May 2009 Archives

Terry Hoey Chairman of the Palmerston Residents Association is pleased to say we have formed links with a new community group that has been set up in the lower Holywood Road in East Belfast.

We will work together on the proposed new Stadium planned for the Holywood Road in East Belfast, both groups have fears the site will destroy one of Northern Irelands prestigious routes along the Holywood Road and may wipe out a number of the green spaces.

The proposal is to replace the green spaces with 4000 car park spaces, the community groups involved feel this just cannot be allowed to happen, to destroy green spaces to accommodate a car park is unbelievable. We say to the the Belfast City Council to name any other City in Europe that would destroy a park,trees and wildlife habitat to replace with a car park.

The Planned Stadium will cause so many restrictions to the residents of the Lower Holywood Road, also two of our major schools in the area Ashfield Boys High School And Ashfield Girls High School, it begs the question has any thought gone into this plan, we already have a bottle neck at the Knocknagoney Roundabout on the Holywood Road and the Parkway entrances to the Belfast Side of the Sydenham By Pass at early morning  and throughout the day.

Our greatest fear would be on a match day, we have a lot of young mothers and senior citizens who travel along the Holywood Road to Tesco and the Holywood Exchange, what would the effect be on them if the Stadium was to hold a rock concert how would they get out to shops. We must remember that our planning services have not taken into account the need for local shops in the communities that will live around the proposed Stadium.

We also fear the volume of new vehicles that will travel along the Sydenham By Pass to the Stadium and new traffic that will also travel along to and from the Stadium along Parkway and the Holywood Road. This will make it almost impossible for local residents to carry on their normal daily lives .

Our community will lose out by the removal of our Children's Park, Football Pitches,and the local site that is used for lighting the seasonal bonfire, also clubs that  use the park for model airplane flying it has taken very hard work on behalf of community workers in the area to build a community for our young people, to see the possibility of them losing more resources in an area is beyond belief, the community has already been robbed of one asset to the area that being the Sydenham Youth Hall.

Our groups would like to see a full public inquiry into this proposed site, and to see impact studies on Traffic,Green Spaces,Wildlife and what effect it will have to local residents who live on the lower Holywood Road in their day to day existence. This is a major development planned for the area, we feel that our residents must have a say in this matter before the first sod is cut.

I am the Chairman of Palmerston Residents Association (the 'Association'), an organisation which endeavours to represent the interests of and work for the good of the people living in the area in and around Sydenham in East Belfast. The Association is involved in many projects which it hopes will improve the Sydenham area and benefit it in the long-term. The Association is not a legal entity.   

I first notified the Department of the Environment / Northern Ireland Environment Agency (the 'Challenged Party' or 'CP'), of our interest in having properties at 2 & 4 Station Road, Sydenham, Belfast, BT4 1RE, (the 'subject properties'), listed in and around October 2007; I mentioned in e-mail correspondence at this time my knowledge of the connection between the subject properties and Mr Gustav Wilhelm Wolff, co-founder of Harland & Wolff shipyards and former MP for the East Belfast constituency.

Around 3 months passed and I had heard nothing further from the CP and therefore was becoming anxious that any action was not being taken expeditiously as the properties were in my belief in risk of demolition. I sent a further e-mail in January 2008 to Mr Kirby at the CP, again enquiring of their position in relation to the subject properties and raising my concerns that the properties may be subjected to demolition and therefore requesting that 'spot-listing' be considered by them. In response to this e-mail of same date, Mr Kirby advised that the Senior Conservation Architect would be viewing the subject properties the following day. Copies of the e-mail correspondence referred to in this statement are attached hereto.

I also sent a letter to the Office of the First and Deputy First Minister, dated 27^th January 2008, in which I canvassed for the support of the Senior Ministers in protecting the subject properties, not least because of the perceived risk of demolition. I made clear therein my belief that the properties were worthy of protection because of their historic links to Mr Gustav Wilhelm Wolff. A response to this letter from the Office of First and Deputy First Minister was received, dated 31^st January 2008, stating that the previously mentioned letter had been passed to the CP.

A substantial response from the CP in relation to my letter dated 27^th January 2008 was received, dated 20^th February 2008. The response noted the issues raised by me in respect of the subject properties, in particular it references my plea that the buildings be "saved from destruction" "because of their historical connection with Gustav Wilhelm Wolff and because holding onto this part of our history would sit very well with the Titanic Quarter'". The letter explained that the matter would be considered in due course by Mr Manus Deery, Principal Architect, who would decide whether the properties were worthy of being 'spot listed'.

The next item of correspondence which I received was a letter from Mr Manus Deery, dated 28^th March 2008, advising that the CP was in the process of inspecting and gathering information on the subject properties to determine if same would meet the legislative test for listing. I am aware the subject properties were indeed 'spot listed' in and around the 17^th July 2008.

After hearing that the subject properties had been demolished in and around January 2009, but in advance of hearing of the CP's decision, I contacted my local MLA, Councillor Naomi Long regarding the matter. I am aware that Cllr Long wrote to Councillor Sammy Wilson MP MLA, Minister of the Environment. In Cllr Long's letter to Cllr Wilson, Cllr Long posed a number of questions:

1.      Cllr Long pointed out that it appeared "bizarre" that "at a time when the Northern Ireland Executive and Belfast City Council are investing in a new Titanic Signature project to promote the City's links with that famous vessel...that authentic heritage directly linked to the shipyard is permitted to be demolished."

2.      Whether a formal decision not to list the subject properties was taken and if so, the rationale for this.

3.      Conversely to 2, whether the BPNs were allowed to lapse, permitting the subject properties to be demolished.

A fellow-member of the Association then received a letter from the CP dated 12^th February 2009. This letter advised that a Building Preservation Notice (BPN) was issued by the CP on each of the subject properties on 17^th July 2008, affording both properties protection for a period of 6 months. (up to and including 16^th January 2009). The letter advised that the CP:

"considered all of the available evidence, consultations and representations and concluded that the buildings did not meet the test of Article 42 of the Planning Order 1991 [as amended] i.e. that they did not meet the test of "special architectural or historic interest" required for permanent protection as listed buildings."

The CP then explained its decision in view of the fact that a BPN was initially served upon the owners of the subject properties:

"The substantive difference between the initial and final decision by the Department was the establishment that the buildings were not as unusual and rare as initially thought.....in our view an argument that they were of special architectural interest could not be sustained".

I understand that this view was based on the fact that one of the subject properties had had its Victorian-style interior added in the late Twentieth century whilst the other property's interior had been completely modernised. 'External changes' to the property were also mentioned and in the CP's view this contributed to the decision reached by them.

The letter also addressed my arguments that the buildings should have been protected by reason of their historical association with Gustav Wilhelm Wolff. The CP acknowledges that their own research confirmed the information which had been provided by me and the Association:

"The structures were indeed part of his now gone estate known as 'the Den'. However....though of interest, this was not sufficient grounds upon which to protect the buildings. It did not make the buildings objects of special historical interest".

To explain this decision, the CP made reference to Annex C of Planning Policy Statement 6 (PPS6) which states that:

"in the case of historical associations, there will generally need to be some additional quality or interest in the fabric of the building itself to justify listing. Either the building will have architectural merit in itself or it should be well preserved in a form which directly reveals its historical associations....[for example] because of the survival of

certain particular features.....".

In addition, Cllr Wilson responded to Cllr Long's letter above, and in response thereto made the following points:

1.      A decision not to list the subject properties was taken in advance of the expiration of the BPNs.

2.      As per the reasons outlined above in the correspondence from the CP to the Querist dated 12^th February 2009, the CP concluded that the subject properties were not of special architectural interest.

3.      The Minister acknowledged the historic interest in the subject properties by reason of their association with Gustav Wilhelm Wolff, however he comments that the association though of interest was not of sufficient 'weight' to justify listing. The Minister refers as his Department did to PPS6, Annex C, which is as stated above. The Minister concludes that as the subject properties had been altered since Wolff's time, historic associations were not directly revealed and therefore the subject properties were not eligible for listing.

Both myself and the Association and many of the local residents in our area are deeply aggrieved by the decision taken by the CP in respect of the subject properties. Having sought legal advice, I am not satisfied that their decision was correct. I wish to seek redress, by way of Judicial Review, to challenge their decision and have same publicly declared erroneous by a Court of law. Hopefully if we are successful this would ensure the future of other historic properties which will not suffer the same fate as a result of poor decision making by the public body in question.