Ebrington site can serve the city in so many ways

In November 2001, I visited Tony Blair in Downing Street, having been elected deputy First Minister by the Assembly.
Mark Durkan MP. INLS4713-102KMMark Durkan MP. INLS4713-102KM
Mark Durkan MP. INLS4713-102KM

I told him of an idea I had put to David Trimble, the First Minister, about a conversion strategy for former – or then hopefully soon-to-be-former – military, police or prison sites. Ebrington was the main example which I gave.

This would need the Treasury to abandon its rules on the market sale of such sites.

Hide Ad
Hide Ad

Recognising the opportunity for “swords into ploughshares” and creating a shared development agenda out of the divided attitudes to “normalisation” or “demilitarisation”, the Prime Minister agreed to help.

We had already had the experience of getting the Treasury to set aside its “market-sale” rule for the MoD’s remaining lease at Fort George.

As Finance Minister, I had got David Trimble and Seamus Mallon to intervene with the Treasury when they were compelling the MoD to sell the remaining years of their lease at Fort George rather than allow the site revert to its owners, the Port and Harbour.

With some difficulty, we had succeeded in affirming the primacy of the local public interest.

Hide Ad
Hide Ad

The MoD owned the Ebrington site, so getting it for the city was going to be a bigger ask from the Treasury.

What was clear to me was that both sites were strategic, riverside opportunities whose post-military civic re-use could be transformative for the city. As well as setting up the negotiations between ourselves and the Treasury and identifying other sites in the north, we had to think about a model for managing the possible development of Ebrington and Fort George.

Even if Fort George were to be developed by the Port (which later became legally questionable) there was the challenge not just of optimising the two sites but ensuring complementarity between them both as well as encouraging wider development in the city.

My Special Advisor, Damian McAteer, and I were clear that a “special purpose vehicle” would be needed to deliver development at Ebrington and co-ordinate with Fort George’s plans.

Hide Ad
Hide Ad

Our idea was that such an entity would not just deliver development and best use of the site but would yield any future profits or returns by way of a civic dividend.

We did not firm up a specific model while we were still negotiating with the Treasury. We also wanted to allow an inclusive consultative forum to give due thought to best ideas following any agreement that we were getting on Ebrington.

Along with Tony Blair and Gordon Brown, David Trimble and I announced the package for transferring the sites – including Ebrington, the Maze and Crumlin Road – in May 2002 as part of the “Reinvestment and Reform Initiative”.

It was going to be late 2003 at the earliest for the MoD to vacate Ebrington.

Hide Ad
Hide Ad

Together in Derry – at an event on the Toucan One – David Trimble and I announced that a “Partnership and Regeneration” forum “involving all parts of the community and all parts of government” would scope development and use models for Ebrington.

At the time, I pointed to the example of Laganside in Belfast, and asked if we could learn from its transformative dynamic, but improve on some of the civic transparency complaints from Belfast councillors.

It should be remembered that there were very mixed reactions to the news that Ebrington was going to be bequeathed to the city via the Executive.

For many ,it was an unknown, uncomfortable or unworthy site.

Hide Ad
Hide Ad

“Bad history, bad memories, bad location” I was told by some nationalist and republican voices.

They disputed my claim that the site could be developed as a different space for the city as a whole.

“How would we get to it?” I was asked. When I replied that we could build a bridge, some sneered. Some even said that I was mad.

On the other hand, there were strident demands that the site had to be developed by and for the Waterside alone.

Hide Ad
Hide Ad

We were told that both the inclusive nature of the Partnership and Regeneration Panel and the emphasis on “the city as a whole” were discriminating against the interests and identity of the Waterside.

Thankfully, experience, events and the Peace Bridge have yielded far more positive and growing perspectives about Ebrington’s new place in the city.

Of course, the issue became not just about site but structure – in terms of governance, development and oversight. In October 2002, the Executive and Assembly were suspended in the aftermath of “Spygate / Stormontgate”.

When I ceased to be deputy First Minister, my ability to influence the model for managing Ebrington and Fort George was diminished.

Hide Ad
Hide Ad

However, both Damian McAteer and I continued to engage with the “Direct Rule” Ministers with mixed effect.

It became clearer that the civil service were averse to anything like a “Laganside” model for Derry.

The Direct Rule Minister handling this issue, Ian Pearson, had working experience and knowledge of Urban Regeneration Companies in England. This was the terminology increasingly used in discussions about a development vehicle for the Derry sites.

This period also saw the Fort George site move from the Port to DSD for a budget transfer by Ian Pearson, for which we had lobbied.

Hide Ad
Hide Ad

When Ian Pearson chose the URC model based on his personal experience in England, he also, apparently at the behest of civil servants, tied it into a government department and therefore subject to its approvals.

In ongoing meetings with him as the suspended deputy First Minister, I questioned this approach which he defended mainly on the grounds that OFMDFM now owned the Ebrington site.

I pointed out that OFMDFM had been chosen to receive the site from the MoD on behalf of the Executive, but the intention had not been for OFMDFM to be the long-term owners of the site.

(The Treasury’s plans at that time for capital charges on departmental assets were another reason for finding a public interest holding ownership model outside of departmental assets and approvals).

Hide Ad
Hide Ad

As a measure of my disagreement with the Direct Rule Minister’s choices on this and other aspects of the “Reinvestment and Reform Initiative”, I declined to participate further in the formal regular meetings which we had with the suspended First Ministers and advisors.

I told Ian Pearson that I would not be able to pick out his version of things in an identity parade as the approach we intended.

While Ilex may not have been set up with the model, mandate or name I might have preferred, its role and potential were still important.

Its first and subsequent board membership showed calibre and capacity.

Hide Ad
Hide Ad

But the sense quickly emerged that they felt trammelled by the degree of civil service control and bureaucratic requirements.

It was also apparent that there was a level of scepticism amidst the confused expectations locally.

How the Ilex brief in terms of converting strategic sites while also having regard for wider economic development in the city brought many questions about relationships with other bodies and sectors. This reinforced the need for a wider representative forum to help “oversee” and support Ilex’s broader work.

That is why we have had the mutations between the Civic Regeneration Forum and Strategy Board with an emphasis on inclusion.

Mission clarity has been an issue.

Hide Ad
Hide Ad

Sometimes some have questioned the relevance or legitimacy of a role for Ilex on an issue.

At other times, the query has been why Ilex does not have more of a role and resources to tackle given issues.

A tension between the “core business” of strategic sites and piloting an economic masterplan for the city sometimes emerged in the questions being asked of Ilex.

Some of the conflicting criticisms and competing priorities suggested have come from the same people – not always out of capriciousness, but sometimes in response to different circumstances or issues.

Hide Ad
Hide Ad

Some of us have occasionally fretted about “mission creep”, but at times have called on Ilex to play active roles beyond its pure remit.

Ilex was clearly a decisive agent in the City of Culture bid. It was also key in maximising Derry’s successful call on the Integrated Development Fund.

That Fund was established by Ian Pearson as Finance Minister in response to our proposals after the closure of Desmonds.

It acted as an additional Executive Programme Fund beyond those I had created when Finance Minister.

Hide Ad
Hide Ad

The principle was to support projects and interventions crossing different sectors and departmental programmes. Indeed, the cutting edge C-TRIC centre at Altnagelvin was developed using money from the Integrated Development Fund, which also delivered investments such as Skeoge Business Park, the Walled City Tourism Project and the Robotics Centre at Magee.

While the good ideas and pressing cases came from various bodies and interests, we called on Ilex to marshal these into a compelling overall bid with well-refined cases for each project proposed.

Again, such work might be judged not to be in Ilex’s short brief, but Ilex was used productively to perform that very helpful purpose.

That engagement with different sectors to produce a platform of investment interventions had a deadline to meet and Ilex exercised editorial control.

Hide Ad
Hide Ad

The journey to the One Plan was far more extensive, and inclusive, with long intensive consultation demanded with revising, refining and rebalancing and redrafting. Again, many participants and consultees complained of the time taken and felt that the climate for public finance was changing for the worse while this dragged on.

However, for others, time and care had to be taken to ensure credibility, ownership and ambition – and for this, the last word should not lie with Ilex itself.

There was validity in both of these perspectives, as they reflected different concerns to see results for people here. If anyone does want to rue the delays involved and less favourable timing for the One Plan arriving with the Executive, they ought not to blame Ilex for either the delay or the patchiness of the Executive’s adoption of the Plan.

The strongest questions about Ilex’s performance relate to its (different) stewardship roles at Ebrington and Fort George. As the person who conceived the conversion of Ebrington for the city, I did not foresee it taking so long.

Hide Ad
Hide Ad

There may be some arguments about delays suffered by Ilex versus delays caused by Ilex.

Some of the obstacles experienced might have been inevitable, but I do believe that a different model and management mandate would have delivered better traction and earlier action.

On the most important positive side, no-one should gainsay the quality of the Ebrington space, its proven value or its promising potential.

We all want to see more there and the sooner the better.

The current consultation on the Ebrington Development Framework is an opportunity to emphasise the special and varied potential of Ebrington to serve the whole city in so many ways.

Hide Ad
Hide Ad

Ilex need to listen when artistic leadership in the city ask for a rethink on the best future use of a building already meeting Tate exhibition standards. It is not good enough just to quote the earlier plan and the fact that it was not challenged then.

If “consultation” means anything, and if we are serious about cultural legacy, then we should try to heed the counsel from cultural advocates of proven pedigree.

But the issue about the future use of Buildings 80 and 81 should not eclipse all the other ideas and ambitions for the Ebrington space.

There are also questions about the future of Ilex and/or the role it serves. The functions of a new, bigger Council will include a lead in regeneration and “Community Planning”.

Hide Ad
Hide Ad

Ilex’s work on the score and orchestration for the One Plan and then tracking and backing its implementation could largely pass well to the future Council.

Of course, care will be needed with shaping and equipping the appropriate Council set-up for this to enable the productive social partnership required.

Development /management responsibility for Ebrington should not, however, follow as well.

A new Council serving from Eglinton to Newtonstewart will not be able to give Ebrington the bespoke attention it needs.

Hide Ad
Hide Ad

A Public Interest Trust with that mandate can be held to account by the Council and complement the Council’s wider plans.

There would be options for ownership of Ebrington to transfer to that same Public Interest Trust or another distinct holding Trust.

Thinking back to a “Laganside” variant, Trust Port models of ownership, governance and market performance and other Development Trust models we have seen, we could find vehicle designs and specs for taking forward Ilex’s strategic site mandate and for rooting site ownership in, and for, this city.

We need to thoughtfully refine and redefine Ilex’s role for the future.

Hide Ad
Hide Ad

That debate must not take on any tone of recrimination, turf-squaring or glib negativity.

A public interest development model that has flexibility and accountability is both necessary and feasible as a driver of dynamic development.

It would be a mistake to think that Ilex’s roles should all be absorbed into regional and local government departments.

The choices to be made about roles and responsibilities for the future can be made in light of One Plan ambitions and priorities which have been already agreed.

Those choices are about ensuring we have the right toolset to make the most of key assets and build best on the different opportunities in front of us.

Related topics: