and then make a business case for what we term the
urban regeneration plan. So, what I would like to do is look at each of those in a
wee bit more detail, just to give you a flavour of what we found and how it shaped
our decision making process. Looking firstly at the housing, there are 1211
dwellings in the area. These are mainly red brick, high density terraced housing
and approximately 90 per hectare, which we would consider fairly high density.
Current medium density for modern housing would be in the region of about 40 for
two storey type accommodation. The majority of the dwellings were constructed in
the early 1900s. Three quarters are pre-war and the remaining are war properties.
And particularly important to us was that just under 90% are two bedroom, three
person with mainly what we call single storey returns, with a small number of two
storey returns, but the significance of this is there is definite room for expansion at
the back. The critical, I suppose to the housing market itself is the level of
vacancies within the area and whenever we carried out the condition report, the

7

condition survey in August 2006 we found that there were almost 280 properties
vacant and they were made up of properties that were blocked or boarded up or just
vacant but of these 80, 80 were actually bricked up or blocked up. While there
were some concentrations of vacancies in Donegal Avenue and Lower Rockview
Street, the pattern is one of dispersal throughout the area, with no one particular
area contained all the blocked up properties and at the time there was some
evidence of properties being reoccupied by landlords but the overall picture was
a static one of high levels of vacancies within the area. Moving on to the actual
housing conditions themselves, we found that there was 33% of the properties were
unfit. The reasons that these were unfit was mainly due to extreme dampness, poor
standards and inadequate kitchen facilities. We did discover a small number of
dwellings with no internal facilities---to you and me that is an outside toilet and no
bathroom. Almost two-thirds were considered to be in some disrepair, so a high
level of unfitness and high levels of disrepair and of concern to us was less than
10% of the private properties had applied for and received renovation grants, so
there was a low uptake of grants within the area. Our overall feeling was that while
there were some landlords using repair grants in places like Donegal Avenue, there
was very, very little evidence of the private sector coming in and vesting and
upgrading the fabric of the housing stock. What was happening was that landlords
were buying property, a lick of paint and letting the property and there was clear
evidence of that. The other area of concern for us was the environmental aspects of
the housing. With the exception of Donegal Avenue, the streets were very narrow,
car parking is on-street and there are difficulties with car parking. There is a lack
of open space and safe play areas lands and throughout the area there has been
traffic introduced, a lot of through traffic moving from Donegal Road. Another
issue that we identified was that our alleyways were narrow and unsupervised and
often attracted anti-social behaviour and dumping of rubbish. This slide looks
complicated but I will try and break it down for you. It is a a map of the area and
what we have done in terms of coding the area. The properties in terms of what
were identified under the condition survey those in red were considered to be poor,
the ones in yellow are considered to be fair and those in blue were considered to be

8

good and as I said earlier, overall there was no particular area where all the poor
properties and the all the blocked properties were concentrated; they tended to be
dispersed throughout the area. In terms of regenerating an area and regenerating
housing, it is not just about putting in bricks and mortar, we are very keen to
support the community and it is important to understand what is happening in terms
of the social and community issues. A number of other things we identified were
demographic trends firstly. There has been a decline in the overall population since
1991 and 2001 the total population of the Village Urban Renewal Area is 21% and
that is in comparison with Belfast as a whole which climbed by 1%; we roughly
have about 2,000 people living in the area. During the same period the household
reduced by 10% in comparison to Belfast which experienced growth of 6%. So, we
had some concerns there, but perhaps significant of all was the fact that the
population is ageing. Structurally, the demographic profile is changing. Elderly
households are increasing with extensive families and elderly households went up
27% compared to Belfast as a whole, which has 18% of households that are elderly.
In terms of tenure, breakdown of tenure, predominantly over occupied within the
area, 56% which is relevant to Belfast as a whole. The social sector is a bit lower
than Belfast at 20% and the private rental sector is higher, it is 24% of Belfast as a
whole; Belfast would be about 11%. The main trends that we found in terms of
tender was that we identified that tender was in transition with private rental sectors
expanding at the expense of owner occupation with the social housing stock
remaining fairly static. Again, moving on to some of the issues that would concern
us directly affecting the community. The village is located in the South West
Belfast Neighbourhood Renewal Area and ranks within the worst 10% of urban
areas in terms of health, education and living environment and there are lots of
statistics in terms of deprivation and what I would like to do is highlight three
particular vulnerable household groups that we would be concerned about. The
first of those would be pensioners, elderly households. Households, as I said
earlier make up 20% of households and their profile would be mainly low income
owner-occupiers. The property will be in some disrepair and probably unsuitable
in terms of mobility and often requiring adaptations. The second group of

9

households that we would be concerned about would be loan parents. Loan parent
households with dependent children represented about half of all the families, 10%
of households and their profile would be, they would be dependent on benefits and
their property would be often too small to meet their needs; you recall earlier that I
said the predomination was two bedroom properties. And thirdly, the third group
that I would highlight is the migrant workers and living in private rented property
and often living in over crowded conditions and poor relations. So, we would have
concerns particularly for those three household groups. And lastly, in terms of the
social factors, I would just like to say all these factors and trends indicate that there
is a risk to the existing community and this combined with the change in housing
market has led to a significant increase in students and migrant workers and there is
a view by the community that this is a risk to the long term sustainability. I said
earlier, the private market is very important in the Village Area and what we did
was we employed UPS, Ulster Property Sales to carry out a survey and give us
an assessment of the private market and some of this information is of its time, it is
a bit dated, the, as everyone knows, the private market has moved on significantly
since we actually did this, but the important thing was that the period in 2005 to
2007 saw an unprecedented rise in house prices and these were fuelled by
speculators and vestors and actually peaked during the Summer of 2007. In 2005
an approved dwelling would have fetched about 50,000 and by the summer of 2007
it had risen to 170,000. Now, since then, which affected the market across
Northern Ireland, property prices have been falling away, but our concern would be
that the very little activity in the terms of private housing market in the village area,
there have been very few sales, you see lots of for sale signs and to let signs and
that would be a concern across and despite the downturn in the market, there still
remains an issue of own occupiers and particularly first time buyers getting access
into the market. A lot of it has to do with finance, but there is still an affordability
issue within the village area and the overall recommendation by Ulster Property
Sales was that the recommended private sector intervention to regenerate housing
and in particular to stimulate private market. Moving on to one of the last areas,
the social market, the demand for social housing has been increasing since about

10

2005 and the waiting list now, there are about 100 applicants to be considered to be
on housing stress on the waiting list and that has been in increase since 2005 and it
has remained fairly static but most of this demand has been met through re-lets.
I suppose worryingly, the single and largish group within the waiting list for the
Donegal Road is families forming about 21% of those 100 applicants. There is
a popular view that the demand for family housing is low because of two-bedroom
stock is unpopular. So, that has been identified as an issue for us to address. So, as
I said earlier, what we do is, we carry out our public research, we carry out our
surveys and we put all this information and we draft what we call a long list of
development options. These are broken down, seven were considered to be viable
and the costing and these ranged from do nothing to pure landlord repairs, to
include small-scale redevelopment and to totally develop. We have outlined the six
options there that we have agreed to the cost, and if I could take you through them.
The 20% is redevelopment, which is 20% demolition and new build and 80%
retention and improvement. The third option there is 40% demolition and new
build and 60% retention and improvement and so forth, right down to the very
bottom option, which is full improvement. What I want us to look at and I am not
sure if everyone can see that, but I will try and take you through all of those options
in a bit more detail. And maybe just to explain the slide so everyone understands
what they are looking at, on the left hand side we have all the options. The second
column we have a description and I will take you through that in a second and then
the thirds column we have capital costs, and basically capital costs are construction
costs, what it costs to improve, what it costs to build. The fourth column is
acquisition costs and this includes costs in terms of compensation, home loss and
disturbance and money we have to pay out to owners. The 5th column is what we
call overspill costs and this is where we have to development new housing outside
the redevelopment area so people can move to allow the redevelopment to
commence and the very last column would be the total costs. So, if you bear with
me I will try and take you through each of these options in the broad sense and take
you sense and cost. Option 2 that involved the purely landlord repairs and health
and safety repairs to 1311 properties. The capital costs wee £5.6million and total

11

costs were again £5.6 million. Option 3, what we call Small Scale Redevelopment
and Improvement rebuild and was 20% redevelopment and 80% improvement.
What would be involved in that option would be demolition of just under 300
properties, a replacement was just under 150 properties and improvement of just
over 1000 properties. The total cost there would be in the region of £66.9 million.
Option 4, which is again as we move down through the options, we are increasing
the level of redevelopment, it is 40% redevelopment, that is demolition new build
and 60% potential improvement. The impact of that option would be the
demolition of 538 dwellings, the replacement was 250 properties and improvement
was 733. And again, you start to see the acquisition costs coming in total cost just
under £100 million. Moving on to Option 5, again it is 70% redevelopment and
30% retention. Demolition was just under 1000 properties and the improvement
just over 300 properties at a cost of £161 million. Option 6, again it is almost total
redevelopment, 95% redevelopment and a replacements of 506 new properties and
a cost of just over £200 million and the 7th Option was a full improvement at a cost
of £37 million. So, you can see there on that the least affordable option was full
redevelopment and most affordable option was landlord repairs. So, what I would
like to---these were the options that we actually went out and consulted on and
what I would like to do was in addition to these options, what we did we developed
a number of scenarios with predicted outcomes in terms of whoever was assessing
the options. Fundamentally the urban renewal assessment, determining the level
and nature of public sector intervention in the housing market and I suppose the
summary of what we felt, there were three levels of intervention. There was
minimum intervention, significant intervention and full-scale intervention and for
each of those levels of intervention in terms of redevelopment, we developed what
we thought would be the outcome. On the left hand side column is the actual levels
of intervention and on the right hand column we have what we thought the
predicted outcomes would be. So, if we start with the minimum intervention and
what we felt if there was minimum intervention, I.e. just landlord repairs and a very
small amount of redevelopment, we felt that the area would continue to become
predominantly private rented, investors would continue to buy up property and rent

12

it out. We felt that this was a high risk in terms of sustaining the existing
community. We also felt that vacancies would remain high because there is no
evidence of vacancies being lowered by the private sector and they would be
assisted by a problem and we would need to return to the problem in 5 to 10 years.
Moving on to what we term significant intervention, would be significant
redevelopment, demolition and new build, and we felt that this intervention would
remove the worst of the blight, we would achieve the right balance of tenure and
income mix in the area. The remainder of the area which would be outside the
redevelopment area may or may not respond to the redevelopment. We would
review that but we felt we would need to return maybe in 15 to 30 years. Full scale
intervention which would be in terms of full redevelopment, we felt, yes this would
move all the blight, we would have a fully integrated housing plan with new
housing in terms of layout, design, internal space---we would certainly achieve
that, however the down side would be that there would be considerable community
disruption and in the long-term we felt that this might be, the sustainability of the
community might be affected and it was unlikely that the community would be
sustained. So, if I could just have a look at maybe the preferred option. The
combination of our consultation which Liam will take you through, the issue of
affordability and money is already always an issue and the scenario wanting led us
to towards Option 4 as the preferred plan and just taking you through the details of
Option 4, it is 40% redevelopment, that is demolition and new build and 60%
improvement. Effectively what it did was it divided the area up into two zones,
a redevelopment zone and that redevelopment zone would involve the demolition
of 538 dwellings with the replacement of 250 new dwellings. The second zone
would be an improvement zone and that would involve the rehabilitation or repair,
whatever was necessary, of 773 dwellings and the acquisition and improvement of
45 blocked up properties that would be remaining in the improvement zone, tenants
which we have already vested and will be in the process of improving shortly. The
impact of this option would be the displacement of 460 residents. We felt that it
would remove 37% of the vacant properties and reduction of the stock to 1000 and
again, I think I alluded to the costs which is under £100 mill. So, I suppose the

13

next question how did we decide the location of the redevelopment zone? The
location of the redevelopment zone was influenced by three factors; removing
blight, having a deliverable physical framework for building and the location of the
area of the townscape character. I want to look at those three in just a little bit
more detail but firstly if I could just throw up this map and I will try and explain
the map. The area in red is the boundary of the URA, the area shaded in brown is
the 40% redevelopment zone, that is both to the south and then you will see the
area marked to the north. The blue line is the area of townscape character, so you
get the feel there of where the boundary is, so as I said, the three things that
influenced the location for the redevelopment was firstly, the aim was to target as
many of the worst properties in terms of unfitness and dereliction as possible. If
you recall from the condition map, there was no single concentration of where the
poorer properties were but there tended to be a greater concentration towards the
east of the area, that is towards the blue line and Donegal Avenue. The second
factor which influenced the location of the area development was our regeneration
development plan required a physical framework that could accommodate
demolition, new build and the retention and improvement of existing housing, and
this could not be achieved through the demolition of each single basis, I.e. the
demolition of just the unfit poor properties and the derelict houses by themselves, it
required a critical mass in terms of scale to deliver an integrated housing design
and layout and one design that would work where the improvement and new build
would compliment each other and thirdly, the resumption is for the retention of
housing contained with the area, character retention, so therefore, the Donegal
Avenue, you can see running up the railway line, part of Kitchener Street and
Soudan Street were excluded from the redevelopment zone and included in the
improvement zone because of the resumption in terms of the ATC and one of the
positive things for us in that if larger houses tend to be within the ATC, so the three
bed roomed and it is our intention to acquire and improve any blocked up
properties that are in the ATC as part of the overall plan. I think I am coming to
the end of the presentation, you will be glad to hear but I want to make 6 points in
terms of in trying to pull everything together and summarising. Firstly, is there

14

a need for intervention? Yes, we think there is. There is a clear intervention in the
housing market due to failure of the private sector, it clearly needs help. There are
high levels of unfitness and disrepair and almost 8% of the properties have been
long-term vacant and are blighted into the wider area, and secondly, what should
the nature of this intervention be? The plan aims to support the existing
community. The proposed solution for regenerating housing in the village is a
combination of redevelopment, new build, retention and improvement. It is our
view that this approach strikes the right balance between sustaining the existing
community and regenerating the housing stock by providing attractive choices to
a range of house types and sizes. Thirdly, to ensure the plan is deliverable, it has to
be affordable. Money is always an issue but I can say that funding has been
secured on the basis of this approved plan. Fourthly, the Housing Executive has
tried to reach a consensus with the community and clearly, as we have seen today,
there is a difference of opinion but there comes a time whenever we have to move
forward and consultation and work within the community has been going on for
some time and we now believe this is the right plan to move forward with. And the
5th point that I would like to make in terms of summarising is the vesting of the
proposed redevelopment zone is critical to delivering this plan. It is important that
we are allowed to vest in this area. This plan has been through the rigors of what
we call an HM Treasury Green Book Appraisal and is required for all major
government expenditure it has been approved by the board of the Housing
Executive and the Minister for Social Development and has been ratified by the
Department of Finance and Personnel. And lastly, I would like to say that we have
built into the plan a review of evaluation into the process and where it is not
working, we will consider, we will try and consult again and make any changes we
feel are necessary. Basically, that finishes my presentation and I am going to hand
over now to Liam.

THE CHAIRMAN: Copies of the slides, Michael, I don't have a copy. (Same handed)
Thank you
MR DUNFORD: I take it, Mr Chairman that is my opportunity now to ask some
questions of Mr Hawe, if that is---?

15

THE CHAIRMAN: Yes.

MR DUNFORD: Mr Hawe, just so I have your role in the process, you are a planning
consultant, is that right, with the Housing Executive?

MR. HAWE: I am actually not a consultant; I work for the Housing Executive.

Q.
Yes. Now, the data that your organisation works from, stated that, one of the points
you were making is that there were a number of properties in this area which were
unfit for habitation, is that right?
A. Yes.
Q.
Do you have a copy of the document you were referring to just at the end of your
presentation, this document, it is the Donegal Road Village Regeneration Proposal,
the Economic green book---you have that? Could I ask you to have that handy
because I am going to ask you a number of questions based on this document
relating to the presentation that you have given? Could I ask you to look at Section
2.5.2 in the appraisal; you will find that at page 27, do you have that?
A. Yes.
Q.
You do. Do you see Section 2.5.2 for the benefit of most of the people here who
won't have this document, it says this: The initial physical condition survey, which
iis the GD Evans survey, considered 100% of residential and commercial properties
externally and surveyed 20% of residential properties internally.
Now, if you have only looked at a 5th of the residential properties, how can you say
that they are unfit for human habitation?
A. That is alleged by the department--Q.
I am talking factually, forget the legislation; you looked at 20%.
A.
Also we have been undertaking the urban renewal process now for 15/20 years and
this is a process that we have found it to robust.
Q. Yeah, you have looked at--A.
You tell me why if wouldn't be robust?
Q. Eight out of 10 properties have not been looked at internally?
A. Can you repeat that?
Q. Certainly. Eight out of 10 properties have not been inspected internally?
A. Yeah, well we will feel that gives us a fair reflection in terms of the conditions of the

16

property.

Q.
Right, now what about owner-occupiers, who have never been inspected and whose
properties are going to be vested; what about that?
A. Sorry, what is your question?
Q.
Well, what allowance have you made in your consultation that you say you have been
undertaking for some time?
A. You mean consultation; I do not follow the question.
Q.
Let me make it clear. The consultation process that you have been undertaking where
you have been talking to the community, that has been going hand in hand, isn't it,
with the factual gathering of the information?
A. Yes.
Q.
Yes. So, we are agreed about that. Now, we are also agreed that there are a number
of owner-occupiers in this area?
A. Yes.
Q. I think you said--A.
56%.
Q.
Yes, 56%. Now, since only one fifth of the housing stock has been internally
inspected and since over half of the housing stock is owner occupied, what about
the concerns for the owner-occupiers who have not been inspected and yet face
losing their houses if you vest, how have you facted that in to your proposals, sir?
A.
Well, we feel that the 100% external inspection and the 20% internal as a sample,
gives us a fair reflection of what housing conditions are and housing conditions as
you will see in my presentation is one of the elements in terms of why we are
intervening in the housing market and proposing to invest is only one issue and in
terms of investing consultation, I think my colleague will be dealing with how we
consulted both with all the residents including owner-occupiers and all the residents
in the area.
Q.
All right, that is fine, I will leave that for Mr McKinney (sic) then when he gives his
evidence, I will ask him about that. In terms then of the vesting, if I can just stay
with that for a moment, you might be aware that Mr Arthur Acheson is here and is
going to give evidence independently where it is evidenced that the association

17

which I represent supports and commends to the Inquiry and in outline,
Mr Acheson, who is a chartered architect and a town planner, he will tell the
Inquiry that he was involved in a project known as Northside in the Cathedral
Quarter of Belfast; are you familiar with that?

A. Yes.
Q.
And that he was involved in a scheme for enhanced urban development grants in that
area. Is that something that is familiar to you; you may not have been involved in it
but you are aware of it?
A. Yeah, I am aware of it.
Q.
Yeah, and that was encouraging owners of properties where they had been derelict for
more than 12 months, to renovate with 75% grant assistance; are you aware of that?
A. No, I am not aware of the detail.
Q.
You are not aware of the detail. The point it that this allowed buildings to be brought
back into reuse one by one as the owners took up the grant offer and it cost
considerably less than a simple wholesale vesting and redevelopment and what I
am putting to you is this, that in looking at this particular proposal or approach,
why not look at the organic way of doing things and look at the reality which is that
people have improved their houses. Owner-occupiers have invested time, money
and effort over many, many years and all is that it going to be lost to them if their
houses are simply taken away on a blanket vesting. So, why not look at the
alternative?
A.
I think in my presentation we tried to say we did look at a range of options that were
available to us in terms of intervention in the housing market and we assessed those
options and those options have been approved within our appraisal, which have
been approved by our board, it has gone to the DSD, it has been approved by the
Minister and it has been approved by the Department of Finance and Personnel. I
can only repeat that.
Q.
Mr Acheson is also going to give evidence when he speaks to the Inquiry about
redevelopment initiatives in the Ballyhackamore, East Belfast and in Stranmillis
here in the South of the city; are you familiar with, in broad terms with what has
happened in those areas?
18

A. Yes.
Q.
So, you will know then that individual houses and small groups of houses have been
rebuilt where needed both by the public and private sectors; are you aware of that?
A. Yes.
Q. No wholesale knocking down and redeveloping there, is that right?
A. Well, I don't know the details but I mean--Q.
No, but just on a broad-brush approach, that is all I am asking you to comment on?
A.
Well, what I would say in response to that, this isn't just about coming in and vesting
all properties in the area. We have a plan that will both improve, retain, keep the
majority of properties in the area and our vesting plan is for the smaller number of
40%.
Q. All right.
A.
And I suppose what we would say in terms of what I try to get over in terms of
presentation, it is not just about the bricks and mortar, this is about regenerating a
community and this needs to be done in this area, and I hope I went over the facts
and issues where we identified the need for us to be intervening in the housing
market and it is not just about sort of improving bricks and mortar.
Q.
Let us talk for a minute about the housing that is involved here, the present housing
stock according to the documents we have seen is 1311, that is right, isn't it?
A. Yes.
Q.
And Option 7 which is the refurbishment option would see all those units contained
and we would still have 1311 at the end of Option 7, wouldn't we?
A. Yes.
Q. Option 4 achieves 1006, your preferred option?
A. Yes.
Q. That is a difference of 305 houses, isn't it?
A. Yeah.
Q. What happens to the people who used to live in those 305 houses?
A.
Well, there are a number of issues raised. Yes, in terms of demolition and
improvement, the existing properties, there are very high levels of vacancies, and
I said to 280 properties already vacant and in terms of where people will be re

19

housed, my colleague will be dealing with that in his evidence.

Q. Right. In this appraisal that I am looking at here, the green book appraisal?
A. Yes.
Q. That was undertaken by an organization called Williamson Consulting?
A. Yes.
Q. Who was the individual who was consulted who did it?
A. Mr Williamson himself, I can't remember his first name.
Q. David?
A. David, yes.
Q. So, he undertook it?
A. Yes.
Q. Is he here?
A. No.
Q. He is not here?
A. No.
Q. You are familiar with the documents?
A. Yes.
Q. What is Mr Williamson's professional background, do you know?
A.
I don't know of his professional qualifications. He operates a consultants firm and he
is very familiar with green book appraisals for many government departments.
Q. But you don't know what his professional qualifications are?
A. No, I think he is an economist.
Q. I beg your pardon?
A. An economist.
Q. An economist?
A. Yes.
Q.
Did you see in this appraisal which as an economic appraisal, in deals with a number
of non-monetary matters, and I will take you to those; they are found at section 4.2,
page 57. Do you have that?
A. What page is that?
Q. Page 57. And do you see it says there, and again for the benefit of the people who

20

don't have this document, it says under the heading, Non-monetary Impact: This
section of the report looks at costs and benefits can only be quantified in
non-monetary or qualitative terms. Now, I have read this report and I see nowhere
in it any indication that Williamson Consulting took the advice of architects or
planers before they prepared this. Do you know if they did?

A.
Yes, we have an appraisal team and that appraisal team contains quantity surveyors,
architects, planners like myself and housing managers. It is a multi disciplinary
team who are involved very consulting in housing advice right up to the final
report; it is an appraisal team--Q.
The appraisal team you say, you mentioned architects, planners and so forth?
A. Yes.
Q. Are they employees of the Executive?
A. Yes, some are and some are consultants.
Q. What about, let us take architectural, that is internal?
A. Yes.
Q. What about planning?
A. Ourselves.
Q. That is yourself. So again, that is internal?
A. Yes.
Q.
I want to stay for a moment in this section, with the non-monetary impact, Mr Hawe,
if I may. If you go over the page to page 58 you will see that that starts at
section 4.2.3 and what the author of this report does is he goes through on these
pages a number of factors and he gives them a score, he gives them a weighting and
he says that is why I consider them to be important or not very important or highly
important or of no significance. Yeah?
A. Yeah.
Q. Do you agree that that is the approach he has taken?
A.
Yes, it was but in reality what actually happens is there is an exercise done by the
appraisal team and he then eventually writes up the report and makes the
recommendation in terms of what he thinks the score should be. That is then put to
the appraisal team; they discuss it and agree the scoring.

21

Q. Well, whose report is it, is it Williamson's report?
A. It is the Housing Executive's report.
Q.
I know it is for the Housing Executive but the author, the name on the front of it is
Economic Appraisal for N. I. Housing Executive, Williamson Consulting?
A. Yeah.
Q. Well, doesn't that--A.
Well, as with all these reports, it is done in consultation with the appraisal team.
Q.
Yes, but is it the approach or is it the task that the writer of this report sets himself, is
to give an independent appraisal of what is fed to him by the various people on the
team, is that right?
A. Yes, he takes into account the view of the professionals that are on the appraisal team.
Q.
Yes, but he is not there simply to rubber stamp the decision that has already been
made, is he?
A. Could you repeat that?
Q.
He is not there simply to rubber stamp the decision that has already been made; he
must bring his own independent analysis to the task that he has been set?
A. Yes.
Q.
And is that not the case that when, can the reader of this document not take it that
when he goes through the various factors in his non-monetary section 4.2, that that
is part of that independent analysis?
A. Yes, I mean he is the author of the report.
Q. Yes.
A. He stands over his report but he does consult with the members of the appraisal team.
Q. So he does but he has to come to a conclusion based on that---?
A. I am disagreeing with you.
Q.
Thank you. So, if one looks at the task he sets himself to score the various non
financial elements that he was looking at, he looks at the following, summarising
them, and again for the benefit of the people who don't have this document, the first
one is reducing voids and empty properties to no more than 2% in five years. The
second is to accommodate all existing social and private housing demand in the
area by 2015. The third is to reduce housing unfitness in the area to under 5% by

22

2012. The fourth is to facilitate the development of the sustainable community in
the Village area by ensuring an appropriate mix of housing types and enabling a
wide demographic range to be housed, including families, singles and older people. ncluding families, singles and older people.

6. To consolidate small business in the area so that primary local needs in respect
of access to retail and other services are met.
7. To maintain the positive physical characteristics of the area in line with
B.M.A.P. requirements in relation to an area of townscape character.
8. Fit with government priorities and expenditure targets.
9. Sustainable homes, and that is it.
So, those are the 9 factors that the author sets himself and then he sets himself the
next task is to weight those factors. Yes?
A. Yes.
Q. Would you agree that is the method he adopted?
A. Yes.
Q.
Now, what he does is to go back then to page 58, taking first of all the reduction of
voids and empty properties to no more than 2%. He says or he scores Options 4, 5
and 6 and Option 4 is your preferred one. They will development of part voids
properties. So, in that fact it gives them a high score. Option 7, and for the
avoidance of any doubt, Mr Hawe, that is the option in broad terms and subject to
the input of the appropriate architectural and planning advice that the association
that I represent, supports. Option 7 involves the acquisition and refurbishment of
targeted properties and therefore this has a high score. So, Option 4 and 7 score
equally there. The next one, to accommodate all existing social and private
housing demand in the area by 2015 and the author says that in many ways this is a
difficult objective to quantify as housing demand is constantly changing. Just
pausing there, Mr Hawe, I am looking now at page 58; can we agree that a scheme
which potentially which is closest to looking at changing demands in the area is the
best option?
A. Yes.
Q.
Now, we a disagree as to whether Option 4 or Option 7 is the better choice to meet
that; can we agree that in broad terms that is what to happen?

23

A. Yes.
Q.
Yeah. Now, if you go over the page to page 59, halfway down that the author of the
report says: Option 4 proposes to reduce the total number of houses in the area by
around 300. It would, however, ensure that all Housing Executive tenants who
wished to remain in the area could do so. However, the main effect would be a
reduction in the number of private houses available and therefore, this achieves a
lower score. Now, would you agree that your Option 4 or whichever option you
say, a balance has to be struck between a possible tension between providing social
housing on the one hand and private houses on the other?
A. Yes and in fact if I could qualify that by saying that part of the approval from
B.M.A.P was that 80% of the new housing would be private and 20% would be
social, so it has been qualified.
Q.
So, under Option 4 the outcome that you foresee would be that 80% of the housing
would be private and the 20% social?
A.
That may vary slightly if there is slight increase of demand if the demand for social
housing goes up to maybe 22 or 23%, we would reflect that but in broad terms that
is the strategy.
Q.
Now, let me take now a more specific case. Let us take the case of an owner-
occupier who, in the event of Option 4 being carried and the vesting order being
made, finds himself out of his house; he gets what in respect of the disturbance to
him?
A. He gets compensation.
Q.
No let us so make this absolutely clear so that everybody here understands that. What
is the compensation made up of?
A. Sorry, can you repeat that?
Q. What is the compensation made up of?
A.
What I am going to do is here is ask my colleague, Ivan Vallelly, the Land and
Property Manager to deal with the compensation questions you have.
Q. Right.
A. As he is the expert in that area.
THE CHAIRMAN: That is fine, Mr Vallelly. Do you want to take a speaker; it is just

24

so the hall can hear you.

MR VALLELLY: If the Inquiry recommends that the application for the vesting order
be awarded in favour of the Housing Executive, there will be a procedure then
whereby we will notify the decision. There will be a date set at which there will be
an update for the vesting order. In layman’s terms that is a date when the Housing
Executive takes ownership of the property.
MR DUNFORD: Yeah.

MR VALLELLY: That is a trigger mechanism then for the payment for compensation.
It is like a camera shot so at that time the market value stops with the vesting order
and compensation is paid to all from a landlord right down to an owner occupier
and the compensation is based on the market value at the date of the vesting order

Q. You say based on the market value, is it the market value?
A. It is the market value, yes.
Q. It is the market value?
A. Yes.
Q. So, firstly--A.
I am saying based on that, I am qualifying that because it a process of negotiation.
Q.
All right, we will accept that you didn't have an instant table of market values that
you can give us, I understand that, but in broad terms--THE
CHAIRMAN: Sorry, the value is not an issue for this inquiry. The value is
an issue for the Valuation and Land--MR
DUNFORD: I am not going to go into that; I want to simply understand the
process, which is all.
THE CHAIRMAN: Well, the process is, as Mr Vallelly has said, that at the date of
transfer of ownership of the property to the Housing Executive--

MR DUNFORD: You get market value; I will leave it there.

THE CHAIRMAN: Market value is what you can reply on. You can dispute that

market value, each person with the Valuation and Lands Agency; you cannot
dispute it with the Housing Executive. They have to pay--MR
DUNFORD: I am not disputing it with the Housing Executive, Sir. With respect, I
am simply trying to understand the component parts of the compensation package

25

that will be offered when these people are disturbed.

THE CHAIRMAN: Well, I am trying to clarify the situation for you and that is the
procedure that we will follow. So, the Housing Executive will not enter into
negotiations with individual home owners, those negotiations will take place with
the Valuation and Lands Agency and if the values shoot up the day before they take
ownership, those are the values that will apply. So, nobody could have foreseen
what has happened in the last two years and I doubt if anybody can forecast what
will happen in the next year. So, it is very much an issue for the Valuation and
Lands Agency.

MR DUNFORD: I am very grateful, thank you for your clarification.
THE CHAIRMAN: It is purely to clarify that.
MR DUNFORD: Now, Mr Vallelly, that then is the market value element of it. Is there
any other element of compensation that an owner-occupier would be entitled to?

MR VALLELLY: Yes, all residents within the redevelopment area are entitled to a
home loss or disturbance payment and there are various criteria that make them
eligible for that.
MR DUNFORD: So, that varies does it, according to your individual circumstances?

A. Well the home loss is determined at 10% of the market value.
Q. So that is 10% across the board, is it?
A.
Yes provided you fulfill the various criteria of owner occupation. The minimum will
be £4,500 or 10% of the market value of the property.
Q.
So, just so we understand it, if you are then taken out of your house on a vesting order
you get market value in accordance with the very helpful clarification that yourself
and the Chairman have given to us, you get, if you fulfill the criteria, a disturbance
allowance of at least £4,500?
A. Yes.
Q. Or 10% of the value, whichever is the higher?
A. Yes.
Q.
And just before we leave that, what are the criteria for getting that disturbance
allowance?
A. It is do the residency qualifications

26

Q. Length of time?
A. Yes, that is right.
Q. So, that will then leave a disturbed home owner with a pot of money?
A. Yes.
Q. And no place to live?
A.
If the vesting application is awarded in favour of the Housing Executive, my
colleague Liam Kinney will give a commitment to those in the area as to how we
would deal with them.
Q. So, that is best addressed with him?
A. Yes.
Q.
Okay, I won't trouble you with that and we will simply leave it then in the air then
and when Mr Kinney is giving evidence I will have the opportunity of asking him
and I will put that to him?
A. Yes.
Q. Thank you for that.
Q.
Mr Hawe, if I can come back to you, still on page 59, and if you look toward the
bottom of page 59, it deals with Option 7; do you see that?
A. Yes.
Q.
It says: Option 7 does not propose any extensive demolition of properties or, where
demolition takes place this would use all of the void and derelict properties in the
area, with an increase in the total net number of properties available by around 280
houses. Now, just pausing there, there is, no mention, is there in that little passage
of any architectural considerations per se, it doesn't say, "I have taken the advice on
the input of the architect and this is the view that I have come to?"
A. Yes.
Q.
It doesn't say that, but what I want to suggest to you is this, that had an architectural
input been specifically asked for in relation to that view, that view of Option 7,
might it not have been possible for an architect and Mr Acheson and Mr Patten,
when they give their evidence they will be talking about schemes along this sort of
line, to say, "Well, some of the houses here cannot be regenerated, they have got to
go." There are clearly some of them have to go, do you agree with that?

27

A. Yes.
Q.
And one option where you demolish a house is simply to put another house in its
place; that is one option, yes?
A. Yes.
Q.
Another option is to put nothing there in terms of structure and to use it as a green
area, as an open area or as part of an open area, which would be fair?
A. Yes, that is physically possible, yes.
Q.
That is possible. So, is it not then possible to refine Option 7 in the way that says,
"Well, we will not just go for simply keeping our 1311 houses as they are, we will
recognise some of those have to disappear?” Would that not be a start point for
Option 7?
A.
It may be an for Option 7 but certainly in terms of our view, looking at the area as
a whole, not individual properties, we still feel our assessment of all the options,
are preferred option was the best plan.
Q.
I understand that, but I am simply asking you to think about Option 7. I understand
you like Option 4, but I want you to think about Option 7. If you were to take
Option 7, you could refine it, and if you did, if you had fewer houses, if you had
fewer houses it might do two things, mightn't it? It might give you some open stays
options, correct?
A. It might do, yes.
Q.
And if you had fewer houses it might in fact, it would address your concerns about
density being too high, wouldn't it?
A. Yes.
Q.
And on the assumption that Mr Kinney is going to give this Inquiry, to the people
who are here, listening to him, some reassurance that what would happen
disturbance wise, then you could work an Option 7 type scheme together.
Would---?
THE CHAIRMAN:
Sorry, could I interrupt again? We are drifting here into
challenging the options. Could you be clear, can I ask you, are asking the Housing
Executive or trying to drag them into a position where Option 7 would be a better
option; because if you are, I would warn and alert the Inquiry to the fact that that

28

would take the whole assessment back and you are looking at a 10 year delay.
Now, if that is what you want, I mean, I just alert you to that, I am not sure what
your experience of this is, but you were drifting into another redevelopment areas; I
could give you some redevelopment areas where improvement was the option to
buy 30 years and it didn't buy 10 years and I was back here doing an Inquiry. So,
I just want to make it absolutely clear, if the Housing Executive have got approval,
endorsed by the Department of Finance and Personnel for Option 4 and I am here
to chair a Public Inquiry based on that application. So, I am concerned that you are
trying to guide the Inquiry that somehow Option 7 might be better than Option 4.

MR DUNFORD: Let me make it absolutely clear that Option 7 is--

THE CHAIRMAN: I am asking you a question; is that what you are trying to do?
MR DUNFORD: Yes, correct.

THE CHAIRMAN: I just want that for the record that is what you are--MR
DUNFORD: Sir, I have to say it gives me some concern for this reason. That
suggests that Option 4 and only Option 4 is the way forward here in the sense that it
is the only option that can be taken forward.

THE CHAIRMAN: Let me clarify and make it quite clear; Option 4 is the option that
has been financed by Department of Finance and Personnel. That is all I am saying
and if we depart from Option 4 we have got to go back, if I am wrong please
correct me. I stand alone here, I don't have the benefit of what you are reading but
if you depart from Option 4 you then run the risk, and I do alert you to it, that is all
I am doing, I am not saying it will happen, I don't know, I don't work for any of the
bodies, but you do run the risk of the money going somewhere else and you can sit
with the Village as it is with the problems, for some time. I don't know if you have
walked the Village. You asked me did I actually consult on any of these issues, no
I did not but what I did do is I walked it by myself because the Executive offered to
walk with me and I refused that on the grounds, not to insult the Executive but that
I did not want them in any way to be seen to be trying to influence me. So, I took
the time to come up and walk every street of it, just so that I was familiar with it.
MR DUNFORD: Let me make my position clear, and if I haven't, I apologise for that
but I thought I had, but let me attempt to do it again. The people I represent are the

29

people who want the Village, who live in the Village. The people I represent do
not like Option 4. The people that I represent say that Option 7 is better for them
who live here, who have a financial stake in this community. The people
I represent say that Option 7 with appropriate adjustments and thinking it is better
for them, they live here, and it is their community.

THE CHAIRMAN: Could I ask you, Mr Dunford, how many people do you represent
and what extent, percentage of the houses in the area, what percentage do you
represent?

MR DUNFORD: I represent the Blackstaff Homeowners Association; I don't know
how many people are members of that.
THE CHAIRMAN: Well, do you not think you should know; is that not a reasonable
thing?
MR DUNFORD: The people I represent, the bulk of them are here today, you can hear
from them, they can tell you that, sir.

THE CHAIRMAN: No, but I know the total number of houses in the area and you are
representing the people who are opposed to the vesting, but I would remind you
that there are lot of people in the area who want the vesting.
MR DUNFORD: Of course there is.

THE CHAIRMAN: And they are going to be listened to as well.

MR DUNFORD: I wouldn't expect anything less.

THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you. So, I mean, for the record again, you don't know how
many people represent?
MR DUNFORD: Not exactly, no.
MR HAWE: You can question me on the plan and the options; that is not really what
today is about. Today is about vesting. This is the plan that has been approved by
the Minister. It has been approved by the Department of Finance. If that plan
cannot be committed, you mean going back to the drawing board and back to
scratch. It is not a question of me agreeing with you that the improvement option is
the better option. I don't have the authority to do that, to change the plan; that has
to go to the Minister.
MR DUNFORD: Could you look at page 79 please, Mr Hawe, in the appraisal?

30

MR HAWE: Yes.

MR DUNFORD: Again, for the benefit of the people here who don't have that
document in front of them, because Mr Chairman, you will have the opportunity of
seeing this at your leisure when you retire to consider your report; I don't know if
you have had the opportunity to see this document?

THE CHAIRMAN: I haven't.
MR DUNFORD: You haven't, you haven't seen the appraisal?
THE CHAIRMAN: Pardon?
MR DUNFORD: You haven't seen the Economic Appraisal?
THE CHAIRMAN: I have seen the Economic Appraisal.
MR DUNFORD: Oh, you have seen it; well, that is the document I have been referring
Mr Hawe to.
THE CHAIRMAN: Yes. Sorry, what I am questioning is, you are challenging the
investments appraisal?
MR DUNFORD: Yes.

THE CHAIRMAN: Which is carried out by the department, by the Housing Executive,
cleared by the department, cleared by the Department of Finance and Personnel and
what I am just alerting you to the fact is what you are challenging?

MR DUNFORD: I am grateful to you, sir. I am aware of what I am challenging, my
instructions.
THE CHAIRMAN: Sorry?
MR DUNFORD: I am very well aware of what I am challenging here but I am grateful
to you for the reminder.
THE CHAIRMAN: I will say again; this is the approved--MR
DUNFORD: I am aware of that.
THE CHAIRMAN: This either goes or it doesn’t go. I either find it in favour--MR
DUNFORD: Yes.
THE CHAIRMAN: --or I find it against. If I find it against, you are back to the
drawing board.
MR DUNFORD: We recognise that.
THE CHAIRMAN: Could I ask the Housing Executive just to clarify for me how long

31

it would take if you go back to the drawing board before we get any work done in

the Village area?

MR HAWE: Well, yes, in terms of actually carrying out the economic appraisal and
full assessment, you are talking about maybe two years to do this and consult and
agree a plan. However, a bigger issue is funding. This, as I said in my
presentation, this plan has funding. It is the only plan that is here, no other plan is
being considered. This plan is the plan that has actually got the funding. If this
plan goes the funding may go.

MR DUNFORD: You use the word plan; there are no actual plans so we can see what
they look like. You use the word plan and I understand you are using that in a
general sense?

MR HAWE: Yes.

MR DUNFORD: Proposal perhaps, can we use that as a term, is that---?

MR HAWE: It is more than a proposal because it has been approved by the board, and
I will repeat this, it has been approved by the board of the Housing Executive. It
has been approved by the Minister and it has been approved by the Department of
Personnel and Finance and it is only this plan that has attracted the funding; no
other plans have attracted the funding.

MR DUNFORD: I understand that. What we don't have therefore is if you look a nice
model that you see of what this would look like, like the Titanic Quarter. I can go
and see a model at the Titanic Quarter as it is meant to look like whenever it is
built.

MR HAWE: Yes, we have--

MR DUNFORD: Sorry, just let me finish the question. What we don't have is that kind
of detail for this plan, is that correct?

MR HAWE: That would be correct and sorry, if I can just elaborate on that because the
process is that we would, and again my colleague will expand on this, once we get
vesting and draw a panel, once we get vesting we set up a design team who will
work in the community in terms of drawing up detailed design for the house type
and the house mix and what type of house people would like to see in the area and
that is part of our process.

32

THE CHAIRMAN: I think I want to clarify this again. I am here to give a judgment as
to whether or not Option 4 is the solution to the problem. If Option 4 is not the
solution to the problem I will not be taking on board Option 7, I will be sending the
whole lot back to the department who will be sending the whole lot back to the
Housing Executive and it is up to them if they don't like what I do, then they don't
appoint me again, but that is my job, I keep it clear, I keep it simple. We are
dealing here with ordinary people like myself and they don't understand all of the
procedures and I think it is important that we clarify these procedures for them, that
is the whole idea of having a Public Inquiry and I certainly do not want people
misled into believing that if they all go for Option 7 and I have asked to be
corrected if I am wrong, that, great, we are going for great Option 7, it suits
everybody; Option 7 is not on the table. It hasn't been funded, there is no funding
for it and if Option 4 falls the money will be reallocated by the Department for
Social Development and referred back to DFP, Department of Finance and
Personnel. So, that is the big danger and this has happened before, you know in my
experience, in my time it has happened before and I just alert you to that. You need
to be very, very careful what you argue for because we are not here to argue here
for something more than Option 4.
MR DUNFORD: Sir, if I have an opposition to Option 4 I have to state the grounds of
my opposition.

THE CHAIRMAN: You are not giving grounds for the opposition; you are, with
respect to you, you are leading this Inquiry towards Option 7 as a better option than
Option 4.

MR DUNFORD: Yes, in this sense and only in a sense--THE
CHAIRMAN: But why, why not introduce an Option 8, which somebody else
will try to do?
MR DUNFORD: Sir, can I just try and address you on your concern if I may, if I may?
THE CHAIRMAN: Yeah.

MR DUNFORD: The reason that we do not like Option 4 is because we think that
Option 7 or something very near to it is better. No, what that means for the purpose
of this inquiry is that we have to come here and say why we do not like Option 4,

33

would we think Option 4 is wrong, why it is bad, why it would not be in the best
interests of this community and the reason in essence why we say that is because
we have a positive approach, an alternative approach that embodies something very
similar to Option 7. I understand that Option 7 is not on the table in the sense that
this Inquiry would say that Option 4 is no good, we therefore recommend Option 7.
I know that this Inquiry cannot do that.

THE CHAIRMAN: Right, as long the audience knows that.
MR DUNFORD: We know that. We know that we would have to go back to the
drawing board but we would have to do that with Option 4 because there aren't at
present any designs for Option 4. There may be funding for the concept called
Option 4 and it maybe yes, sir if option 4---if I can just make this point, sir, it may
be necessary if Option 4 is rejected, for a case then to be made that funding should
be re allocated to some other option and the risk is that for what ever reason,
political or otherwise the decision is taken to say no to that funding. That is the
risk we run, we recognise that but it doesn't make Option 4 any better.

THE CHAIRMAN: It is your opinion that Option 4 isn't the best.
MR DUNFORD: That is right.

THE CHAIRMAN: And what I have seen I think it is better than Option 7.
(The audience applauded)
Now, you have had the Investments Appraisal and I have had the presentation and
then I have asked for copies to proceed. Now, from what I have seen I think
Option 4 is better than Option 7 in my experience. Over 40 years I can assure, if
you go down to Connswater, you name a few places, you go down to Connswater
and you ask the people in Connswater what they would have done 30 years ago had
they been given the chance, would they have gone for a complete vesting and
rebuilding because that is what they ended up with anyway because the
improvement did not work, because when you go to improve houses--

MR DUNFORD: I am sorry, sir, I have to ask you this, are you going to listen
impartially?
THE CHAIRMAN: I am listening impartially. I have given you a very fair hearing and
you have tried to bend the Housing Executive who are the recognized housing

34

experts by Government, they are appointed by Government and they have been in
business a long time; 40 years I think, is that right? And what I am saying is that
you are leading this, or trying to lead over to another option and that is only
confusing the issue.

MR DUNFORD: Sir, I must have an assurance from you in the hearing of this hall that
you will give an impartial hearing to the evidence that you will hear from
Mr Acheson, Miss Harkin and Mr Patten. I have a grave concern, sir that the
indication you have given is that your mind is made up.

THE CHAIRMAN: My mind is not made up. What I am saying is--MR
DUNFORD: I would like, sir, to ask you for a break for 10 minutes so we can
withdraw, we can cool down and we can revisit this?
THE CHAIRMAN: Yes.
MR DUNFORD: Would you grant that?
THE CHAIRMAN: Absolutely.
MR DUNFORD: I am grateful to you.
After a break from 11.55 am until 12.10 pm
THE CHAIRMAN: I understand that Mr Craig Dunford wants to make a public
statement.
MR DUNFORD: Thank you.
THE CHAIRMAN: And I am quite happy to hear it, which means we need to hear it.

MR DUNFORD: The statement, sir is this: This Inquiry in your person has shown
itself to be partial, to be in breach of the rules of natural justice and on behalf of the
Homeowners Association of Blackstaff, I will not prostitute myself before it any
further, I withdraw. (The audience applauds)
MR DUNFORD WITHDREW FROM THE INQUIRY at 12.12 pm.

THE CHAIRMAN: The verbatim report will record that Mr Craig Dunford withdrew
from the Inquiry.
MR DICKSON: Mr Chairman, just as Chairman of Blackstaff Community

Development Association--THE
CHAIRMAN: Would you like to come up here?
MR DICKSON: William Dickson, 31 Broadway Parade, and as Chairman of the

35

Blackstaff Community Development Association, our association is withdrawing

on the same grounds mentioned by Craig Dunford.

THE CHAIRMAN: Sorry, what is your name again please?

MR DICKSON: William Dickson, 31 Broadway Parade.

THE CHAIRMAN: Mr Dickson, before you withdraw, if you give me the courtesy to
speak to you. Mr Dunford has left because he wouldn't hear what I have to say.
I will be repeating what to I have say. I will be consulting with my lawyers for
slander and defamation of character by Mr Dunford.

MR DICKSON: Your words, sir, have made it quite clear that you are partial and
a chairperson has to be impartial; you certainly are not.

Thank you for taking the time to read the above, now compare the words of the Inspector with the information received from the  Department for Social Development, on the Inspectors' s Role:

"The Inspector has to find outthe facts for and againstthe Housing Executive's proposals and to ensure that the inquiry proceed in an orderly manner. Although the inquiry is held in a formal atmosphere, the Inspector will always try to ensure that everyone is at their ease. At the end of the inquiry the Inspector will make a closing statement. He may also arrange a site visit which all interested persons are welcome to attend. After he has considered all the facts,the Inspector submits a report, usually within 6 weeks, and recommendations to the Department, which makes the final decision, normally within 2-3 weeks."

WE BELIEVE THAT BEFORE THE INSPECTOR (CHAIRMAN) HEARD ALL THE EVIDENCE FOR AND AGAINST THE PROPOSALS AND TO GIVE SUFFICIENT TIME TO CONSIDER THEM, HE HAD MADE UP HIS MIND IN OPENLY SUPPORTING OPTION 4. DOES THE FOLLOWING (REPRINTED FROM THE REPORT ABOVE) SUGGEST THAT THE INSPECTOR HAD ALREADY MADE UP HIS MIND ?

THE CHAIRMAN: It is your opinion that Option 4 isn't the best.
MR DUNFORD: That is right.

THE CHAIRMAN: And what I have seen I think it is better than Option 7.
(The audience applauded)

THE APPLAUSE CAME FROM SUPPORTERS OF 100% REDEVELOPMENT AND THEY CLEARLY UNDERSTOOD THAT THE INSPECTOR WAS SUPPORTING OPTION 4.

 

WE WERE DEVASTATED BY THE INSPECTOR'S SUPPORT

FOR OPTION 4

 

If you would like to comment on the contents of this website or apply to join the Blackstaff Community Development Association (Blackstaff Residents) then you can email feedback@blackstaff-residents.org.uk

 

Home Part One Part Two Public Inquiry Report Written Answers Latest News