Bangor: Work to begin on long-delayed Queen's Parade project
The site was bought by the Department for Communities (DfC) back in 2013 and in 2019, Bangor Marine was selected as the developer for the project.At that time, the developer was a consortium made up of Karl Group and Farrans, who pulled out before Christmas and have since been replaced by Oakland Holdings.The investment is expected to cost £145m, with around half of that funding (£73m) coming from the Belfast City Deal.The developer is investing £50m, £10m has come from the UK government's Levelling Up Fund and almost £10m has been invested by the department so far.
'A bright future'
Communities Minister Gordon Lyons said he was "absolutely delighted" that work could now progress.He said he could understand that some residents might be "sceptical", given previous delays."We're at the end of this process but we're starting work now which is the important bit. This will be completed in its entirety over the next three to four years and I can't wait for that work to start."
Ards and North Down Mayor Alistair Cathcart described the start of work as "an important and positive milestone" but said he would "only be fully satisfied when there are "diggers on site". Aran Blackbourne of Bangor Marine said the developer looked forward "to working with all parties to deliver this very exciting and important regeneration scheme".
Analysis
John Campbell, BBC News NI business and economics editorBangor is the largest settlement in NI's most prosperous area and has fast transport links to Belfast.So in theory transforming a stretch of its waterfront should have been a straightforward and commercially attractive process.In practice there has been almost 30 years of failure and disappointment.The property and banking crisis of the late 2000s cast a long shadow over the project, alongside the need for redesigns and the usual planning issues.Now there is a promise that work will finally begin within weeks, though Bangor citizens will take some convincing that it has been worth the wait.
What does the Queen's Parade project involve?
Construction on the first phase of the project, the public realm scheme, is hoped to start by the end of this month and run for 13 months.It will include a new play park, two pavilions, kiosks with food and beverage offerings, an events space, and associated landscaping. The second phase will be largely residential apartments and also retail. It is due to begin in October.A hotel and office space will be included in the third phase. The fourth phase of more apartments and a cinema is expected to start in 2027, with completion due summer 2028.
Timeline
January 1999: Outline planning permission for a redevelopment scheme in the Queen's Parade area is first granted.In the coming years, the project will go through various redesigns, be held up by land acquisition issues and endure the property crash.December 2012: The then Department for Social Development (DSD) agrees to buy the development site from developer Karl Greenfarm Properties.2013: Approval to take forward the scheme is granted to the DSD, and work begins to acquire all the required properties within the site boundary. July 2015: Planning approval for the development is awarded to the department.May 2019: Bangor Marine, a joint venture partnership between Karl Group and Farrans, signs a development agreement with the DfC and council to deliver the scheme.January 2020: The developers submit a planning application for the development.February 2021: The Department for Infrastructure (DfI) issues a holding direction on the proposal over concerns about potential flooding at the site linked to a reservoir in Clandeboye.March 2022: The then Infrastructure Minister Nichola Mallon confirms the DfI will not review the application, returning it to the council for further action, allowing the project to move forward.September 2022: Full planning permission is granted.
January 2023: The project gets a £9.8m boost from the UK government's Levelling Up Fund.February 2024: Pre-construction clearance work begins, in preparation for what is billed as construction work beginning later that summer.November 2024: It is announced that work is now expected to begin in January 2025.February 2025: Bangor Marine's Aran Blackbourne says that "outstanding legal issues" mean the expected start date for construction work is mid-April.May 2025: Bangor Marine tells BBC News NI that legal documentation is still being finalised. Later in the month, the council confirms that Belfast-based Oakland Holdings will replace Farrans in the consortium. It says the final legal documents can now be signed to enable work to begin on site.June 2025: The DfC announces that work will begin on the project.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
.jpeg%3Ftrim%3D0%2C66%2C0%2C65%26width%3D1200%26height%3D800%26crop%3D1200%3A800&w=3840&q=100)
The Independent
a few seconds ago
- The Independent
What next for social media ‘martyr' Lucy Connolly after leaving prison?
Lucy Connolly is out of jail. She was one of about 1,800 arrested for offences during riots last summer in the wake of the Southport murders. Connolly, from Northampton, was convicted and jailed for publishing 'threatening or abusive' material on social media including an incitement to 'set fire to all the f****** hotels full of the bastards for all I care.' Hers is one of the more high-profile cases and some activists have taken up her cause, claiming she has been a victim of 'two tier' policing, harsh sentencing, and restricted free speech. Her sentence was 31 months; a bid to reduce it was rejected by the Court of Appeal in May. Under current early release rules, she is allowed out on licence for the remainder of her sentence, having served 40 per cent. What did Connolly do wrong? Her supporters mostly concede that what she said was wrong, but many also minimise it as mere 'hurty words' for which nobody should be given a custodial sentence. There is also the suspicion in some quarters that the punishment was heavier because of political pressure; the prime minister said at the time that the full force of the law should be brought down on offenders. But her case was carefully examined at Birmingham Crown Court and at the Court of Appeal. The facts were not in dispute, she pled guilty, and the judges have considered the context and acted within the guidelines approved by ministers. What did she post on social media? The mother-of-three, who was working as a childminder at the time and is the wife of a Tory councillor, wrote a number of messages but attention focused on this X post that was later deleted: ''Mass deportation now. Set fire to all the fucking hotels full of the bastards for all I care. While you're at it, take the treacherous government and politicians with them. I feel physically sick knowing what these families will now have to endure. If that makes me racist, so be it.' While visible, it had been viewed 310,000 times and reposted 940 times. Four days earlier, Connolly had responded to a video shared online by Tommy Robinson, showing a black male being tackled to the ground for allegedly masturbating in public. 'Somalian, I guess. Loads of them,' she wrote, adding a vomiting emoji. Five days after the Southport murders Connolly stated on social media, referencing an anti-racism demo: 'Oh good. I take it they will all be in line to sign up to house an illegal boat invader then. Oh sorry, refugee. Maybe sign a waiver to say they don't mind if it's one of their family that gets attacked, butchered, raped etc, by unvetted criminals. Not all heroes wear capes.' Another message, on WhatsApp, read: 'The raging tweet about burning down hotels has bit me on the arse lol.' Another message, sent later, was in response to the furore she'd caused. According to the Court of Appeal, in another message she said she intended to tell authorities she had been the victim of doxing and went on to say that if she got arrested she would 'play the mental health card'. Did she have a defence? According to the Court of Appeal: 'The stabbings of the children in Southport had put her into a rage. She said she felt hatred about the incident and the circumstances, not about race. She said she had taken the post down because she realised it was wrong. Later in the interview she said her tweets were not racial and she had no intention to cause hate or racial issues.' Is she a hero? To some, she is akin to Emmeline Pankhurst or Joan of Arc. Senior members of the Trump administration have raised questions about freedom of speech in the UK as a result of the treatment of those who sent messages and were subsequently convicted of public order offences. Nigel Farage, leader of Reform UK, has lauded her in these terms: 'Welcome to freedom, Lucy Connolly. You are now a symbol of Keir Starmer's authoritarian, broken, two-tier Britain.' Kemi Badenoch has attacked the way the courts treated Connolly, going in hard on the two-tier charge: 'Lucy Connolly finally returns home to her family today. At last. Her punishment was harsher than the sentences handed down for bricks thrown at police or actual rioting… meanwhile, former Labour councillor Ricky Jones called for protestors to have their throats slit. Charged with encouraging violent disorder, he pleaded not guilty and was acquitted by a jury who saw his words as a disgusting remark made in the heat of the moment, not a call to action.' Connolly will have no shortage of media outlets, some highly sympathetic, on which to appear should she wish. What does Keir Starmer think? He thinks politicians should stay out of the courtroom, and has no regrets. He told the Commons in May: 'Sentencing is a matter for our courts, and I celebrate the fact that we have independent courts in this country. I am strongly in favour of free speech … but I am equally against incitement to violence against other people.' What will happen next? Another extended skirmish in Britain's endless and debilitating culture wars. Maybe that chap who took a brick to his testes during the disturbances will be the next contender for martyrdom.
Daily Mail
a minute ago
- Daily Mail
Ex-minister Liam Fox probes Chinook disaster over his 'deep concerns'
Former Defence Secretary Sir Liam Fox is carrying out an investigation into the 1994 RAF Chinook disaster on the Mull of Kintyre after voicing 'deep concerns' about the crash. He intervened as families of the victims accused the Ministry of Defence (MoD) of 'gaslighting' them by refusing to answer unresolved questions. Relatives of senior British intelligence personnel killed in the helicopter tragedy are suing the MoD in a bid to end what they describe as three decades of secrecy. As Defence Secretary back in 2011, Sir Liam published the results of an independent review which recommended that an earlier finding that the pilots were negligent to a gross degree should be 'set aside'. Now Sir Liam has spoken of 'very deep concerns' about the circumstances surrounding the crash which killed 25 senior intelligence experts and four Special Forces crew. Campaigners say the MoD's decision to seal the Chinook files for 100 years had 'further heightened suspicions of a cover-up'. Sir Liam has held a private meeting with some of the 47 children of those who were killed on June 2, 1994 in a Chinook Mk 2. Calls for a public inquiry have been rejected both by the Prime Minister and the MoD and the families are now pursuing a judicial review at the High Court under Article II of the Human Rights Act, which protects the right to life. Sir Liam said: 'It was my pleasure to meet some of the members of the Chinook Justice Campaign and to listen to their harrowing stories and their suspicions about what may have happened. 'I share their very deep concerns about the circumstances surrounding the crash and I have committed to a full investigation to ensure that the truth is laid before the British people. 'As the Defence Secretary who, after the conclusions of the Mull of Kintyre Review, cleared the two pilots of blame, I have assured the families that I will give this my full attention and help to establish the truth about what happened.' According to campaigners, evidence which has been leaked to the families – and is available on the Chinook Justice Campaign website – confirms that the aircraft was not airworthy and should never have taken off on that fateful flight. Andy Tobias, whose father, Lieutenant Colonel John Tobias, 41, was killed, said the 'support of Sir Liam Fox means a huge amount to all of the families'. He said: 'The MoD keeps telling us that no new inquiry is necessary, and points to the judge-led inquiry set up by Sir Liam which was established solely to discover whether the pilots were to blame. 'They were cleared; given Sir Liam supports our case – then the MoD's argument is void. 'They must stop trying to gaslight the families of the dead.' Flight Lieutenants Jonathan Tapper and Richard Cook were both UK Special Forces pilots with exemplary service records. Two RAF Air Marshals ruled the pair were 'grossly negligent', effectively overturning a previous inquiry. It took nearly 17 years for the pilots' families to clear their names. An MoD spokesman said: 'It's unlikely that a public inquiry would identify any new evidence or reach new conclusions on the basis of existing evidence.'
Telegraph
a minute ago
- Telegraph
‘Gay' Nigerian criminal can stay in UK despite using wife to claim asylum
A Nigerian jailed for violence has won a legal battle against deportation after claiming to be gay despite having been married to a woman and fathering a child by another. The man who arrived in Britain in 1983 made a series of initial asylum claims unrelated to his sexuality. Originally he claimed he would face persecution because of his political opinions. But when this was rejected, he sought leave to remain on the basis that he had married a woman living in the UK. After this argument was dismissed by the Home Office, he sought the right to remain after fathering a son. He claimed his removal from the UK would be a breach of his rights to a family life under article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). Jailed for violence Soon after he was jailed for four years for violent disorder, leading to the Government issuing an order for him to be deported. Once out of jail, he said he entered into a three-year relationship with a man, after which he submitted a claim to remain in Britain on the basis that he would be persecuted for being gay if returned to his home country. After a final appeal hearing, immigration judges ruled that they were 'satisfied to the lower standard' that he was gay, which would expose him to the 'real risk of persecution' if he was returned to his African homeland. 'Accordingly the appellant has a well-founded fear of persecution and he therefore qualifies for protection under the Refugee Convention,' they ruled. 'We are also satisfied that the appellant's removal would breach his rights under articles 3 and 8 of the ECHR.' Article 3 of the ECHR protects against persecution, torture and ill treatment. The case has been revealed in court documents, obtained by The Telegraph, and is the latest where migrants or foreign criminals have used human rights legislation to avoid deportation. Yvette Cooper, the Home Secretary, is proposing to restrict judges' powers to grant asylum under the ECHR articles 3 and 8 amid concerns a third of cases are now being approved for 'exceptional' reasons. The man, granted anonymity by immigration judges, claimed he had a gay relationship with a friend while at school in Africa. He came to Britain in 1983 but overstayed and left in 1992 before re-entering the UK in 1996, when he unsuccessfully claimed asylum on the basis of his political opinion. Marriage ends in divorce After unsuccessfully applying to stay on the basis of his marriage to a Portuguese woman in 2000, the couple divorced. According to the man he was 'in denial about his sexual orientation' when he started another relationship with a woman. They had a son in 2001. Two years later, he was convicted of violent disorder, after which he mounted a legal effort to avoid deportation, culminating in an appeal in 2015 based on the fact that he was gay. In evidence, he cited communications from his family in Nigeria over his relationship with a man from 2010 to 2013. He told the court they had told him to end it, saying he was 'bringing the family into ridicule and shame'. They said they would inform the security services of his sexuality. After his case was initially rejected, it was put before an upper tribunal where the judges accepted he had made 'numerous unsuccessful attempts to regularise his stay in the UK' and had 'a clear motivation for maintaining his claim to be gay and to fabricate having had a further relationship with a man'. 'However, we consider that the appellant's account should not be rejected solely because of his immigration history or because he did not rely on his sexual orientation to remain in the UK prior to 2015,' they said. They also found his evidence to be 'plausible and internally consistent,' ultimately ruling that his appeal should be upheld.
