Ards and North Down Borough Council a G E N

ARDS AND NORTH DOWN BOROUGH COUNCIL

11 December 2015

Dear Sir/Madam

You are hereby invited to attend a meeting of the Ards and North Down Borough Council which will be held in the Council Chamber, Town Hall, The Castle, Bangor on Thursday, 17 December 2015 commencing at 7.00pm.

Yours faithfully

Stephen Reid Chief Executive Ards and North Down Borough Council

A G E N D A

1. Prayer

2. Apologies

3. Declarations of Interest

4. Mayor’s Business

5. Mayor and Deputy Mayor Engagements for the Month (To be tabled)

6. Minutes of Meeting of 25 November 2015 (Copy attached)

7. Minutes of Committees

7.1. Planning Committee dated 1 December 2015 (Copy attached)

7.2. Environment Committee dated 2 December 2015 (Copy attached)

7.3. Corporate Services Committee dated 8 December 2015 (Copy attached)

7.3.1. Arising from Corporate Minutes – Staffing Matter (Copy attached)

7.4. Community and Wellbeing Committee dated 9 December 2015 (Copy attached)

7.5. Regeneration and Development Committee dated 3 December 2015 (Copy attached) 7.6. Audit Committee dated 14 December 2015 (Copy attached)

8. Request for Deputation

8.1. ADSEA (Copy documentation attached)

9. Consultation Documents

9.1. Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety – Helicopter Emergency Medical Service (HEMS) for Northern Ireland – Comments to be submitted no later than 22 January 2016 (Copy attached) 9.2. Consultation on NI Local Government Code of Conduct – Alternative Action Proposals – Comments to be submitted no later than 15 January 2016 (Copy report and consultation document attached) 9.3. Department of the Environment – Use of Seat Belts by Child Passengers Aged 3-13 Years on Buses and Coaches – Comments to be submitted no later than 5 February 2016 (Copy attached) 9.4. Consultation on the Proposed Amendment to the Strangford Lough Ferry Service Timetable – Comments to be submitted no later than 18 December 2015 (Copy report attached)

10. Transfers of Rights of Burial

11. Sealing Documents

12. United Nations Association NI – Event to Mark 70th Anniversary of Formation of United Nations (Copy attached)

13. Her Majesty The Queen's 90th Birthday Celebrations – Lighting of a Beacon – (Copy attached)

14. Community Support Programme: Letter of Variance for 2015-2016 (Report attached)

15. Notice of Motions

15.1. Notice of Motion submitted by Councillor Cooper & Councillor Armstrong

"That officers bring back a report on the current facilities for changing adults in disabled toilets, with a view to providing widespread provision for carers with an elevated surface for changing nappies and soiled clothing due to their disability".

15.2. Notice of Motion submitted by Councillor McIlveen and Councillor Kennedy

"That this Council welcomes the recommendation by the Department of Justice to retain Newtownards Courthouse following the recent consultation on rationalisation of the court estate, is disappointed to note that a threat continues to hang over the future of this courthouse and calls for the Council to develop proposals, on its own and in partnership with its community and statutory partners, to maximise the use of Newtownards Courthouse with a view to ensuring that access to justice remains in the Borough”.

15.3 Notice of Motion submitted by Councillor Muir

“That this Council agrees to urgently write to the Minister for Regional Development requesting that she instruct NI Water to remove Cairn Wood Forest, Craigantlet from sale and leave it within public hands open for public use on the same basis as enjoyed by many over previous decades”.

15.4 Notice of Motion submitted by Councillor Cathcart

“That this Council, in noting that the toilet block at McKee Clock is the only manned Council toilet facility that charges for use in the Borough, removes the charges in the interests of equity of facilities throughout the Borough”.

16. Conferences

16.1. Local Government Reform – Lagan Valley Island, Lisburn – 4 February 2016 (Copy information attached)

***IN CONFIDENCE***

17. Bangor Summer Festival Contract Extension (Copy attached)

Circulated for Information

(a) Minutes of the Annual Public Meeting of the SEHSCT held on 28 September 2015 (Copy attached) (b) Briefing Document for Meet and Greet with Councillors (Copy attached) (c) Extinguishment of Public Right of Way Order no. 1 2015 Bangor Kilclief Gardens (Copy letter from the Housing Executive) (d) Portavogie Post Office – Proposed Move to New Premises and Branch Modernisation (Copy letter from the Post Office) (e) Northern Ireland Water – Holywood/Kinnegar Sewer Network Improvements Project (Copy letter from Northern Ireland Water)

MEMBERSHIP OF ARDS AND NORTH DOWN BOROUGH COUNCIL

Alderman Angus Carson Councillor Cummings Alderman Alan Chambers Councillor Dunne Alderman Robert Gibson Councillor Edmund Alderman Deborah Girvan Councillor Ferguson Alderman Alan Graham (Mayor) Councillor Fletcher Alderman Ian Henry Councillor Gilmour Alderman Wesley Irvine Councillor Kennedy Alderman Bill Keery Councillor Leslie Alderman Alan McDowell Councillor Martin Alderman Marion Smith Councillor McClean (Deputy Mayor) Councillor Adair Councillor McIlveen Councillor Allen Councillor Menagh Councillor Anderson Councillor Muir Councillor Armstrong Councillor Roberts Councillor Armstrong-Cotter Councillor Robinson Councillor Barry Councillor Smart Councillor Boyle Councillor T Smith Councillor Brooks Councillor Thompson Councillor Cathcart Councillor Walker Councillor Cooper Councillor Wilson

ITEM 6

ARDS AND NORTH DOWN BOROUGH COUNCIL

A meeting of the Ards and North Down Borough Council was held in the Town Hall, The Castle, Bangor on Wednesday, 25 November 2015 commencing at 7.00pm.

PRESENT:

In the Chair: The Mayor (Alderman Graham)

Other Members: Deputy Mayor Councillor McClean

Aldermen: Carson Chambers Gibson Henry Irvine Keery McDowell M Smith

Councillors: Adair Gilmour Anderson Kennedy Armstrong Leslie Barry Martin (8.06pm) Boyle McIlveen Brooks Menagh Cathcart Muir Cooper Robinson Cummings Smart Dunne T Smith Edmund Thompson Ferguson Walker Fletcher Wilson

Officers: Chief Executive (S Reid), Director of Organisational Development and Administration (W Monson), Director of Community and Wellbeing (G Bannister), Director Environment (D Lindsay), Head of Regeneration (B Dorrian), Head of Economic Development and Tourism (C McGill), Compliance Manager (S Teer), Democratic Services Manager (J Wilson) and Democratic Services Officer (E Brown)

1. PRAYER

The Mayor (Alderman Graham) commenced the meeting by reading a passage of scripture.

NOTED.

C.25.11.15

2. APOLOGIES

Apologies were received from Alderman Girvan and Councillors Armstrong-Cotter, Allen and Roberts.

3. DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST

The Mayor (Alderman Graham) asked for any declarations of interest.

Alderman McDowell declared an interest in Item 7.3 – Environment Committee Minutes, Item 15 and also Item 7.3.1.

Councillor Muir declared an interest in Item 7.4 – Regeneration and Development Committee Minutes, Item 12.2, as an employee of Translink.

NOTED.

4. MAYOR’S BUSINESS

Paris Attacks

The Mayor (Alderman Graham) referred to the recent tragedy in Paris. He paid tribute to Peter Caldwell and his team for their prompt and efficient attention in respect of illuminating the Town Hall in Newtownards with the colours of the French flag, in respect of the terrible events.

At this stage in the meeting members observed a minute’s silence to pay tribute to those who had lost their lives and those who had been impacted by the events in Paris.

NOTED.

Attacks in the Borough

The Mayor then reported on the cowardly attack earlier that day on Mr Aaron McMahon at his home in Clandeboye. Mr McMahon had been a volunteer community worker for a number of years and had achieved many positive things within the community in the Clandeboye area of Bangor. The attack had begun at approximately 4.30pm that afternoon, when the assailants broke into Mr McMahon’s premises and subjected him to a brutal physical attack. The attackers had only ceased from their violence when Mr McMahon’s wife and children arrived on the scene. Mr McMahon sustained several injuries and was taken to hospital to receive treatment. The Mayor stated this was unacceptable and abhorrent behaviour and as such the Council should stand shoulder to shoulder with Mr McMahon and his family, adding that his thoughts and prayers were with them at this time.

The Mayor also reported that police were investigating a suspected pipe bomb attack in Carrowdore earlier that day, which had caused damage to a residential property. He condemned all such violence and stated that the Council had to stand against such attacks and threats. 2

C.25.11.15

Councillor Barry commented that he personally knew Mr McMahon and he condemned this despicable paramilitary behaviour. He advised that Mr McMahon had been beaten with hammers by masked attackers who had also had a getaway car ready to make their escape. He continued this was an organised act of intimidation and a tremendous error on the part of the attackers as their action would only serve to bring people together. He further stated the Council must stand firm against those who wished to intimidate others and condemned such actions. He wished Mr McMahon a speedy recovery and expressed that his thoughts were with the family at this time.

Echoing the words of Councillor Barry, Councillor Muir condemned this unacceptable behaviour and stated this had to be a watershed moment. He continued there was no role for paramilitarism and criminality and it should not be tolerated, and he condemned paramilitarism in any form.

Alderman Smith concurred with all the previous comments and highlighted that Mr McMahon was involved with the Clandeboye Young People’s Association and had supported it in many ways. She continued it was heart-breaking to hear that a good man had been attacked in such a way, and expressed her disappointment as she had believed these sorts of incidents had been left behind. She expressed her best wishes to Mr McMahon and his family.

Alderman Henry expressed his shock at the incident and stated that this type of thuggery in the Borough could not be tolerated. He stated the Council had to support the family and speak out against such behaviour. He appealed to the public to come forward with any relevant information.

Councillor Menagh also rose to condemn this attack, without reservation.

Alderman Keery concurred with the above speakers and advised that he had known Mr McMahon from a young age through his involvement with the Sea Cadets. He expressed his shock at the attack and appealed for information that would lead to the arrest of the perpetrators.

Councillor Boyle also condemned the attack and expressed his shock at this tragic news. Continuing, he advised of his personal knowledge of the impact of hammer attacks on individuals and stated the situation could have resulted in a murder if Mr McMahon’s wife had not arrived when she did.

Councillor Robinson concurred with the above remarks, stating that Mr McMahon had been beaten up because he had taken a stand against bullies. She continued that paramilitaries were still stalking communities and expressed her wish that something be done to address this and improve the conditions for voluntary community workers to prevent reoccurrence of such violence.

Alderman Chambers also concurred with members’ comments.

Councillor Fletcher expressed his condemnation of the attack and believed that the Council should take action to show support to the family at this time. He suggested

C.25.11.15 that a visit to the family by the Mayor and Deputy Mayor would be a welcomed show of support to the family. In response, the Mayor advised that a friend of the family had indicated to him that a future visit would be welcomed, however currently the family would like some time to come to terms with what had happened. As such, the visit would be left to a more appropriate time.

Councillor Leslie advised he was a personal friend and neighbour of Mr McMahon and he reported that a power struggle had been on-going for some time. He had encouraged Mr McMahon to continue with his work in the community and to stand against the bullying behaviour, as so many good things had already been achieved including a youth club which had benefitted the young people in the community.

The Deputy Mayor (Councillor McClean) stated that the incident was contemptible and directed the Council to review what it could do, particularly in respect of showing solidarity with Mr McMahon and his family. He purported this would send a message to all sections of the public and community and would express support and solidarity to volunteers like Mr McMahon who could often feel isolated. He believed the Council had to be prepared should future threats arise.

Councillor Adair condemned the pipe bomb attack in Carrowdore, stating that it had raised concern amongst local residents and families. He continued it could have been more serious and but for the grace of God there had been no loss of life. He appealed for those with information to go to the police and stated he did not wish to see this incident repeated anywhere in the peninsula.

NOTED.

Changes to Committee Membership – Corporate Services Committee

The Chief Executive advised that the Nominating Officer for the Alliance Party had advised that Alderman McDowell would be replacing Councillor Anderson as Vice Chair on the Corporate Services Committee as of 12 November 2015.

NOTED.

Local Action Group (LAG)

The Chief Executive advised that Alderman Girvan had resigned from the LAG and the Alliance Party Nominating Officer had indicated that they would not nominate another Member from that Party to this position. Therefore under d’Hondt rules, the seat would go to the next party in the order which was the DUP. Councillor McIlveen, as Nominating Officer for the DUP advised that Alderman Gibson would be taking this place.

NOTED.

C.25.11.15

5. MAYOR AND DEPUTY MAYOR ENGAGEMENTS FOR THE MONTH (Appendix I)

PREVIOUSLY CIRCULATED:- Copy of the Mayor and Deputy Mayor Engagements for the month of November 2015.

NOTED.

6. MINUTES OF COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON 28 OCTOBER 2015

PREVIOUSLY CIRCULATED:- Copy of the above minutes.

RESOLVED, on the proposal of Councillor Barry, seconded by Councillor Robinson, that the minutes be agreed as a correct record.

(Alderman Smith and Councillors Barry and McClean left the meeting at this stage – 7.28pm)

7. MINUTES OF COMMITTEES

7.1. Audit Committee dated 26 October 2015

PREVIOUSLY CIRCULATED:- Copy of the above minutes.

RESOLVED, on the proposal of Alderman Chambers, seconded by Councillor Thompson, that the minutes be adopted.

7.2. Planning Committee dated 3 November 2015

PREVIOUSLY CIRCULATED:- Copy of the above minutes.

Pages 11 and 13 – Voting

Alderman Gibson raised a point of accuracy advising that the vote on page 11 noted the absence of two Councillors, however the vote on page 13 had omitted this and had only noted the absence of Aldermen.

NOTED.

RESOLVED, on the proposal of Alderman Gibson, seconded by Councillor Dunne, that the minutes be noted, subject to the above amendment.

7.3. Environment Committee dated 4 November 2015

PREVIOUSLY CIRCULATED:- Copy of the above minutes.

C.25.11.15

Page 1 - Apologies

Councillor Armstrong raised a point of accuracy advising that her apologies had not been recorded and instead an apology from Councillor Anderson had been recorded.

NOTED.

RESOLVED, on the proposal of Councillor Boyle, seconded by Councillor Edmund, that the minutes be adopted, subject to the above amendment.

(Councillor Muir entered the meeting at this stage – 7.32pm)

(Alderman McDowell left the meeting at this stage – 7.32pm)

Page 13 – Item 8 – Notice of Motion Brought by Councillor Brooks and Alderman Chambers on ‘Out of Hours Officer’ Contract Arrangements

Alderman Chambers thanked officers for a comprehensive report. He queried where members could go to for help in the event of an emergency situation in the Borough that required immediate attention, particularly if it was out of hours. He referred to the recent attack on the war memorial in Groomsport and expressed his difficulty at that time in contacting a senior officer to report the incident to, as he had been advised they were all in meetings. He reported that he had eventually managed to make contact with a Director who subsequently dealt with the incident satisfactorily.

Continuing, he referred to page 14, item number 4, which detailed the emergency response to a maintenance issue with one of the Council’s properties. Alderman Chambers requested clarification of the procedure to contact officers out of hours and an immediate point of contact should an incident occur.

In response the Chief Executive stated that the Director of Environment had furnished members with emergency contact details and he advised this list could be circulated again should members so wish.

Councillor Brooks concurred with Alderman Chamber’s comments, stating that there had been a littering problem in Donaghadee at Easter time and he had had difficulty then contacting an officer to deal with it. He was not satisfied with the response by the Chief Executive, and requested a list of out of hours contact numbers be provided to members. He further stated that the Borough was a tourist destination with high numbers of visitors and he called for a review of processes in order that a 24/7 service be made available by the Council. He added that both Alderman Chambers and himself, due to their line of business, were readily available for the public making complaints.

Councillor Adair stated that all members were available 24/7.

Alderman Keery stated that members had been previously furnished with an emergency contact list.

C.25.11.15

Alderman Chambers noted that he was not criticising officers and that he was happy with officers’ response to the incident in Groomsport.

NOTED.

Page 26 – Item 13.2 – Notice of Motion Submitted by Councillor Ferguson

Alderman Chambers referred to the notice of motion in respect of the wording on war memorials and sought clarification on the impact of current policies. He stated that legacy North Down Borough Council had had a policy in respect of this. The Chief Executive advised there would be no impact on the current policy.

NOTED.

7.3.1 Matters Arising - Application for Entertainment Licence – Groomsport Inn

PREVIOUSLY CIRCULATED:- Copy report dated 16 November 2015 from the Director of Environment stating that at the meeting of the Environment Committee held on 4 November 2015 members had heard a deputation from Mr Paul O’Kane, the applicant for the grant of an Entertainment Licence for the Groomsport Inn, Main Street, Groomsport.

In view of objections received in relation to this application a decision on this application had been deferred in order to allow officers to assess an acoustic consultant’s report referred to in Mr O’Kane’s deputation. Since the Committee meeting officers had been assessing the consultant’s draft report and had met with the applicant to discuss the way forward. Following further consideration of this matter, officers intended to bring a follow up report with recommendations back to the Committee at its meeting on 2 December 2015.

Officers were aware that the run up to Christmas was one of the busiest times for such businesses and it would be appropriate to provide the Committee with delegated authority to consider and decide on the application at that meeting.

RECOMMENDED that the Council provides delegated authority to make a decision on the application.

RESOLVED that the recommendation be adopted.

(Councillor Cooper left the meeting at this stage – 7.42pm)

7.4. Regeneration and Development Committee dated 5 November 2015

PREVIOUSLY CIRCULATED:- Copy of the above minutes.

(Alderman McDowell returned to the meeting at this stage – 7.43pm)

(Councillor Walker entered the meeting at this stage – 7.43pm)

C.25.11.15

Page 5 – Cloughey Beach Acquisition

Welcoming the report, Councillor Armstrong requested a status update.

The Compliance Manager advised that the matter was currently in the hands of the Council’s solicitor and final negotiations in respect of the terms of the lease were still being agreed. She was hopeful that the matter could be resolved by the end of December 2015.

(Councillor Cooper entered the meeting at this stage – 7.45pm)

Councillor Adair expressed concern at the apparent undue delay and the lengthy process. He called for pressure to be put on the solicitor to move matters forward. He then referred to the Cloughey Village Plan and expressed his desire that the project be completed.

NOTED.

Page 19 – Item 12.2 - Borough Christmas Campaign in Conjunction with Five Chambers

(Councillor Muir declared an interest and left the meeting at this stage – 7.40pm)

Alderman Irvine noted the free bus service operating on particular days and requested that free car parking also be offered in order to support the local town centres during the Christmas season. In response the Chief Executive advised that waiving car park charges had not been considered and given the proximity to Christmas there would now not be enough time to put the matter to the Committee and have such a proposal ratified in time, however this could be considered in the future.

NOTED.

RESOLVED, on the proposal of Councillor Smith, seconded by Councillor Adair, that the minutes be adopted.

(Councillor Smith entered the meeting at this stage – 7.47pm)

(Councillor Muir returned to the meeting at this stage – 7.48pm)

7.5. Corporate Services Committee dated 10 November 2015

PREVIOUSLY CIRCULATED:- Copy of the above minutes.

Alderman Carson took the opportunity to welcome Alderman McDowell to the Committee and to his new role as Vice Chair. He added that he looked forward to his valued contribution.

C.25.11.15

NOTED.

Page 23 – Item 16.3 – Notice of Motion Submitted by Councillor Ferguson

Councillor Ferguson queried why, following her previous discussion with the Chief Executive and Head of Regeneration prior to the meeting of the Corporate Services Committee; and her subsequent request to withdraw the motion, that the notice of motion had not been removed from the agenda.

In response the Chief Executive apologised for this error but clarified that, during the discussion at the above meeting, he had indicated that the matter in question was one that would be considered as a matter of course by the Newtownards Town Steering Group and this should be dealt with at their next meeting, of which the minutes would return to the Regeneration and Development Committee for consideration and approval

NOTED.

RESOLVED, on the proposal of Alderman Carson, seconded by Alderman Keery, that the minutes be adopted.

7.5.1 Matters Arising – Amendment to Naming of Council Facilities Policy (Appendix II)

PREVIOUSLY CIRCULATED:- Copy report dated 19 November 2015 from the Director of Organisational Development and Administration stating that following consideration of the Naming of Council Facilities Policy by Corporate Committee in November, the Policy had also been considered by the internal Section 75 Screening Panel.

A small number of amendments had been recommended and these had been incorporated in the version of the policy now attached.

The amendments had related to adding more detail in the Process and Consultation Sections and a correction of a name from “Environment and Heritage Service” to “NI Environment Agency”.

None of the amendments changed the general principles contained within the Policy.

RECOMMENDED that the Policy be adopted.

RESOLVED, on the proposal of Councillor Muir, seconded by Councillor Thompson, that the recommendation be adopted.

7.6. Community and Wellbeing Committee dated 11 November 2015

PREVIOUSLY CIRCULATED:- Copy of the above minutes.

(Councillor Dunne left the meeting at this stage – 7.52pm)

C.25.11.15

Page 1 – Item 2 – Declarations of Interest

Councillor Armstrong raised a point of accuracy advising that she was not a Director of Portaferry Regeneration Ltd as incorrectly stated in the minutes.

NOTED.

Page 35 – Item 20.1 – Paragraph 5 - Remembrance Service at Stormont

Councillor Armstrong raised a point of accuracy advising that the words ‘to him’ had been omitted from the end of the sentence ‘she believed it was an important matter’ and should therefore state ‘she believed it was an important matter to him’.

NOTED.

Referencing the ‘Chairman’

Councillor Armstrong stated that she did not wish to be referred to as the ‘Chairman’, rather as the ‘Chair’ or ‘Chair Person’ as she believed this was more appropriate.

NOTED.

(Councillor Dunne returned to the meeting at this stage – 7.53pm)

(Alderman Smith and Councillors Anderson, Barry and McClean returned to the meeting at this stage – 7.54pm)

Page 25 – Item 16.3 – Notice of Motion Submitted by Councillors Adair, Edmund and Thompson

Councillor Adair raised a point of accuracy advising that during the debate of his notice of motion, he had highlighted two important issues; firstly that the Council should look at refurbishment of the existing tennis courts in Ballywalter and Greyabbey for multi-use games areas. Secondly he highlighted that the village of Carrowdore had a multi-use games area (MUGA) as one of the priorities in the village plan. He had also mentioned that the local community group had had plans in place to deliver this but unfortunately was unable to do so and he suggested that the Council could maybe work with the local community group to deliver that project in relation to a MUGA.

NOTED.

Councillor Adair raised a further point of accuracy in respect to comments he believed were made by Councillor Menagh during the debate of his notice of motion. He recalled that Councillor Menagh had stated during the debate that he was “sick and tired of hearing about the Peninsula”. Councillor Adair stated that he wished to confront these comments and had responded that he had no apology to make since he had pledged to continue working on behalf of the Ards peninsula. He believed

C.25.11.15 the minutes should include the comments he recalled and proposed that the minutes be amended as such.

In response Councillor Menagh stated that he did not make the comments referenced by Councillor Adair.

(Alderman Chambers returned to the meeting at this stage – 7.59pm)

Councillor McIlveen requested that the notes from the Democratic Services Officer’s notebook be read out for clarification of what was recorded as being said by Councillor Menagh.

The Chief Executive read out the extract of Councillor Menagh’s comments as follows:-

‘He supported the motion…other parts of the Borough needed upgrading and investment too…areas in old North Down also rural…and other side of old Ards Borough Council.’

Councillor Adair proposed, seconded by Councillor McIlveen, that the minutes be amended to include the comments made by Councillor Menagh.

The matter was put to the vote, with 8 voting For and 4 voting Against amending the minutes.

Councillor Menagh expressed dissatisfaction at the vote, since some of the members that had voted were not on the Committee and were therefore not present at the meeting to hear the debate. He also highlighted that the seconder, Councillor McIlveen, was also not a member of the Committee and not present at the meeting.

The Mayor commented that there was no guidance in Standing Orders to state that non-committee members could not vote on accuracy of the minutes.

Councillor Menagh stated that members were insinuating that he was telling lies and that the comments he was alleged to have made were not in the notes taken on the night of the meeting. He asked for clarification about the decision that had just been voted on in respect of whether these alleged comments would now be included in the minutes.

The Mayor confirmed this was the case.

Councillor Menagh asked how this decision could be supported when those comments were not recorded in the minute-takers book.

The Mayor reiterated that the notes were not a verbatim version of what was said and there was nothing in Standing Orders to prevent this.

Councillor Menagh stated that it was scandalous and he would not let people call him a liar and take his character down.

C.25.11.15

(Councillor Martin entered the meeting at this stage – 8.06pm)

Councillor McIlveen stated that the minutes were not verbatim and perhaps other members could recollect what was said.

MEETING RECESS

At this point in the meeting the Mayor suggested a short recess be taken and the meeting was adjourned at 8.09pm.

The meeting reconvened at 8.19pm.

The Mayor commented that the debate had reached an impasse and the accuracy of the minutes was now down to individual interpretation.

SUSPENSION OF STANDING ORDERS

Councillor McIlveen proposed that Standing Orders be suspended to discuss the rescission of the previous decision taken during the debate of ‘Page 25 – Item 16.3 – Notice of Motion Submitted by Councillors Adair, Edmund and Thompson’.

The proposal was seconded by Alderman Henry.

AGREED, with 31 voting For and 1 voting Against that the Standing Orders be suspended to allow the remaining business to be dealt with.

Members sought clarification on which members had been in attendance at the Committee, which members were in the Chamber at the time of the debate and also sought clarity of the wording of the amendment.

At this point the Mayor suggested that the matter be deferred to the end of the meeting.

NOTED.

REINSTATEMENT OF STANDING ORDERS

AGREED on the proposal of Alderman McDowell, seconded by Councillor Muir, that the Standing Orders be reinstated.

Page 24 – Item 16.2 – Notice of Motion Submitted by Alderman Chambers

Alderman Keery proposed, seconded by Councillor Armstrong, that the recommendation be amended and the matter be referred back to the Committee as the NI Housing Executive had stated it would erect a fence and therefore a report was no longer necessary.

C.25.11.15

Alderman Keery stated that he had approached the Housing Executive and had been advised by same that plans were progressing to erect a fence around the play park at Springwell Crescent, Groomsport, as the land was in its ownership.

Welcoming Alderman Keery’s intervention, Alderman Chambers commented that during a six month period of exchanging correspondence, the Housing Executive had remained in denial about owning the land at the car park and playground. He advised that it was only after he had obtained a copy of the lease and presented it to the Housing Executive, that it had conceded ownership.

(Councillor Menagh left the meeting at this stage – 8.30pm)

Alderman Chambers further advised that the concrete posts from the original fence erected many years previously were still in situ and could therefore be re-used.

(Councillor Menagh returned to the meeting at this stage – 8.31pm)

Alderman Chambers then expressed disappointment at the proposal to disregard the report he had requested in his original notice of motion. He believed this was an urgent matter and that officers should proceed with the report in the event that a fence was not erected by the Housing Executive.

Councillor Smith commented that the report would include discussions with the Housing Executive and would ascertain what its plans were at this time in respect of the fence.

The amendment was put to the vote and with 14 voting For and 17 voting Against it FELL.

8. REQUESTS FOR DEPUTATIONS

8.1. Ards Peninsula Villages Partnership

PREVIOUSLY CIRCULATED:- Copy correspondence from the Ards Peninsula Villages Partnership requesting to address the Council to provide a briefing of its work to date and future plans for work within the Peninsula.

RESOLVED, on the proposal of Councillor Adair, seconded by Councillor Armstrong, that the Council accedes to the request and that the deputation be heard by the Regeneration and Development Committee.

8.2. Kircubbin Harbour Working Group

PREVIOUSLY CIRCULATED:- Correspondence dated 29 October 2015 from Kircubbin Harbour Working Group requesting permission to make a deputation to the Council about its work.

C.25.11.15

9. CONSULTATION DOCUMENTS

9.1. OFMDFM – Draft Amendments to the Sex Discrimination (Northern Ireland) Order 1976

(Comments to be submitted no later than 23 December 2015)

PREVIOUSLY CIRCULATED:- Consultation Document from OFMDFM detailing a consultation on the Draft Amendments to the Sex Discrimination (Northern Ireland) Order 1976.

RESOLVED, on the proposal of Councillor Cummings, seconded by Councillor Smart, that the Consultation Document be noted.

9.2. Department of Justice – Report on the Access to Justice Review Part Two

(Comments to be submitted no later than 9 February 2016)

PREVIOUSLY CIRCULATED:- Report from the Department of Justice on the Access to Justice Review Part Two.

RESOLVED, on the proposal of Councillor Robinson, seconded by Councillor Thompson, that the Consultation Document be noted.

9.3. Education Authority NI – Teaching Appointments Scheme

(Comments to be submitted no later than 18 January 2015)

PREVIOUSLY CIRCULATED:- Consultation Document from the Education Authority NI detailing a draft Teaching Appointments Scheme.

Councillor Fletcher expressed concern that there were different guidelines for controlled schools and other types of schools and that there could be some discrimination. He stated he would not be in favour of supporting different rules and suggested that the Council writes to the Education Authority NI and expresses these concerns.

RESOLVED, on the proposal of Councillor Smith, seconded by Councillor Gilmour, that the Consultation Document be noted.

9.4. Construction of a New Multi-Purpose Quay Facility, Belfast

PREVIOUSLY CIRCULATED:- Correspondence from RPS detailing the proposal of the construction of a new multi-purpose quay facility at Harbour Estate, Belfast.

RESOLVED, on the proposal of Councillor Smith, seconded by Councillor Gilmour, that the correspondence be noted.

C.25.11.15

(Alderman Chambers left the meeting at this stage – 8.38pm)

10. CHANGING THE NAME OF NORTH DOWN AND ARDS BOROUGH COUNCIL (FILE: ADM9) (Appendix III)

PREVIOUSLY CIRCULATED:- Report dated 16 November 2015 from the Director of Organisational Development and Administration stating that the DoE Local Government Policy Division, had written to the Council to advise that the Department had prepared the draft Change of District Name (North Down and Ards) Order (Northern Ireland) 2015 (the draft Order) and would shortly refer the draft Order to the Environment Committee with a view to laying the draft Order before the Assembly. Subject to the views of the Environment Committee it was anticipated that the draft Order would be laid before the Assembly in the following two to four weeks.

The draft Order would be subject to the Assembly’s negative resolution procedure and would become operational following the expiry of a statutory period of ten Assembly days (typically five weeks depending on Assembly recess) after the draft Order had been laid.

With reference to the Council having resolved that North Down’s borough charter would have effect in relation to the district, regulation 3(9) of the Regulations provided that when a council passed such a resolution it shall publish notice of the resolution in the Belfast Gazette. This had already been done.

RECOMMENDED that the Council confirms it is content with the draft Order and notes that the Department will take the draft Order forward as proposed.

RESOLVED, on the proposal of Councillor McIlveen, seconded by Councillor Thompson, that the recommendation be adopted.

(Alderman Chambers entered the meeting at this stage – 8.39pm)

10.1. DRAFT DONAGHADEE HARBOUR (TRANSFER OF HARBOUR UNDERSTANDING) ORDER (Appendix IV)

PREVIOUSLY CIRCULATED:- Report dated 19 November 2015 reminding members that Donaghadee Harbour had transferred to the Council’s ownership on 1 April 2015.

When the legislation, namely the Donaghadee Harbour (Transfer of Harbour Undertaking) Order (Northern Ireland) 2015 had transferred the harbour undertaking to the Council, a “sunset clause” (Article 5.3) had been included.

The purpose had been to address the legal technicality in that an order which was subject to affirmative resolution (the Transfer Order) could not use powers that were subject to negative resolution as prescribed in the Harbours Act (NI) 1970. This meant that there was a need to re-establish the harbour limits by promoting a harbour order under section 10 (2) of the 1970 Act to all the Council and its Officers

C.25.11.15 to carry out their functions and charge dues. This proposed Order had to complete its legislative process, be made and operational by 1 October 2016.

The Council had to indicate if it wished to amend the harbour limits and then this would be included in the Order. The attached map showed the current limits and there appeared not to be any reason to amend these.

RECOMMENDED that the Council approves the making of a formal application for the Donaghadee Harbour limits to remain unchanged.

The Chief Executive drew members’ attention to a revised map, which had been tabled before them.

Councillor Brooks referred to the transfer of the harbour to the Council and he queried the level of funding which had transferred along with it. He stated that if the information was not available that he would be keen to receive a report on the issue.

The Chief Executive responded that he did not have the information to hand and would provide a full report for the Environment Committee.

RESOLVED that the recommendation be adopted.

11. CONFERENCES, INVITATIONS ETC.

11.1. APSE Event – Economic Development, Job Creation and Sustainable Communities – 10 December 2015 – Londonderry

PREVIOUSLY CIRCULATED:- Correspondence from APSE detailing an event on Thursday, 10 December 2015 in Londonderry, looking at the role of the local authority on economic development, the local economy, job creation and sustainable communities. The event would be free for APSE members.

RESOLVED, on the proposal of Alderman Henry, seconded by Alderman Gibson, that Alderman Carson attend the event.

11.2. NILGA Regional Consultation Event - “The Review of Business Rates” – 11 December 2015 – Craigavon

PREVIOUSLY CIRCULATED:- Correspondence from NILGA detailing a regional consultation event, “The Review of Business Rates”, on Friday, 11 December 2015 at Lough Neagh Discovery Centre, Craigavon. The event was free. . RESOLVED that the following members be nominated to attend:-

(On the proposal of Alderman Carson, seconded by Councillor Smith)

One officer

(On the proposal of Councillor Dunne, seconded by Councillor Adair)

C.25.11.15

Alderman Keery

12. RESOLUTION

12.1. Lisburn and Castlereagh City Council Re: Tourism Statistics Provided by Tourism NI

PREVIOUSLY CIRCULATED:- Correspondence dated 13 November 2015 from Lisburn and Castlereagh City Council stating that at a special meeting of Lisburn and Castlereagh Council held on Monday, 9 November 2015, it had been agreed to write to all ten councils in Northern Ireland regarding tourism statistics provided by Tourism NI.

Lisburn and Castlereagh City Council wished to suggest a collaborative approach to seeking a more realistic representation of tourism statistics being provided by Tourism NI and sought the Council’s support in respect of this. . RESOLVED, on the proposal of Councillor Boyle, seconded by Councillor Robinson, that the Council supports the resolution.

13. TRANSFERS OF RIGHTS OF BURIAL

The Chief Executive advised members there were no transfers of rights of burial.

NOTED.

14. SEALING DOCUMENTS

RESOLVED: - (On the proposal of Alderman Carson, seconded by Councillor Edmund)

THAT the Seal of the Council be affixed to the following documents:-

(a) Grant of Right of Burials – 11885 to 11907 and 20106, 20107, 20109, 20113, 20119, 20120, 20123, 20129, 20130, 20132, 20138, 20140, 20142, 20146, 20148, 20150. (b) Car Loan Agreement – Clare Adair

15. NOTICES OF MOTION STATUS REPORT (Appendix V)

PREVIOUSLY CIRCULATED:- Report dated 20 November 2015 providing an update on the status of notices of motion.

RECOMMENDED that the report be noted. .

C.25.11.15

RESOLVED, on the proposal of Alderman Carson, seconded by Alderman Gibson, that the report be noted.

16. NOTICES OF MOTION

16.1. Notice of Motion submitted by Councillor Robinson

“That this council, as an indication of commitment to animal welfare, no longer use the two old, fur-trimmed robes transferred over from Ards Borough Council at civic events, and instead use the fur-free robes already purchased. The inclusion of real fur in clothing is an emotive issue, so the removal of these robes from use will avoid any possible offence.”

RESOLVED, on the proposal of Councillor Robinson, seconded by Councillor Cooper, that the Notice of Motion be referred to the Corporate Services Committee.

16.2. Notice of Motion submitted by Councillor Armstrong

“That this Council agrees to extend Audio Recording of Council meetings to include all Committee meetings, on the same basis as already in place for full Council meetings thus offering an opportunity to both increase openness and transparency plus improved acoustics for those in the Public Gallery at Committee meetings”.

RESOLVED, on the proposal of Councillor Armstrong, seconded by Councillor Walker, that the Notice of Motion be referred to the Corporate Services Committee.

16.3. Notice of Motion submitted by Councillor Cooper

"That this council condemns the unnecessary apology made to IRA Sinn Fein's Martin McGuinness for the singing of our National anthem after its deliberate and provocative removal by Mitchell McLaughlin at the remembrance service in Stormont on Armistice day, and urge the NI assembly to include God save the Queen in all future services."

Councillor Cooper expressed his disappointment that the motion was being referred to another Committee rather than being discussed by the Council, as he believed the subject warranted this.

The Mayor responded that there was currently no urgency to the matter since it would not be relevant until the next Remembrance service at Stormont, which would not be held until November 2016.

Councillor Cooper stated he had originally raised the matter at the Community and Wellbeing Committee and was advised then that the matter could be discussed by the committee, at the discretion of the Chair.

The Chief Executive clarified that Councillor Cooper had raised the matter under ‘Any Other Business’ and that he had been advised that the convention to date had

C.25.11.15 not been to allow items raised in ‘Any Other Business’ that were not urgent or significant in their impact. He continued that a matter of this nature was best addressed via a notice of motion and that under Standing Orders it was for the Council to decide whether to discuss the motion or refer it to a Committee.

Councillor Muir drew members’ attention to Standing Order 17.1.6 “If the subject matter of any motion of which notice has been properly given comes within the remit of any Committee it shall, upon being moved and seconded, stand referred without discussion to that Committee, or to such other Committee as the Council may determine, for consideration and report. The Presiding Chairperson may, if they consider it urgent and necessary to the dispatch of business, allow the motion to be dealt with at the meeting at which it is brought forward”.

The Mayor reiterated that the issue of urgency could not be the argument for discussing the motion at the Council meeting and confirmed that it would be referred to the relevant Committee.

RESOLVED, on the proposal of Councillor Cooper, seconded by Councillor Menagh, that the Notice of Motion be referred to the Corporate Services Committee.

EXCLUSION OF PUBLIC AND PRESS

AGREED, on the proposal of Councillor Gilmour, seconded by Alderman Irvine, that the public and press be excluded from the meeting for the undernoted items of business.

17. EXPLORIS UPDATE (Appendix VI)

*** NOT FOR PUBLICATION ***

Schedule 6 – Information relating to the financial or business affairs of any particular person (including the Council holding that information).

18. STAFFING MATTER

*** NOT FOR PUBLICATION ***

Schedule 6 – Information which is likely to reveal the identity of an individual.

19. LEGAL CASE – RIGHT OF WAY OVER LANEWAY TO GREYABBEY CEMETERY (FILE: OS10784)

*** NOT FOR PUBLICATION ***

Schedule 6 – Information relating to the financial or business affairs of any particular person (including the Council holding that information).

RE-ADMITTANCE OF PUBLIC AND PRESS

C.25.11.15

AGREED, on the proposal of Councillor Edmund, seconded by Alderman Gibson, that the public and press be re-admitted to the meeting.

NOTED.

SUSPENSION OF STANDING ORDERS

Councillor McIlveen proposed, seconded by Alderman Henry, that the Standing Orders be suspended to deal with the undernoted item of business.

Item 7.6 – Community and Wellbeing Minutes dated 11 November 2015 – Notice of Motion Submitted by Councillors Adair, Edmund and Thompson

Councillor McIlveen stated that a decision had been taken in respect of the proposal by Councillor Adair on the accuracy of the Community and Wellbeing minutes. He therefore proposed, seconded by Alderman Henry, the suspension of Standing Orders to rescind that decision and further discuss Councillor Adair’s original proposal.

A vote was taken and a qualified majority was achieved with 26 voting For and 3 voting Against the suspension of Standing Orders.

The Mayor sought clarification from Councillor McIlveen that he was recommending that only the members present at the meeting of the Community and Wellbeing Committee held on 11 November 2015 should take part in the vote.

Councillor McIlveen confirmed that was the case, in order to be fair to Councillor Menagh, since the comments made during that meeting could only be recalled by those present at the meeting.

Councillor Smith highlighted that Standing Orders had now been suspended twice in respect of this item and believed a decision had been already been reached by the Council. He noted he had abstained from voting the first time since he was not a member of the Community and Wellbeing Committee and therefore was not present at the meeting. He queried what power the Council had to revoke a decision made by the Council only one hour earlier.

The Chief Executive clarified that if this did not happen then a rescinding motion would be required to be submitted in writing to the Council seven days prior to the matter being raised.

Councillor Smith asked how many times this situation had happened before at Council meetings and queried whether the Council could restrict who was permitted to vote.

In response the Mayor stated that he was appealing to the conscience of members in respect of this.

C.25.11.15

Councillor Adair proposed, seconded by Councillor Thompson, that the undernoted amendments be made to the minutes of the Community and Wellbeing Committee meeting held on 11 November 2015.

The following comments to be included in the summary paragraph of his Notice of Motion:-

That the Council consider refurbishment of the existing tennis courts in Ballywalter and Greyabbey into multi-use games areas. Also he highlighted that the village of Carrowdore had a multi-use games area (MUGA) as one of the priorities in its village plan and advised that the local community group had had plans in place to deliver this but unfortunately was unable to do so. He asked that the Council consider working with the local community group to deliver that project in relation to a MUGA.

He then requested that the paragraph pertaining to Councillor Menagh’s comments be amended to reflect what he believed Councillor Menagh had stated during the debate, as follows:-

That Councillor Menagh had stated during the debate that he was tired of listening about the Ards peninsula and during the debate he also made comment that he was sick and tired of listening about the Ards peninsula and that there were other areas to be considered.

The Mayor then clarified that Councillor Adair wished to have Councillor Menagh’s comments amended in the minutes and Councillor Adair responded that he had heard the comments being made.

Councillor Muir commented that the request by Councillor Adair in respect of amending Councillor Menagh’s comments amounted to re-wording the minutes. He referred to Standing Order 20.1 [1] where it stated that ‘A Motion or Amendment shall not be discussed unless it has been proposed and seconded and, unless notice has already been given in accordance with Standing Order16.1, it shall be put into writing before it is further discussed or put to the meeting’. He advised it was important that Standing Orders were adhered to. He continued that an amendment such as this, without being presented in writing, was difficult for Democratic Services Officers and members to note.

Councillor Wilson advised that he was present at the meeting, however he could not recall what was said.

Councillor Smart stated that Councillor Adair had put forward a worthwhile Notice of Motion to the Community and Wellbeing Committee, requesting a report to identify potential projects that could benefit from funding. Continuing, he stated that Councillor Adair had been quite prescriptive during discussion of his Motion. He further stated that based on his recollection of the meeting this minute was correct and the minutes also accurately reflected the content of the debate.

Councillor Anderson stated he could not support the amendment, since he could not recall the detail of the discussion and therefore he could also not vote.

C.25.11.15

Councillor Cooper confirmed that he was at the meeting and he did not recall the alleged comments by Councillor Menagh. He remarked that he had joked with Councillor Menagh following his comments about the other areas in the new Borough as normally Councillor Menagh’s focus was on Newtownards. He expressed his disappointment at the tenure of the debate over the minutes and stated he could not vote for the amendment. Continuing, he queried how these matters could be dealt with differently and suggested that audio recording all Committee meetings could be the only way to avoid a repeat of tonight’s events.

In response to the above comments, Councillor Adair stated he could not back down as he believed in what he had said and had to stand his ground.

At this point in the meeting the Chief Executive clarified that those present at the meeting of the Community and Wellbeing Committee on 11 November 2015 were:-

Aldermen Chambers and Irvine and Councillors Armstrong, Adair, Boyle, Cooper, Edmund, Kennedy, Menagh, Roberts, Smart, Thompson and Wilson.

On the amendment being put to the vote, with 5 voting For and 3 voting Against the amendment was carried.

Expressing his disagreement with the decision, Councillor Menagh stated that he did not say what Councillor Adair was alleging that he had said. Continuing, he stated that he had always supported all the work done by legacy Ards Borough Council and now he supported the work of Ards and North Down Borough Council. He further stated that what Councillor Adair had done had changed what was recorded in the draft minutes and while it was his decision to interpret the minutes that way and other people had done the same that evening, he could do nothing about it.

Councillor Menagh reinforced that he categorically did not say the words alleged by Councillor Adair, adding that if he had then it would have been reported in the Chronicle which it was not. He stated that what he had said had been recorded in the minute book.

Continuing, he expressed his disappointment in some of the members present and reiterated that he fully supported the new Council. He advised that he would not just lie down and roll over on this matter but he would work hard to ensure that he was proved right. Furthermore, he was extremely disappointed and hurt at the events that night and stated that he was not a liar and, while he may have been many things during his life, he did not tell lies. He stated he would stand over anything he said and did not have a problem doing that, and anyone that had known him throughout his life would know his character in this.

NOTED.

REINSTATEMENT OF STANDING ORDERS

AGREED, that the Standing Orders be reinstated.

Circulated for Information

C.25.11.15

(a) Letter of Thanks from Lord and Lady Dunleath (Copy correspondence attached) (b) Changes to Movilla Post Office (Copy correspondence attached) (c) Letter from Jim Shannon MP (Copy Correspondence attached) (d) Department of the Environment – Public Appointment Opportunity: Member of the Northern Ireland Local Government Officers’ Superannuation Committee (Copy correspondence attached) (e) Department of Justice – Victim Charter (Copy correspondence attached) (f) The Royal British Legion – Letter of Thanks (Copy correspondence attached) (g) Department of Education – Appointment of Members to the General Teaching Council for Northern Ireland (Copy correspondence attached) (h) Northern Ireland Electricity Networks (Copy correspondence attached)

NOTED.

TERMINATION OF MEETING

The meeting terminated at 9.37pm.

ITEM 7.1

ARDS AND NORTH DOWN BOROUGH COUNCIL

A meeting of the Planning Committee was held in the Council Chamber, 2 Church Street, Newtownards on Tuesday, 1 December 2015 at 7.00pm.

PRESENT:-

In the Chair: Alderman Gibson

Aldermen: Carson Irvine Girvan Keery McDowell Smith

Councillors: Barry McClean Dunne Thompson (8.08pm) Fletcher Walker

Officers: Chief Executive (S Reid), Head of Planning (A McCullough), Principal Professional and Technical Officer, (G Kerr) Senior Planner Ards (C Smyth), Head of Environmental Health, Development and Protection (M Potts), Senior Environmental Health Officer (H McKee) and Democratic Services Officers (E Brown and E Erwin)

WELCOME

The Chairman (Alderman Gibson) welcomed everyone to the meeting including those persons seated in the public gallery. For the benefit of those present, the Chairman introduced the Council Officers in attendance.

1. APOLOGIES

Apologies for inability to attend were received from Alderman Graham and Councillor Thompson apologised for lateness.

NOTED.

2. DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST

The Chairman asked for any declarations of interest and none were advised.

NOTED.

PC.01.12.15

3. MATTERS ARISING FROM MINUTES OF PLANNING COMMITTEE MEETING HELD ON 3 NOVEMBER 2015

The Chairman asked Members to indicate if there were any matters arising from the previous meeting of the Planning Committee held on 3 November 2015 and none were advised.

NOTED.

4. PLANNING APPLICATIONS

Note of Clarification

The Senior Planner advised that she would be presenting a number of wind turbine applications to the Committee located in the vicinity of Ballyhalbert. Continuing she stated that she would present them in order of submission and that the reports would be taken as read.

Item 4.1 – X/2014/0225/F – Lands 340m SE of 19 Glastry Road, Kircubbin

PREVIOUSLY CIRCULATED:- Copy documentation (Appendix I).

The Senior Planner guided Members through a PowerPoint presentation which included a summary of the application, existing and proposed plans and photographs of the site:

. DEA: Ards Peninsula . Committee Interest: 6 or more objections received contrary to Officer recommendation . Proposal: Installation of a single wind turbine (225KW output) 30.4m hub height with 14.55 blades, associated access and 2no. electricity cabinets . Site Location: Lands 340m SE of 19 Glastry Road, Kircubbin . Recommendation: Approve Planning Permission

The Senior Planner provided a detailed overview of the planning application advising that the reason the application was being presented before the Committee was that more than six objections had been received contrary to the officer recommendation. The proposal sought a 225kw wind turbine with a 30.4m hub height with 14.55m blades (overall 45m) and the recommendation was to grant planning permission.

The first map showed the location of the site in relation to previously approved and current turbine sites within a 2km radius. The existing turbine on the airfield is located approximately 1.1km to the north east and the two proposed turbines were located a greater distance beyond this. The deferred application from the previous meeting is located approximately 1.3km to the east and a previously approved turbine approximately 1.7km to the south east. The most critical viewpoints of the site included Manse Road, Glastry Road and Coulters Hill.

The second slide depicted the location of a key critical viewpoint along Manse Road and the Senior Planner drew members‟ attention to the significant number of road 2

PC.01.12.15 side buildings which would serve to break-up views of the proposal along this road. Beyond the buildings near the junction with New Road, views of the turbine would become apparent. However, given the distance set back from the road it was not considered that the proposed turbine would appear an unacceptably dominant feature in the landscape and in addition, intervening roadside buildings and hedging would ensure any views were un-sustained along the Manse Road. The closest point along Glastry Road to the site was approximately 460m. Intermittent views through roadside trees and vegetation would be evident from this road however, given the scale it was not considered the proposal would appear unacceptably prominent. While views would also be apparent from Coulters Hill it was considered that the distance from the road (approximately 760m at the closest point) would again ensure the proposal would not appear overly prominent from this viewpoint or other potential viewpoints in the wider area.

In terms of cumulative impact it was the planning judgement that given the separation distance between the proposal and other previously approved and proposed turbines in the wider area as well as intervening buildings, vegetation and gentle rolling landform, there would be limited and un-sustained inter-visibility between the proposal and other turbine sites in the wider area. Therefore it was not considered that this proposal would have an unacceptable adverse impact either individually or cumulatively on visual amenity/landscape character.

In terms of residential amenity, Environmental Health had provided no objection to the cumulative noise impact subject to a number of conditions to protect noise amenity. The proposal provided a separation distance of ten times rotor diameter (which was 291m) therefore satisfying requirements in terms of safety and shadow flicker.

A number of objectors had expressed concern regarding the proximity of the proposal to residential properties. As previously stated, the proposal provided a separation distance of ten times rotor diameter. It was therefore considered that given the scale of the proposal and separation distances provided, the proposal both individually and cumulatively would not have an unacceptably dominant or overbearing impact on any residential properties in the area.

Following the submission of a bat survey, NIEA had provided no objection to this proposal in terms of local nature conservation interests subject to a condition providing appropriate mitigation to protect this species. Moreover NIEA had offered no objection in terms of the setting of listed buildings or historic monuments. The Planners had consulted widely to assess potential impacts of this proposal in terms of aviation safety and telecommunications and no objections had been made by expert bodies.

Objection had been made in respect of impacts on health and house prices, however no substantive evidence had been submitted to demonstrate that this proposed turbine would have any such adverse impact. The Public Health Agency‟s view was that provided turbines were sited in accordance with policy there was minimal to no risk to health.

PC.01.12.15

On balance it was the planning judgement that this proposal would not have an unacceptable impact on local environmental considerations. The proposal would help reduce greenhouse gases and other polluting emissions and would contribute towards meeting the government‟s targets for renewable energy. Therefore it was recommended that planning permission be granted.

The Chairman invited Mr Bert Spiers, who was accompanied by Councillor Edmund to speak for five minutes on behalf of the Ballyhalbert Residents Association in objection to the application.

Councillor Edmund stated that he would be addressing the Committee and he also introduced Mr John Monteith, an independent engineer, who was there solely for the purposes of clarification about noise and sound issues. He stated Mr Monteith had been asked by the Residents Association to review the information supplied to them and provide an expert opinion on the noise information. He noted that the planning department, on finding that Mr Monteith had spoken to the company supplying the noise data in the report, had requested a meeting with him. He queried whether the landfill site required an environmental statement, and purported that due to the number of issues with the site one was vital. Furthermore the vibration in the ground caused by a turbine and multiplied by a number of turbines caused a pumping action and would increase the amount of methane and other gases given off by landfill sites.

Continuing, Councillor Edmund advised that he was addressing the Committee on behalf of a group of residents from Ballyhalbert, Glastry and Ballyhemlin, who had a number of concerns in respect of this application and resulting wind farm in their local area. The residents wished to stress that their objection to wind turbines was purely about the wind turbines and was not in any way personal to the land owners.

The residents wished to know if the Council had fully assessed the old Council landfill sites at Glastry with regard to seismic activity due to the vibrations from the interaction from the turbine or indeed turbines, in the area. Amongst other gases, methane and radon were given off from the sites. The area generated radon naturally hence all modern houses had a radon assessment and had attenuation measures to address that, but older homes, of which there were many, did not have those measures in place.

The residents questioned if the long established and now redundant landfill sites on both sides of Glastry Road had both surface and lower membranes, and they sought a guarantee that those were in place. They also queried whether current gas outputs were monitored and measured.

Councillor Edmund continued that the Environment Committee, chaired by Anna Lo, had commissioned a report into Wind Energy in 2014 and many experts had given testimony. It had been recognised that ETSU-97 guidelines should be reviewed on an urgent basis, with a view to adopting a more modern and robust guidance for measurement of wind turbine noise, with particular reference to current guidelines from the World Health Organisation. This was the document that Planners continued to use. The residents believed that the information published in the Noise Assessment had been gathered and processed by computer modelling and

PC.01.12.15 suggested that these programmes were largely out-dated and unfit for purpose and generated misleading information on which the Committee was being asked to make decisions on behalf of constituents in the Borough.

Continuing, Councillor Edmund stated that best practice noise profiling could not be accurately generated by simplistic out-dated computer simulation models, as many of these models used high background noise areas i.e. cities, not a low background noise area like the countryside. The report went on to recommend that the Department should commission independent research to measure and determine the impact of low frequency noise on those residents living in close proximity to individual turbines and wind farms.

Councillor Edmund further stated that the proposed turbine, like all turbines, had no measurement of wind shear which was the actual audible noise that could be measured but currently had not been done. The residents wished to know if the existing cumulative effect of wind turbines had been measured to ensure the predication on the noise plurality was actually reflected in the noise assessment report.

SPPS stated that for wind farm development a separation distance of ten times rotor diameter to occupied property, with a minimum distance not less than 500m would generally apply. The residents queried when was a minimum not a minimum and believed that this „generally‟ meant in most cases.

Councillor Edmund referred to a submitted report carried out by Dr Henrietta Price (zoologist) on the Corvus Bat Survey which stated that the proposed turbine should not be erected due to its close proximity to bat population and hedge rows. The field was too small to accommodate a turbine of the proposed size and the mitigation proposal in the Corvus Report was both untried and in breach of the Natural England‟s 50m exclusion zone.

In summing up Councillor Edmund referred to the British Medical Journal report of 8 March 2012 by Hanning and Evans, also submitted to Council, which clearly outlined the real adverse effect that living in close proximity to turbines had on sleep patterns and general wellbeing. Professor Alun Evans, Queen‟s Medical School, was the province‟s leading medical specialist in wind turbine related public health and he acknowledged that noise assessment had to address both audible and infrasound.

He implored the Committee to make an informed decision which reflected current best practice and not to rely on out-dated policy which all may live to regret.

The Head of Planning referred to the issue of the landfill site having only been brought up in the previous week, despite these applications having been in the system since early 2014. She clarified that the landfill site had been closed and sealed in 1996 by the legacy Ards Borough Council. A senior officer of the legacy Council had confirmed that the waste had fully decomposed now and therefore did not create high levels of gas. The site was created in the void from old clay pits (used for brick works) and backfilled with household rubbish. Conditions had been attached to the approval for the site specifying the type of waste that could be tipped, and vents were installed for the release of any gas from the site overall, but so little

PC.01.12.15 gas was produced that it didn‟t require to be burned off prior to the site being closed. There had been no reports in the years since the closure of any leachate problems or groundwater contamination. The Head of Planning continued that a number of new dwellings had been approved around the former landfill site as it had been considered safe in respect of domestic properties.

With reference to the Inquiry into Wind Energy and related Report by the Environmental Committee, the Head of Planning clarified that the report contained recommendations made to the Department of the Environment (DOE) and did not constitute policy. She further clarified that the DOE had made a formal response to the report and was considering undertaking reviews in respect of some of the recommendations made.

With regard to the comments made by Councillor Edmund concerning bats, the Head of Planning confirmed that Dr Price‟s comments had been forwarded to NIEA for response. NIEA had confirmed that it had no further concerns, following submission of a bat survey, provided conditions were placed on any planning decision because the survey found that bat numbers along nearby hedges were not significant. Furthermore it had considered the potential for the applications on the airfield to impact bat populations, both individually and cumulatively and concluded that, due to the distance of these applications from potential bat habitat and the low quality of bat habitat in the general area, a bat survey was not required.

In regard to the alleged inadequacy of ETSU in relation to noise assessments, the Head of Planning clarified that it was the most widely accepted document for wind turbine noise assessment and recommended in the Best Practice Guidance to PPS 18. Until such times as a review was undertaken by DOE or other local policy introduced by a local development plan, ETSU was the standard that must be applied.

At this point Mr Monteith stated that he had reviewed the results of the assessments, specifically the type of modelling used and the age of the programmes used and did have some concerns, particularly in respect of vibrations. He advised that in seismic terms, and the creation of a cluster of turbines, that kilometres were short distances. He detailed that there were three types of airborne sound, namely audible sound, infra sound and ultra sound and noted the report had stated that the tones assessed were not appropriate. He clarified that a tone was a resonant vibration, for example, what is felt when a lorry goes past a building.

A lengthy debate ensued about sound waves, the absorption of sound, cumulative impact and the current standards against which assessments were made. The Head of Environmental Health, Development and Protection clarified that the report Mr Monteith had referred to was in relation to a study by the Ministry of Defence in Scotland and that there was very little information on vibration in the public domain. Additional comments were made about the landfill site and the Principal Planner, referring to ten years experience with the DOE Waste Unit, reiterated that the land had been restored to agricultural land as all the waste had now broken down, and stated that it was more beneficial that the site was not lined as this assisted in the decomposition of materials. Further comments were made about the policy guidelines used to assess proposals and the Senior Planner reiterated that best

PC.01.12.15 practice guidance and PPS18 had been used and were also used by the PAC, adding that a decision had to be based on this standard.

The Chairman invited Mr Ryan McBirney, Strategic Planning, to speak for five minutes in support of the application.

Mr McBirney reiterated that the application had been in the system since 2014 and it was frustrating that new issues had been raised at this stage in the process. He continued that the Council had undertaken a rigorous assessment process against all relevant guidance, and had consulted with all the statutory consultees and other consultees. All consultations had been returned with no objections.

Referring to the issue of noise, Mr McBirney stated that the required standards were set in policy and guidance and therefore had to be adhered to, adding that ETSU was the current standard. He continued that the noise consultant had prepared many sound assessments across Northern Ireland.

He further stated that the proposed wind turbine was not located on a landfill site and was in fact agricultural land. He continued that there was nothing in policy/guidance requiring that vibrations be assessed in terms of environmental impact.

He cautioned that delays such as with this application, could negatively impact the confidence on investors in Northern Ireland in respect of renewable energy. He acknowledged that while there had been many local objectors to this proposal, there had also been a good number of supporters.

Referring to the Chronicle newspaper article that had been anonymously tabled for members, Mr McBirney stated that the author of said article lived on the Glastry Road and had no issue with the proposal.

Councillor McIlveen queried the role of Strategic Planning in respect of this application and Mr McBirney advised that it was acting as the agent. He also wished to confirm that he had no role in the distribution of the aforementioned newspaper article.

Councillor McIlveen then asked whether Strategic Planning had any interest in any other applications up for consideration by the Committee that night. The Chairman queried the relevance of this line of questioning and Councillor McIlveen responded that he was concerned about cumulative impact. The Chairman responded that the current proposal under discussion did not create this issue as it was the first turbine under discussion. Councillor McIlveen expressed concern that applicants could circumvent the rules by submitting individual applications that would amount to a wind farm.

In response the Head of Planning stated that the best practice guidelines categorised turbines as single turbine, small clusters or wind farm and that SPPS defined a wind farm as more than two turbines on one application. She continued that RE1 applied to all such applications and cumulative impact was taken into consideration.

PC.01.12.15

(Councillor Thompson entered the meeting at this stage – 8.08pm)

Members debated the matter of cumulative impact in terms of noise and visually at length, and in response the Head of Planning acknowledged whilst it was recognised in policy and best practice guidance that there would always be an adverse impact, the issue to be balanced was in respect of whether such impact was unacceptably adverse. She continued that Planners were extremely constrained working within the policy and had to base their decisions on the information they had and the policy/guidelines they had to work within.

Councillor McClean expressed concern that not all applications would be assessed on individual merit considering the cumulative impact caused by the applications approved before them, and that this could have an impact on the success of future applications. In response, the Head of Planning confirmed that this could be the case and that if the Committee approved this application, subsequent applications may be declined, however priority had to be given to those applications first in the system.

Councillor Fletcher queried how some applications could be in the system for a longer length of time. In response the Head of Planning advised that for certain types of applications surveys may be requested, for example a bat survey which could only be carried out during May to September, and therefore an application received in October would be delayed until the following year when the survey could be done. Other factors such as the merger, staff changes, caseloads and also holding back on applications to assess cumulative impact were all reasons for delay.

Proposed by Councillor Barry, seconded by Councillor Fletcher, that the recommendation to approve the application be adopted.

RESOLVED on the proposal of Councillor Barry, seconded by Councillor Fletcher, with 7 voting For and 1 voting Against, 5 Abstaining and 2 Absent that the recommendation to grant approval of the planning application be adopted.

The poll resulted as follows:

FOR 7 AGAINST 1 ABSTAINED 5 ABSENT 2 Aldermen Councillor Aldermen Alderman Keery McIlveen Carson Graham Irvine Gibson Councillor McDowell Girvan Thompson Councillors Smith Barry Councillor Dunne McClean Fletcher Walker

PC.01.12.15

Item 4.2. – X/2014/0302/F – 407m SW of 1 Kestrel Drive, Ballyhalbert (Deferred from Planning Committee meeting held on 3 November 2015)

PREVIOUSLY CIRCULATED:- Copy report dated 30 November 2015 from the Head of Planning. At the meeting the Head of Planning referred to the update report which detailed that the above application had been presented to Planning Committee on 3 November with a recommendation to approve. At that meeting Councillor Nigel Edmund, speaking on behalf of objectors, had stated that a noise complaint regarding the existing wind turbine at Ballyhalbert had recently been made to the Council. It had been resolved on the proposal of Councillor Fletcher, seconded by Councillor Thompson, with 8 voting for, 3 against, 1 abstaining, and 3 absent, that all three wind turbine applications under Items 4.2, 4.3 and 4.4 be deferred until the pending noise complaint was made official and investigated.

A telephone call had been made by a resident of Glastry Road to Environmental Health (EH) on 28 October 2015 to comment that the noise levels from the existing turbine varied and it had been felt that enjoyment of the property‟s garden was affected by the noise. The resident had recently discovered that two further turbines had been proposed and was concerned about noise levels on the site. The Environmental Health Officer (EHO) had advised that the initial step in any investigation would be the completion of log sheets for submission to Environmental Health. At this point the caller had indicated that it would be preferable if the complaint could be dealt with by way of objection to the further turbines.

The Head of Planning advised that EH Officers had visited the property on Friday, 6 November 2015; however the occupier had been out so Monitoring Sheets had been left for completion with a request to contact the office for advice on how to complete. Noise on site in relation to the wind turbine on the airfield had been subjectively assessed. On that occasion the wind turbine had only been audible intermittently at a very low level. Two further site visits were undertaken and informal monitoring of the noise associated with the existing wind turbine again had taken place. The noise from the blades had only been briefly audible but masked by passing cars, and no noise from the gearbox/engine had been audible.

A number of phone calls to the complainant seeking completion of the log sheets were made by EH Officers and eventually agreement had been reached in terms of completion of log sheets for a period of two weeks to be returned to Environmental Health; however the Senior Environmental Health Officer confirmed that to date no log sheets had been received.

The Head of Planning then drew attention to a number of other complaints received by Environmental Health but that confirmation had been received that the concern related to cumulative noise in association with further proposed turbines. One complainant had stated that one had to strain to hear the existing turbine. No further action was being taken by Environmental Health.

Concluding the Head of Planning stated that there had been no official noise complaint lodged to date. Environmental Health had stated that the subjective monitoring carried out at Glastry Road, had indicated that the turbine was on occasion audible but when measured against background noise had not been felt to

PC.01.12.15

be excessive in relation to ETSU guidance. Furthermore, Environmental Health had stated that in relation to Park Homes it was unlikely that noise levels from the existing turbine were such that sufficient evidence of noise disturbance would be obtained. Given the level of site visits undertaken at various times of the day over a number of weeks, there did not appear to be an apparent malfunction of the existing turbine which had resulted in increased noise emissions above its conditioned limit.

RECOMMENDED that the Planning Committee notes the content of this report.

Councillor Fletcher expressed his disappointment that the objector had not returned any log sheets, given the lengths officers had gone to. He advised he had had a bad experience in the past in respect of a planning decision and that this the main reason he had joined the Planning Committee, as he wanted to ensure that the best possible decisions were made by the Committee.

RESOLVED on the proposal of Councillor Fletcher, seconded by Councillor Barry, that the report be noted.

Item 4.2. – X/2014/0302/F – 407m SW of 1 Kestrel Drive, Ballyhalbert contd

PREVIOUSLY CIRCULATED:- Copy documentation (Appendix II) providing a summary of the application, existing and proposed plans and photographs of the site.

. DEA: Ards Peninsula . Committee Interest: More than 6 objections received contrary to Officer recommendation . Proposal: Erection of 225KW single wind turbine (30.4m hub height with 14.55 blades) associated access and 2no. electricity cabinets . Site Location: 407m South West of 1 Kestrel Drive, Ballyhalbert . Recommendation: Approve Planning Permission

(Alderman Keery left the meeting at 8.30pm and returned to the meeting at 8:34pm)

NB Alderman Keery and Councillors McClean and McIlveen were not permitted to consider this planning application as they were absent from the Planning Meeting held in November 2015 when the application was previously discussed.

RESOLVED on the proposal of Alderman Irvine, seconded by Councillor Dunne, with 7 voting For and 2 voting Against, 2 Abstaining and 4 Absent that the recommendation to grant approval of the planning application be adopted.

The poll resulted as follows:

FOR 7 AGAINST 2 ABSTAINED 2 ABSENT 4 Aldermen Alderman Aldermen Aldermen Girvan Carson Gibson Graham Irvine Councillor Smith Keery McDowell Thompson Councillors Councillors McClean

PC.01.12.15

Barry McIlveen Dunne Fletcher Walker

Item 4.3. – X/2014/0433/F – 414m North of 14 Glastry Road, Ballyhalbert

PREVIOUSLY CIRCULATED:- Copy documentation (Appendix III).

The Senior Planner guided Members through a PowerPoint presentation which included a summary of the application, existing and proposed plans and photographs of the site:

. DEA: Ards Peninsula . Committee Interest: 6 or more objections received contrary to Officer recommendation . Proposal: Proposed 150kw wind turbine with a rotor diameter of 24.5m and tower height of 30m . Site Location: 414m N of 14 Glastry Road, Ballyhalbert . Recommendation: Approve Planning Permission

The Senior Planner provided a detailed overview of the planning application advising that the reason this was being presented before the Committee was that more than six objections had been received contrary to the officer recommendation.

The proposal sought a 150kw turbine with a tower height of 30m and a rotor diameter of 24.5m (43.25m overall) located north of 14 Glastry Road, Ballyhalbert and the recommendation was to grant planning permission.

The first map showed the location of the site in relation to an existing turbine and the adjacent proposed site for a turbine on the airfield and the turbine site to the south- east of the airfield. An application previously approved by the Committee was plotted to the north (near Ballyhemlin Church). The time limits for implementing the approved domestic scaled turbines indicated on the map had expired. Permission had been granted for a turbine to the south-west. The location of the previously presented turbine application to the west of Glastry Road was also highlighted to members. The turbine to the north-west was relatively recently submitted and no recommendation had been made yet in respect of that proposal.

The second slide depicted the location of a number of key critical viewpoints. The proposal would be visible along High Street and this vantage point was over 1km from the site. Given the distance from the site, the close visual relationship between the proposal and the existing turbine on the airfield and other turbine sites, as well as the existing large industrial waste water treatment works, it was considered that the proposal would not have an unacceptable impact on the visual amenity or landscape character of the area from this viewpoint. Along the western section of this road, intervening roadside buildings and trees/vegetation obscured views of the existing turbine on the airfield and would similarly restrict views of the proposed turbine.

PC.01.12.15

Along the Glastry Road, the turbine was located a greater distance away than the existing turbine and due to the intervening roadside vegetation and topography it was considered that potential views would be largely limited to the upper portion along much of this road.

Some strong roadside vegetation would help restrict views from Ballyhemlin Road and due to the un-sustained nature of views and distance from the site it was not considered the proposal would unacceptably dominate the landscape from this viewpoint.

Viewpoint 4 was taken from Ballyhemlin Church (approximately 940m from the proposed turbine) and NIEA‟s Historic Buildings Unit did not object to this proposal. Attention was drawn to the existing turbine on the airfield which gave some indication of relative scale and prominence. It was considered that the proposed turbine would read as part of a coherent group of turbines from this location and the scale would be in proportion to the landscape. Moreover views of the proposed turbine from the coast would be restricted by intervening buildings and the distance (at least 1.5km) from the site.

In terms of cumulative impact it was considered the proposed turbine would read closely and as a coherent group with the existing turbine and indeed the other turbine sites in the vicinity of the airfield. However it was considered that the proposal was located a significant distance from, and would have limited and un- sustained inter-visibility with, other approved and current turbine sites in the wider locality. Indeed it was the planning judgement that this proposal would not have an unacceptable adverse impact either individually or cumulatively on visual amenity/landscape character.

In terms of residential amenity, Environmental Health had provided no objection to the cumulative noise impact subject to a number of conditions to protect noise amenity. The proposal provided a separation distance well in excess of ten times rotor diameter (which was 245m), comfortably satisfying requirements in terms of safety and shadow flicker.

A number of objectors had expressed concern regarding the proximity of the proposal to residential properties. As stated the proposal provided a separation distance well in excess of ten times rotor diameter. The closest dwelling was approximately 414m from the site. It was considered that given the scale of the proposal and separation distances provided, it would not have an unacceptably dominant or overbearing impact on any residential properties in the area. Moreover additional factors such as the orientation of properties and intervening buildings and vegetation would help to restrict views from many of the closest properties as detailed further in the report.

NIEA had provided no objection to this proposal in terms of local nature conservation interests, the setting of listed buildings and any remaining historical features within the adjacent WWII airfield. Planners had consulted widely to assess potential impacts of this proposal in terms of aviation safety and telecommunications and no objections had been made by expert bodies.

PC.01.12.15

Objections had been made in respect to impacts on health and house prices, however no substantive evidence had been submitted to demonstrate that this proposed turbine would have any adverse financial or health impacts for residents of nearby properties. The Public Health Agency‟s view was that provided turbines were sited in accordance with policy there was minimal to no risk to health. Regarding objections based on tourism, as it was not felt that the proposal would have an unacceptable adverse impact on landscape/visual amenity, it was not felt that the proposal would affect the tourism potential of the wider area.

On balance it was the planning judgement that this proposal would not have an unacceptable adverse impact on local environmental considerations or residential amenity. The proposal would help reduce greenhouse gases and other polluting emissions and would contribute towards meeting government‟s targets for renewable energy. Therefore it was recommended that planning permission be granted.

The Chairman invited Mr David Stewart, who was accompanied by Mr John Monteith to speak for five minutes on behalf of the Ballyhalbert Residents Association in objection to the application.

In the first instance Mr Stewart advised that Mr Monteith was solely present for the purposes of clarification about noise and sound issues. He also wished to stress that the residents‟ objection to wind turbines was purely about the wind turbines and was not in any way personal to the land owners.

Mr Stewart continued that the residents objected to this application as they had concern about the cumulative effect of the wind turbines in the locality. He noted that this proposal and the next one to be considered had been applied for by the same developer who had stated the turbine was required to provide power to a business located there, however Mr Stewart stated there was no evidence of a business there and as such he queried why a turbine was required.

Mr Stewart referred to the proximity of the nearby landfill site and advised that it had not just been household waste deposited there and he was personally aware that sewage sludge had been dumped there many years before.

Mr Stewart continued that the existing turbine was very discernable and conveyed that the residents‟ opinion was the opposite of that contained in the report. He stated that leaves only stayed on the trees for five months of the year and as such during the other seven months there would be a clear and unimpeded view of the turbine for at least 50% of the road. He stressed that in the residents‟ opinion, a wind farm was being developed.

Mr Stewart further stated that local landowners were concerned that future applications for single dwellings, such as farm dwellings, could be rejected due to the proximity of proposed turbines.

He hoped that this application would be granted the same level of importance as the first application.

PC.01.12.15

In response to a query from Councillor McClean about the visual impact of the turbine, the Senior Planner acknowledged that turbines introduced a new and distinctive feature onto any landscape and in this instance the turbines would appear as a coherent group on the landscape. She added there were many roadside trees and vegetation that would break up the view in the vicinity of the airfield. She reiterated that planning opinion did not consider the turbine to be overly dominant in the landscape. She further stated that there was a high degree of manmade influence in this landscape which reduced the sensitivity to other manmade structures and again acknowledged that whilst the turbine would be visible in the wider area, it was not considered to have an unacceptable adverse impact; adding that the structure would read in proportion with its surrounding landscape.

Councillor McClean queried why the cumulative impact was considered a factor in Item 4.1, however with this application it appeared not to be an issue. In response, the Senior Planner stated that it was considered that there was no significant sustained visibility between the group of turbines in the vicinity of the airfield and other previously approved and current applications in the wider area. Councillor McClean then expressed concern about the potential legal consequences of decisions made by the Committee and queried whether the PAC had ever ruled against a decision made by a Committee. The Senior Planner responded that she aware of planning refusals for turbines located in an AONB sustained by the PAC based on visual amenity and landscape character.

In response to a query from Councillor Barry about turbines supplying electricity for a business, the Senior Planner stated that there was no test within PPS18 for this and she added that any surplus could be sold back to the grid.

Councillor McIlveen commented that visual amenity was a subjective issue and when members had viewed the area earlier in the year, it was his own subjective viewpoint that the existing turbine was highly visible in the landscape, and that the view from Ballyhemlin church was of an alien entity which was overbearing when viewed from Ballyhalbert. He also queried the potential vibration noise impact of a series of turbines.

The Head of Environmental Health, Development and Protection responded that an ETSU 97 noise impact assessment had been done with the result that the noise level produced would be well below ETSU limit, even with a series of turbines. He continued that the noise waves produced were broadband in nature and that many factors had been considered in the ETSU assessment and that the proposal would not make much more contribution noise-wise to existing property when assessed with the existing turbine.

Councillor McIlveen queried whether a noise impact assessment had been undertaken with specific consideration of elderly people. The Head of Environmental Health, Development and Protection responded that ETSU was the de-facto standard to be used and referring back to evidence in a 2006 report confirmed that vibration was not generally considered to be an issue.

Members discussed the matter at length and several expressed serious concerns in respect of visual amenity and the impact of this on the local community and the

PC.01.12.15 potential stress that could cause. It was noted that the group of turbines would have the look of a wind farm, and whilst it had been stated that there were trees and vegetation to break up the view from the road, there was no guarantee those were a permanent feature and therefore their removal would expose views of the turbines even more.

Further concerns were raised about noise impact and officers reiterated that due process had been followed in respect of assessment and all existing standards had been met.

In response to queries about faulty turbines the Head of Environmental Health, Development and Protection advised that if a noise nuisance occurred, Environmental Health could serve a Noise Abatement Notice. He also confirmed that turbines would automatically turn off in the event of excessively high winds. In response to a statement regarding how noise impact/vibrations could not be measured properly until turbines built, he clarified that it was a matter of mathematics in terms of predicting the noise levels at a sensitive receptor and that conditions can be attached to any approval which require the owner to examine and address any issues at his own expense.

In summary, the Senior Planner stated that it was a requirement of policy to consider the cumulative impact of each application in the system, including the impact on the landscape as well as other material planning considerations and therefore the proposal could not be considered in isolation. She further clarified that best practice guidance makes reference to what‟s appropriate in terms of a number of wind turbines reading as one group as opposed to being spread across the landscape. She was content that comprehensive assessment as detailed in the reports had been undertaken.

Proposed by Councillor Barry, seconded by Councillor Walker, with 4 voting For and 8 voting Against, 2 Abstaining and 1 Absent that the recommendation to grant approval of the planning application be adopted.

The proposal FELL.

The poll resulted as follows:

FOR 4 AGAINST 8 ABSTAINED 2 ABSENT 1 Alderman Aldermen Alderman Alderman Gibson Carson Keery Graham McDowell Girvan Councillor Councillors Irvine Fletcher Barry McClean Walker Smith Councillors Dunne McIlveen Thompson

PC.01.12.15

At this stage of the meeting there was a recess at 9.30pm and the meeting reconvened at 9.45pm.

It was then proposed by Councillor McIlveen, seconded by Alderman Girvan that the recommendation to grant approval of the planning application be rejected and that the application be refused under planning grounds RE1 of PPS18.

Councillor McIlveen stated that there was an unacceptable adverse impact on the residential area of the village of Ballyhalbert and the areas surrounding the existing turbines, and an unacceptable adverse impact on the visual amenity and landscape character and refusal reasons should be worded around these concerns.

Councillor Barry expressed concern that the Council could be exposed to significant risk if the decision was referred to the PAC and not upheld.

Proposed by Councillor McIlveen, seconded by Alderman Girvan, with 8 voting For and 4 voting Against, 2 Abstaining and 1 Absent that the planning application be refused under planning grounds RE1 of PPS18.

The poll resulted as follows:

FOR 8 AGAINST 4 ABSTAINED 2 ABSENT 1 Aldermen Alderman Alderman Alderman Carson Gibson Keery Graham Girvan McDowell Councillor Irvine Councillors Fletcher McClean Barry Smith Walker Councillors Dunne McIlveen Thompson

Item 4.4. – X/2014/0439/F – 465m SE of 5 Ballyhemlin Road, Ballyhalbert

PREVIOUSLY CIRCULATED:- Copy documentation (Appendix IV).

The Senior Planner guided Members through a PowerPoint presentation which included a summary of the application, existing and proposed plans and photographs of the site:

. DEA: Ards Peninsula . Committee Interest: 6 or more objections received contrary to Officer recommendation . Proposal: Proposed 150KW wind turbine with a rotor diameter of 24.5m and tower height of 30m . Site Location: 465m South East of 5 Ballyhemlin Road, Ballyhalbert . Recommendation: Approve Planning Permission

PC.01.12.15

The proposal sought a 150kw turbine with a tower height of 30m and a rotor diameter of 24.5m located 465m south east of 5 Ballyhemlin Road, Ballyhalbert and the recommendation was to grant planning permission.

The first map showed the location of the site to the east of the existing turbine and the adjacent turbine site on the airfield. The previously discussed deferred application was located to the south-east. The application previously approved by the Committee, near Ballyhemlin Church, was plotted to the north. The time limits for implementing the domestic scaled (10-15m hub) turbines indicated on the map to the south east had expired. It was noted that the location of the previously presented turbine was to the south-west and the turbine to the north-west was relatively recently submitted.

The second slide depicted the location of a number of key critical viewpoints. The proposal would be visible along High Street and this vantage point was over 1km from the site. Given the distance from the site, the close visual relationship between the proposal and the existing turbine on the airfield and turbine sites, as well as the existing large industrial waste water treatment works, it was considered that the proposal would not have an unacceptable adverse impact on the visual amenity or landscape character of the area from this viewpoint. Along the western section of this road, intervening roadside buildings and trees/vegetation restricted/obscured views of the existing turbine on the airfield and would similarly restrict views of the proposed turbine.

Along the Glastry Road, the turbine was located a greater distance away than the existing turbine (and the other turbine site previously presented) and due to the intervening roadside vegetation and topography it was considered that potential views would largely be limited to the upper portion. Some strong roadside vegetation would restrict views from Ballyhemlin Road and due to the un-sustained nature of views and distance from the site it was not considered the proposal would unacceptably dominate the landscape from this viewpoint.

Viewpoint 4 was taken from Ballyhemlin Church and the Historic Buildings Unit had not provided an objection to this proposal. Reference was made to the location of the existing turbine on the airfield which gave some indication of relative scale and prominence. It was considered that the proposed turbine would read as part of a coherent group of turbines from this location and the scale would be in proportion to the landscape. Views of the proposed turbine from the coast would be restricted by intervening buildings and the distance (at least 1.4km) from the site.

In terms of cumulative impact it was considered the proposed turbine would read closely with the existing turbine and indeed the other turbine site located in the vicinity of the airfield. It was considered that the proposal was located a significant distance from, and had little inter-visibility with, other approved and current turbine sites in the wider locality. Indeed it was the planning judgement that this proposal

PC.01.12.15 would not have an unacceptable adverse impact either individually or cumulatively on visual amenity/landscape character.

In terms of residential amenity, Environmental Health had provided no objection to the cumulative noise impact subject to a number of conditions to protect noise amenity. The proposal provided a separation distance well in excess of ten times rotor diameter (which was 245m), comfortably satisfying requirements in terms of safety and shadow flicker.

A number of objectors expressed concern in respect to the proximity of the proposal to residential properties. As stated the proposal provided a separation distance well in excess of ten times rotor diameter and the closest dwelling was approximately 470m from the site. It was considered that given the scale of the proposed turbine and the separation distances provided, it would not have an unacceptably dominant or overbearing impact on any residential properties in the area. Moreover additional factors such as the orientation of properties and intervening buildings and vegetation would help to restrict views from many of the closest properties as detailed in the report.

NIEA had provided no objection to this proposal in terms of local nature consideration interests, the setting of listed buildings and any remaining historical features within the adjacent WWII airfield. Planners had consulted widely to assess potential impacts of this proposal in terms of aviation safety and telecommunications and no objections had been made by expert bodies.

Again, despite objections no substantive evidence had been submitted to demonstrate that this proposed turbine would have any adverse impact on surrounding house prices or the health of local residents. The Public Health Agency‟s view was that provided turbines were sited in accordance with policy there was minimal to no risk to health. Moreover as it was not felt that the proposal would have an unacceptable adverse impact on landscape and visual amenity it was not felt that the proposal could affect the tourism potential of the wider area.

On balance it was the planning judgement that this proposal would not have an unacceptable impact on local environmental considerations or residential amenity. The proposal would help reduce greenhouse gases and other polluting emissions and would contribute towards meeting government‟s targets for renewable energy. Therefore it was recommended that planning permission be granted.

The Chairman invited Mr David Stewart, who was accompanied by Mr John Monteith to speak for five minutes on behalf of the Ballyhalbert Residents Association in objection to the application.

Mr Stewart expressed his belief that, due to the way the applications had been submitted one after another, the applicant was trying to detract from the fact they

PC.01.12.15

were trying to develop a wind farm. He noted the close proximity of the proposal to a nearby landfill site and commented that the site had been filled with more than household waste. He also noted that the view from Ballyhemlin Church would be of three turbines and therefore would look like a group of turbines. He refuted the claim that the existing turbines were visible for only 50% of the road.

He queried the accuracy and the modelling used in the assessment of the cumulative noise impact as he believed the programme was out of date and therefore not fit for purpose. He also expressed concern about the set-back distances in respect of future applications and stressed there was no drumlin affect, given the flat topography of the airfield.

He stressed that the „bullying‟ email referred to earlier in the meeting had not been sent by the Ballyhalbert Residents Association.

Councillor McIlveen stated that the issues with this proposal were essentially the same as in the previous application (Item 4.3) and therefore the same arguments had already been made and the same considerations applied.

Proposed by Councillor McIlveen, seconded by Alderman Girvan, with 8 voting For and 4 voting Against, 2 Abstaining and 1 Absent that the recommendation to grant approval of the planning application be rejected and that the application be refused under planning grounds RE1 of PPS18.

The poll resulted as follows:

Item 4.5 – X/2014/0635/F – Approximately 354m East of 21 Bairdstown Road, Ballywalter

PREVIOUSLY CIRCULATED:- Copy documentation (Appendix V).

The Senior Planner guided Members through a PowerPoint presentation which included a summary of the application, existing and proposed plans and photographs of the site:

. DEA: Ards Peninsula . Committee Interest: 6 objections received contrary to Officer recommendation

PC.01.12.15

. Proposal: A single 250KW wind turbine with a tower height of 40m and blade length of 19.5m . Site Location: Approximately 354m East of 21 Bairdstown Road, Ballywalter . Recommendation: Approve Planning Permission

The Senior Planner provided a detailed overview of the planning application advising that the proposal sought a single 250kw wind turbine with a tower height of 40m and a blade length of 19.5m (59.5m overall) located east of 21 Bairdstown Road, Ballywalter. The area was largely characterised by low-lying agricultural farmland and gentle undulations.

The first map showed the location of the turbine in relation to a previously approved turbine approximately 800m to the south-west of the site. All other previously approved and current application sites for single turbines were located in excess of 1.8km from the site.

The second map depicted the location of a number of key critical viewpoints. View Point 1 was located along the Whitechurch Road and due to land rising immediately to the east, views of the proposal were likely to be restricted to the upper blade proportions along much of this coastal route. Moreover a substantial portion of forestry vegetation to the north of the proposed site would serve to obscure views of the proposal from the northern section of this coastal road. Viewpoint 3 was taken from the junction of New Road with Dunover Road North and Viewpoint 4 was taken from the south-west of the proposal along the Bairdstown Road. Open views of the proposal would be available along much of these roads, however the gentle undulations would at times serve to obscure the lower portion of the turbine.

Wind turbines by their nature, introduced a new and distinctive feature into any landscape. Indeed PPS18 BPG recognised that turbines would often be highly visible and that it would normally be unrealistic to conceal them. However it was considered that the scale of the proposed turbine would read in proportion to the landscape and that this area had the capacity to absorb the proposed single turbine without unacceptably impacting local landscape character or visual amenity.

It was considered that the proposal was located a sufficient distance from and would have limited inter-visibility with other approved and current sites in the surrounding area. Therefore it was judged that approval of the proposed turbine would not result in an unacceptable visual build of wind energy development in the area.

In terms of residential amenity, Environmental Health had provided no objection to the cumulative noise impact subject to a number of conditions to protect noise amenity. The proposal provided a separation distance well in excess of ten times rotor diameter to properties outside of the ownership of the applicant (which was 390m) comfortably satisfying requirements in terms of safety and shadow flicker.

A number of objectors had expressed concern regarding the proximity of the proposal to residential properties. As stated the proposal provides a separation distance well in excess of ten times rotor diameter and the closest dwelling outside of the ownership of the applicant is approximately 414m from the site. It was

PC.01.12.15 considered that given the scale of the proposal and separation distances provided, it would not have an unacceptably dominant or overbearing impact on any residential properties in the area.

NIEA had provided no objection to this proposal in terms of local nature conservation interests, the setting of listed buildings or monuments. Planners had consulted widely to assess potential impacts of this proposal in terms of aviation safety and telecommunications and no objections had been made by expert bodies.

Objection had been made in respect to impact on house prices, however no substantive evidence had been submitted to demonstrate that this proposed turbine would have any adverse financial impacts for residents of nearby properties.

The Chairman invited Ms Cliona Gormley, Wind NI, to speak for five minutes in support of the application.

Ms Gormley clarified that the proposal was not connected with the others discussed so far during the meeting and was also not in the same location. She continued that a large amount of in-house pre-planning work had been undertaken prior to submission of the application. Furthermore, the scale of the turbine was appropriate for its proposed location and fell within LCA99. Consideration had been given to Strangford Lough which was a key asset to the area, and was also 5km away from the proposal. Steps had been taken to ensure there was a minimal impact on the landscape and wildlife and the NIEA had responded with no concerns.

Shadow flicker was not an issue as there were no neighbouring dwellings.

A sound assessment had been carried out and Environmental Health had attached some conditions to the approval.

Visually, the land rose in the west and would provide some shielding of the turbine.

Councillor McIlveen asked what level of consultation had been undertaken with local residents and in response Ms Gormley advised that seven objections had been received, however after the application had been submitted it was the responsibility of Planning to address concerns. He then asked for clarification on the nature of the objections. Ms Gormley advised that concern had been raised about: the impact on wildlife, however there was a sufficient buffer in the site to comply with habitat regulations; shadow flicker – the nearest neighbouring dwelling was 414m away and therefore too far away to be affected; visual impact – a visual assessment had been carried out and there was sufficient shielding for the turbine.

Ms Gormley advised that Wind NI was a small business and had an open door policy, which had included meeting with objectors to address their concerns. She

PC.01.12.15

continued that Wind NI was not tied to any particular turbine manufacturer and could therefore purchase turbines that were suited to each individual site. She confirmed that the foundation for this proposal would be four metres deep.

RESOLVED on the proposal of Councillor Barry, seconded by Alderman McDowell, with 9 voting For and 2 voting Against, 3 Abstaining and 4 Absent that the recommendation to grant approval of the planning application be adopted.

The poll resulted as follows:

FOR 9 AGAINST 2 ABSTAINED 3 ABSENT 1 Aldermen Councillors Alderman Alderman Gibson McIlveen Carson Graham Girvan Thompson Smith Irvine Councillor Keery McClean McDowell Councillors Barry Dunne Fletcher Walker

Item 4.6. – LA06/2015/0552/F – The Market House, Market Square, Portaferry

PREVIOUSLY CIRCULATED:- Copy documentation (Appendix VI).

The Principal Planner guided Members through a PowerPoint presentation which included a summary of the application, existing and proposed plans and photographs of the site:

. DEA: Ards Peninsula . Committee Interest: Applications relating to land in which the Council had an interest . Proposal: Minor alterations . Site Location: The Market House, Market Square, Portaferry Recommendation: Approve Planning Permission

The Principal Planner provided a detailed overview of the planning application advising that the Market House was a listed building and therefore no works could take place either to the exterior or interior without the benefit of Planning Permission.

The Market House was a Neoclassical style building currently used as a community centre. The site was located within Portaferry‟s Conservation Area. Listed building consent was sought for proposed internal alterations which would include the erection of stud walls, painting and reconfiguration of existing stores.

During the processing of the application the case officer had consulted with the NIEA Historic Buildings Unit, which had expressed no objection under Policy BH8

PC.01.12.15

(Extension or Alteration of a Listed Building) of Planning Policy 6: Planning, Archaeology and the Built Heritage.

Policy BH8 stated that consent would be granted to proposals for the extension or alteration of a listed building if the essential character of the building and its setting were retained and its features of special interest remained intact and unimpaired the works proposed made use of traditional and/or sympathetic building materials and techniques which matched or were in keeping with those found on the building; and the architectural details, for example doors, gutters and windows, matched or were in keeping with the building.

The proposed works fulfilled the requirements of the policy and there were no objections for consideration, therefore consent of Planning Permission was recommended.

RESOLVED on the proposal of Councillor McIlveen , seconded by Alderman Carson, that the recommendation to grant approval of the planning application be adopted.

5. PROTOCOL FOR OPERATION OF THE PLANNING COMMITTEE (Appendix VII)

PREVIOUSLY CIRCULATED:- Report dated 30 November 2015 from the Head of Planning stating that further to the previous adoption of the Protocol for the Operation of Ards and North Down Borough Council‟s Planning Committee, a review had now been undertaken following eight months of operation.

The changes were highlighted in the attached document.

RECOMMENDED that the Council adopts the revised Protocol for the Operation of the Ards and North Down Borough Council‟s Planning Committee.

Alderman Carson referred to page 18, point 66 (Deferrals), of the report and he asked for clarification of the term „where possible‟. The Head of Planning clarified that this meant that a member may wish to request more than one deferral.

Alderman McDowell referred to page 18 – Submission of Information – and queried whether refusing to accept additional information a week before the Planning Committee meeting went against natural justice. In response, the Head of Planning stated that officers were duty bound to consider all information received in respect of an application right up until the date a decision was issued. She continued that if objections were produced on the day of the meeting, there would be no time to consider them and therefore if new issues arose they would have to be brought to a subsequent meeting of the Committee. She further clarified an amendment to the wording „close of play‟ to „after 5.00pm‟.

NOTED.

PC.01.12.15

Alderman McDowell queried whether information received after an application had been considered by the Committee would mean that the application would have to be considered again by the Committee.

In response, the Chief Executive confirmed that would be the case so as not to discount any valid information. He continued that there had to be due process and time to fully consider an application, however he cautioned that submission of additional information after consideration by the Committee should not be encouraged.

Councillor McIlveen referred to page 14, point 48 about members being present for discussion of an entire item. He sought clarification on the last sentence of the paragraph, “This also applies to those applications deferred from a previous meeting”. In respect of point 48, Alderman Carson commented about the need for comfort breaks.

In response, the Chief Executive stated that members had to be in full knowledge of the facts in order to make an informed decision, as it was possible elements of materiality could be discussed in their absence. He cautioned that applicants or objectors may be looking for any reason to challenge an unfavourable decision, for example a member not being present during discussion, and therefore the best way to address this would be to go into short recess at regular intervals.

NOTED.

Alderman McDowell concurred that breaks had to be accommodated, particularly when deputations were present, and consideration had to be given to the fact that the Planning Committee operated differently than other Committees.

RESOLVED, on the proposal of Councillor Dunne, seconded by Councillor Thompson, that the recommendation be adopted, subject to the above noted amendments.

6. REPORT ON NI PLANNING STATISTICS 2015/2016 – FIRST QUARTERLY BULLETIN

PREVIOUSLY CIRCULATED:- Northern Ireland Statistics and Research Agency Official Statistics Publication dated 19 November 2015 detailing NI Planning Statistics April – June 2015: Provisional figures.

The Head of Planning advised that the report had published details of statistics for the first quarter of 2015/2016. She noted the report was disappointing in that it did not reflect the issues being faced by the department post transfer to the Council and she highlighted the following points in respect of this:-

 Reliability of the figures being produced – reports were available to the DOE that were not available for the Council to check against.

 There were issues with the Planning Portal at the time of transfer:-

PC.01.12.15

- Unable to issue decision notices for a number of weeks - Unable to carry out consultations for a number of weeks - Names and addresses not pulling through on correspondence - Planning histories not pulling through

 A number of legacy cases in the system were not reflected in the report and the backlog was still being cleared.

 Many files transferred out of Headquarters from specialist units such as renewables, minerals, waste and retailing without the specialist staff transferring.

 Resources – a number of staff were removed from this Council area to go to other Council areas well ahead of transfer and other staff only transferred to the Council in the week prior to the merger of the two Councils – there was therefore a turnover of staff working on files

 New legislation and requirements from statutory consultees had resulted in many cases being held up until submission of surveys and assessments.

 Prior to Local Government Reform, applications had been categorised by minor, immediate and major, however now they were just local and major. For example, sunrooms had been classed in the same category as housing developments comprising 50 units and therefore would have different processing times.

 Going forward, a significant improvement was expected due to the following:-

- Through workshops with planning agents it had been possible to highlight the need for front loading of the system with the correct information submitted at the start of the process - Planning agents had been made aware that if the proposal was not up to standard at the start of the process, the application would be automatically returned - On major applications – there was now a statutory duty to undertake pre- application community consultation which would hopefully address any contentious issues prior to the application being submitted. - Encouraging more people to meet planning officers and discuss their application prior to submission.

RECOMMENDED that the Council notes the content of the report.

Referring to page 11 of the report and figure 6.2, the Chairman commented that it appeared that two councils and the Strategic Planning Division had made no decisions in the first quarter, which he believed was probably incorrect.

Alderman Carson stated that the report was not a fair reflection of the work that had been done in the Borough and he looked forward with confidence to attaining better figures in the coming year.

PC.01.12.15

The Head of Planning advised that the workshops had been well received and the Council was in the top three of the eleven councils.

RESOLVED, that the recommendation be adopted.

7. UPDATE ON PLANNING APPEALS (Appendix VIII)

PREVIOUSLY CIRCULATED:- PAC Appeal Decision report for the erection of 2 no. dwellings (infill development) at Land between 51 and 57 Comber Road, Killinchy.

RECOMMENDED that the report be noted.

Alderman Carson requested that going forward, consideration be given to those applications that were associated with the award of funding. In response the Head of Planning confirmed that this was already the case with applications for social housing. She continued that to assist with this, the applicant must highlight early in the process any limited timescales involved and she confirmed that priority could be given to applications where it was indicated there was a grant required, when possible.

AGREED that the recommendation be adopted.

CIRCULATED FOR INFORMATION

(a) Department of the Environment – Rural Development Programme 2014 – 2020 (Copy correspondence attached)

TERMINATION OF MEETING

The meeting terminated at 10.45pm.

ITEM 7.2

ARDS AND NORTH DOWN BOROUGH COUNCIL

A meeting of the Environment Committee was held in the Council Chamber, 2 Church Street, Newtownards on Wednesday, 2 December 2015 at 7.00 pm.

PRESENT:

In the Chair: Councillor Boyle

Aldermen: Gibson Henry

Councillors: Cathcart Fletcher Cummings Muir Edmund Smart Ferguson Wilson

Officers: Director of Environment (D Lindsay), Head of Building Control, Licensing and Neighbourhood Environment (R Brittain), Head of Waste and Cleansing Services (N Martin), Head of Assets and Property Services (P Caldwell) and Democratic Services Officer (H Loebnau)

1. APOLOGIES

The Chairman welcomed everyone to the meeting including the large number of people in the public gallery. Apologies were then noted from Councillors Leslie, Martin and Armstrong and apologies for lateness were received from Councillor Muir.

2. DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST

The Chairman asked Members to advise of any declarations of interest.

(Councillor Muir arrived late to the meeting and before Item 15 Bus Shelters, declared an interest due to his employment with Translink).

NOTED.

3. DEPUTATIONS

3.1 MICHELLE DUNN, LONDONDERRY PARK DOG WALKERS

The Chairman welcomed Michelle Dunn from the Londonderry Park Green Dog Walkers group and her colleagues to the meeting. He invited them to make their presentation.

The group thanked the Committee for the opportunity to speak at the Environment Committee and appreciated being able to make their proposals within the democratic process by positive engagement with Council. EC.7.10.15

The Group outlined its objectives which were:

 To engage with the Environment Committee, Council and officers  To convey the views and recommendations of those who regularly exercised their dogs in Londonderry Park  To reach an accommodation whereby park users, including sports participants and dog owners, could happily co-exist  To ensure access for all to a shared space which was treasured by those who used it  To make constructive proposals for consideration by the Environment Committee

The park was leased to the Council by the Marquis of Londonderry in November 1936 and was “for the purpose of a public park, walks, pleasure grounds or recreation for the use and enjoyment of the inhabitants of Newtownards.”

Recent Developments

 Michelle Dunn had engaged with the Environment Committee and Officers to obtain an extension to the consultations  Two well-attended public meetings had been organised  A Petition to reconsider Dog Control Zone had obtained 302 signatures  The Londonderry Park Dog Walkers group was a significant user group from across the community  The Group distilled ideas and proposals  The Group had a high level of engagement with Environment Committee members  The Group gave due regard to Legislation for Dog Exclusion Orders, noting significant discretion available to Council

Dog Exclusion Areas had been introduced in 2012 from the children’s play area and the sports pitches and more recently the Council had extended that area. The Londonderry Park Green Dog Walkers had produced an amended proposal which they presented to Council with the hope of extending the area in which owners were allowed to exercise their dogs.

The walkers had committed themselves to The Green Dog Walkers’ Scheme which had been introduced by Ards and North Down Borough Council. That was a campaign to start shifting public attitudes so that failing to clear up dog fouling became a socially unacceptable behaviour.

Green Dog Walkers was developed to give responsible dog walkers an identity, increase the availability of poop bags and act as a silent reminder to pick up after the dog had fouled.

In summary the group’s proposals were as follows:

EC.7.10.15

 To strongly encourage responsible dog ownership by joining the Council’s Green Dog Walkers scheme.  The group believed the Park should be a place of recreation for all age groups and all backgrounds.  To undertake to work in partnership with the Council, to act as its ‘eyes and ears’ in the Park.  The group would like the right to exercise dogs off-lead, under control, in the areas shaded green on the drawings.  The group acknowledged that the Council may exercise its discretion to impose seasonal, time of day or special event variations.

Councillor Fletcher thanked the group for their informative presentation adding that it was probably one of the best they had heard since the new Council had been formed and he considered that Council and the dog walkers had similarities in interest. He asked if opening up the quadrant nearest to the town for dog walkers would be a compromise position to accommodate dogs during the winter months. In response the group felt that the area would not be a large enough for all of the dogs to be exercised and it would be preferable to have extra grassy areas. The dog walkers stated that they were prepared to take any responsible measures necessary.

Councillor Smart thanked the dog walkers for the informative presentation, adding that he had found the attitude of the group impressive; he also thanked the officers for engaging so well. He suggested having a demarcation of areas which were well lit and drew people in on the darker evenings. The group was happy to consider demarcation.

Councillor Barry said the presentation had been excellent and the dog walkers were effectively the Council’s eyes and ears on the ground. Their willingness to engage with Council, the love they had for the area and the pride they took from the investment at the Park was evident and more publicity for the Green Dog Walkers scheme like signage might also help.

Alderman Gibson recognised that it was a difficult position to be in. Council had had to be stricter than in the past and there was now increased concern over the health and wellbeing of children and young people using sports facilities. No dog walker could guarantee that a dog couldn’t escape on to a pitch and it would be difficult for Council officers to clean up fouling before a sports game on any given day. The Londonderry Park Dog Walkers agreed to monitor fouling throughout the Park.

The Chairman thanked the group for attending and for their excellent presentation and they left the meeting at 7.27 pm.

The Chairman asked Members to contact officers with further comments if they wished to make them.

NOTED.

EC.7.10.15

3.2 FIRST AND LAST, COMBER

Members were advised that this business had not made contact with Council and the proposed Deputation would not now take place.

NOTED.

4. APPLICATION FOR ENTERTAINMENT LICENCE – DEPUTATION

PREVIOUSLY CIRCULATED:- Report from the Head of Building Control, Licensing and Neighbourhood Environment stating that an application had been received on the 11 January 2015 from Mr Gary McKee for the renewal of an Entertainment Licence for:

First & Last Public House, 42-44 Bridge Street, Comber.

The application was for an annual licence to provide:

Dancing, singing, music or entertainment of a like kind and any public contest, match, exhibition or display of darts and billiards, pool, snooker or similar game; during the hours of 11.30am to 1am; Monday to Sunday.

Despite repeated requests from the Licensing Section the applicant had failed to provide a Fire Risk Assessment for the premises as required under the Fire and Rescue Services (NI) Order 2006 and Council licensing Terms and Conditions.

It was considered that the Council should refuse this application on the grounds that it had not been completed by the applicant.

The applicant, Mr Gary McKee, had been offered the opportunity to make representation to the Committee at its meeting on 2 December in respect of the application.

RECOMMENDED that a recommendation on the application would be made following any such deputation made by Mr McKee.

Councillor Cummings advised that he had been led to believe that the manager of the premises had been ill and therefore had been unable to make contact with Council.

Councillor Cathcart was of the view that the application should be refused until a representation was made and Members agreed to defer a decision to the next meeting. If no contact had been made at that point the application should be refused.

AGREED TO RECOMMEND, on the proposal of Councillor Cathcart, seconded by Councillor Barry, that the recommendation be adopted.

EC.7.10.15

5. APPLICATION FOR ENTERTAINMENT LICENCE

PREVIOUSLY CIRCULATED:- Report from the Head of Building Control, Licensing and Neighbourhood Environment detailing that an application had been received for the grant of entertainment licence from Mr Sam McKee for:

The Gillespie Arms, 15 The Square, Comber

The application was for an annual licence to provide:

Dancing, singing, music or entertainment of a like kind and any public contest, match, exhibition or display of darts and billiards, pool, snooker or similar game; during the permitted hours under the Licensing (NI) Order 1996 when alcohol may be sold or consumed on the premises.

The application was complete and there were no objections from the PSNI, Environmental Health or local residents.

It was proposed that the licence be granted.

RECOMMENDED that the Council grants the licence for the Gillespie Arms.

AGREED TO RECOMMEND, on the proposal of Councillor Barry, seconded by Councillor Edmund, that the recommendation be adopted.

6. APPLICATION FOR THE GRANT OF STREET TRADING LICENCES

PREVIOUSLY CIRCULATED:- Report from the Head of Building Control, Licensing and Neighbourhood Environment detailing that an application had been received for the grant of a mobile street trading licence from:

Richard McCauley of 5 Enler Park, Comber

Mr McCauley wished to trade in ice-cream and confectionary across the Borough on Monday to Friday 3:00pm to 8:00pm and Saturday to Sunday 2:00pm to 8:00pm.

RECOMMENDED that the application be granted subject to all the Council’s normal requirements being met and no objections being raised by the PSNI.

AGREED TO RECOMMEND, on the proposal of Councillor Cummings, seconded by Councillor Edmund, that the recommendation be adopted.

7. APPLICATION FOR AMUSEMENT PERMIT

PREVIOUSLY CIRCULATED:- Report from the Head of Building Control, Licensing and Neighbourhood Environment detailing that an application had been received for the grant of an Amusement Permit Licence from Wandil Leisure Ltd for the following premises:

EC.7.10.15

The Full House, 43 Bridge Street, Comber

The application was for an annual permit to provide gaming machines with a maximum prize pay-out of up to £25. Access to those machines was restricted to over 18 year olds.

The premises were previously operated as an amusement arcade by Ava Leisure.

RECOMMENDED that the application was recommended for approval subject to the following:

1 The application being completed satisfactorily with all the Council’s requirements being met.

2 The PSNI, Northern Ireland Fire and Rescue Service or members of the public not objecting to the issue of the permit.

3 The applicant foregoing his right to appear before and be heard by the Council.

AGREED TO RECOMMEND, on the proposal of Councillor Barry, seconded by Councillor Gibson, that the recommendation be adopted.

8. ANTI-SOCIAL BEHAVIOUR – LINEAR PARK, BANGOR

PREVIOUSLY CIRCULATED:- Report from the Head of Building Control, Licensing and Neighbourhood Environment detailing that at the meeting of the Environment Committee held on 7 October the following proposal was agreed:-

“An urgent report looking at the feasibility and cost of installing gates on Lower Linear Park and that Officers convene, at the first opportunity, a meeting with Council staff, PSNI, Education Authority, Lambert Smith Hampton, FASA and the YMCA to discuss a strategy to deal with the on-going anti-social behaviour and criminal damage occurring in this area.”

The matter was further raised at the meeting of the Environment Committee held on 4 November when the following Notice of Motion was agreed.

“That a report be brought back on the possibility of erecting fencing and gates around the Lower Ballycrochan Linear Park to combat major anti-social behaviour.”

In response to these decisions the following report had been produced.

EC.7.10.15

Background

On Thursday 1 October 2015 Alex Easton MLA had hosted a public meeting in Ballymagee Primary School. The purpose of the meeting was to give residents the opportunity to raise concerns regarding anti-social behaviour occurring in the lower Linear Park area. The meeting had been attended by representatives of the PSNI and Ards and North Down Community Safety Team. During the meeting residents had highlighted a series of concerns including youths causing annoyance, noise, criminal damage, litter, abusive behaviour, fire setting and alcohol consumption.

Fencing

As requested by both decisions noted above, consideration had been given to fencing Linear Park and subsequently opening and closing the site to allow access during the day.

The Council’s Technical Manager had reviewed the site and provided the following costs for the provision of 2 metre high ibex steel fencing and gates, as summarised below.

Silverbirch Road £2,500 Marlo Link £1,200 Fernmore Road x2 £3,000 East Circular Road £12,200

Total £18,900

It was also noted that there would be an additional cost to open and close the gates into the park to allow day time access. The present cost for that service provided by an outside contractor was £1.27 per visit. Based on four gates being installed and opened and closed twice a day throughout the year, the annual cost would be £3,708.

The provision of fencing could in some circumstances help address anti-social behaviour however it could also be counterproductive, seen as unwarranted and in most circumstances should be regarded as a measure of last resort. A fencing policy was being developed within which criteria were being considered which would assist the Council come to a decision when dealing with requests for fences. The criterion under consideration was likely to include posing the following questions.

 If there was evidence that the site was or was likely to be subject to sustained anti-social behaviour and or other inappropriate activity?  Would the provision of the fence address the reported problem taking into consideration the following, namely o Would a fence hamper enforcement activities by preventing/restricting Council staff and police etc. from accessing the site to which offenders may still be able to enter? o Would the provision of a fence likely displace the inappropriate behaviour to another, potentially, more vulnerable location?

EC.7.10.15

o Would the provision of a fence create a negative perception increasing feelings of fear and anxiety?  Had other means of addressing the inappropriate activity been considered and where appropriate tried?  Had consultation with key stake holders such as the PSNI, Ambulance Service and Fire and Rescue service identified a need or otherwise for fencing to be provided?  Had consultation taken place with other site users who may be affected by the closure or restricted access to a site?  Did the cost of the provision of the fence including maintenance and where appropriate opening and closing regimes justify the likely impact it would have in addressing the identified problems?

Using the criteria noted above it would appear that the provision of fencing at Linear Park at this time would be inappropriate for the following reasons summarised below.

1. Due to the size and layout of the site fencing was unlikely to prevent people from accessing the site. The fencing in effect may hamper enforcement/patrolling activity. 2. There was a strong possibility that the fencing would simply displace the anti- social behaviour rather than addressing the core problem. 3. Although at the current point no site user consultation had taken place it was noted that the park was well used for legitimate purposes such as for dog walking, jogging and for children to play. Those site users may strongly object to the likely restricted access. 4. As noted the provision of fencing was likely to displace the problem rather than solve it. It was noted that there was little or no provision for the youth in the area and engagement programmes should be developed where possible and introduced before fencing was considered further. 5. The cost of the provision of fencing was prohibitive along with the cost of opening and closing of the site.

Action Taken to Date

In response to the concerns raised officers from the Ards and North Down Community Safety Team had instigated a series of actions to help address the matter in the short to medium term. Those actions were summarised below.

The following evening patrols of the area had been conducted often in conjunction with the PSNI.

 25th September  30th September  1st October  7th October  8th October  12th – 14th October  18th October 2015  28th October 2015

EC.7.10.15

 6th November 2015  9th November 2015  12th November 2015

The site had further been inspected on a regular basis in the early morning to identify evidence of anti-social behaviour such as broken glass, damaged property, fire setting. It appeared from those inspections that there was limited evidence of those problems having occurring in recent weeks.

Officers had now undertaken a detailed profiling of a number of groups of youths who congregated in the area, the specific issues associated with each of these groups, and the particular issues of concern. A programme of intervention had been developed and was in progress, including:

 Actions around the sale of alcohol and access to alcohol by minors (including proxy buying by adults for minors);  Access to vacant properties in the area and enhancement of security measures;  Identification of changes to vegetation layout in the area, to reduce potential for cover that would serve to facilitate antisocial behaviour;  Liaison with FASA (Forum for Action on Substance Abuse) and the YMCA to work with young people in the area; and  Active pursuit of funding opportunities to support multi-agency youth support work in the area.

Future Action

Establish ASB Forum

In the past an anti-social behaviour forum consisting of officers from the Council, NIHE and PSNI had met on a regular basis in order to discuss and address issues arising in the Borough. The forum had its basis in the Anti-social Behaviour Order 2004 which required the three agencies noted above to consult with each other prior to the issue of an ASBO. The Forum which was supported by an information sharing protocol had been a useful tool for sharing information and developing a joint coordinated response to problems arising. In the last year due to restructuring in each of the three organisations the Forum fell by the way side. Steps were now being taken to reform the forum through which issues such as that at Ashbury/Linear Park would be raised on the relevant agenda.

EC.7.10.15

Seek funding for Youth Engagement patrols

It was noted that a funding opportunity had arisen through the PCSP to help address issues such as anti-social behaviour and fear of crime. It was proposed that an application was submitted, possibly in conjunction with the YMCA, to fund youth engagement patrols in the Ashbury/Linear Park area. Subject to funding being received the Officers would patrol the area, provide reassurance to local residents and engage with local youth identifying their needs, highlighting the concerns that their actions were causing, helping to signpost them to other services and bring in, where possible, other diversionary activities. If the application was successful funding would only be in place however to the end of March 2016.

Off-Licence Code of Practice

In order to help address anti-social behaviour associated with alcohol consumption generally across the Borough, an off licence code of practice was being re- developed. The code of practice required off licences to sign a pledge to meet their legal and social responsibilities while also highlighting to young people etc. that the off licence was part of the scheme discouraging them from attempting to buy alcohol.

Continued Patrolling

The presence of the Community Safety Team and police could have an impact in deterring anti-social behaviour. Although neither the team, nor police, could continue to give the area the level of attention it had received over the last few weeks, it would continue to be patrolled and any reports of anti-social behaviour responded to.

RECOMMENDED that fencing not be provided at Linear Park at the current time but the other actions detailed in the report were supported and approved.

The Head of Building Control, Licensing and Neighbourhood Environment said that the situation in that area had improved recently which may be in large part due to the colder weather. Fencing was not considered to be the answer since it displaced the problem rather than addressing it.

Councillor Cathcart thanked the officer for the report and proposed that the situation be monitored and a review take place again in 6 months’ time.

AGREED TO RECOMMEND, on the proposal of Councillor Henry, seconded by Councillor Barry, that the recommendation be adopted.

9. HOUSEHOLD KERBSIDE DRY RECYCLING SERVICE

PREVIOUSLY CIRCULATED:- Report by the Head of Waste and Cleansing Services detailing a further report brought to the November 2015 Environment Committee on a new Sustainable Waste Resource Management Strategy for the Borough. The proposed strategy had been approved and adopted by Council at its meeting on 25 November 2015.

EC.7.10.15

One of the key service enhancements listed in Part 1 of the Strategy, was expansion of the range of recyclable materials that should be placed in householders’ blue wheeled bins, to include all types of rigid plastic containers and packaging (currently only plastic bottles were accepted). The agreed enhancement to the kerbside recycling service for households also included the collection of all types of glass bottles and jars.

The business case document furnished to members set out all the relevant factors to be considered in relation to this service enhancement, detailing the key costs and benefits. The initiative would require replacement of six of Council’s Refuse Collection Vehicles that were due to be replaced in any event, with six differently configured vehicles that allowed separation of glass from other blue bin recyclable materials. The total cost of these six vehicles was estimated at £1.098 million (compared to an estimated replacement cost of six standard RCVs of £828K). The procurement of a glass caddy for each home was also required at a total cost of approximately £255K.

The potential impact on the Borough’s household kerbside recycling rate was a 14.2% increase, contributing a 7.2% rise on the overall Municipal Recycling Rate (based on official DoE municipal waste statistic reports). With a potential net reduction in waste processing costs of up to £620K per year arising from this recycling rate enhancement, the business case showed a very short payback period for the additional procurement costs involved.

Whilst it was not envisaged that the necessary arrangements would be in place to implement the service change until early Summer 2016 the delivery time for the required new split bodied refuse collection vehicles meant that the process for their procurement would need to commence as soon as possible. It was proposed that tender reports would be brought to Council for consideration in due course.

RECOMMENDED that the Council approves the service enhancements outlined for the household kerbside dry recycling service, with approval to proceed with the procurement process for the necessary replacement refuse collection vehicles and the glass caddies as outlined in the business case.

AGREED TO RECOMMEND, on the proposal of Councillor Barry, seconded by Councillor Edmund, that the recommendation be adopted.

10. HOUSEHOLD KERBSIDE FOOD WASTE RECYCLING SERVICE

PREVIOUSLY CIRCULATED:- Report from the Head of Waste and Cleansing Services detailing that in October 2015 Council agreed a new kerbside collection scheme for household food waste, aimed at fulfilling the new statutory obligation in regard to food waste recycling and making a significant reduction in Council’s landfill tax burden.

EC.7.10.15

Scheme Implementation

Arrangements were now well in progress for the roll-out of the new recycling initiative, the first in a number that had been agreed as part of the Council’s recently adopted Sustainable Waste Resource Management Strategy. The following provided some key information:

 An extensive two page article had been included in the Winter edition of the Borough Magazine, that was currently being distributed to every home in the Borough.  Procurement of necessary resources – additional bins, food waste caddies and compostable caddy liners was in progress.  A range of communications, education and marketing initiatives were in planning and would be rolled out over the coming weeks and months.  It was now planned that delivery of information letters, the first roll of compostable liners for food waste caddies and advice stickers for grey and green/brown bins would commence on Monday, 18 January.  The key message being issued to householders by Council was that they must no longer place any food waste in the grey bin; rather all food waste must be placed in the green or brown bin along with garden and other compostable waste types. That would ensure that Council fulfilled a new legal requirement in regard to recycling of food waste and would help save millions of pounds in landfill tax.  Householders would be provided with rolls of 50 compostable bin caddy liners, three times a year. That provided each home with an average of around three liners per week which experience showed, should be adequate for the food waste disposal needs of an average family size.  Bin crews and recycling officers would undertake routine monitoring of grey bins and: o Where there was evidence that a grey bin incorrectly contained food waste, it would be emptied but a first advisory notification would be placed on the bin which included a warning that continued misuse of the grey bin for food waste disposal may lead to disruption to the grey bin collection service. o Where the same bin was found on a second occasion to contain food waste, a second notification would be placed on the bin advising that whilst the bin had again been collected on this second occasion despite incorrectly containing food waste, it would not be collected on the next occasion if it was still being used to dispose of such waste.  Information letters delivered to each home would advise householders to contact the Council if they required a food waste caddy or a wheeled green/brown bin, which would be delivered to them free of charge at the earliest possible opportunity.  Information letters delivered to each home provided dedicated contact arrangements for enquiries about recycling: o Email: [email protected] o Telephone: 0300 013 3333 and select the ‘recycling’ option o ‘Bin-ovation’ app, downloadable from the Apple Store and Google Play

EC.7.10.15

Statutory Compliance

Reference was made to the letter received from the Northern Ireland Environment Agency (NIEA), reminding Council of its statutory obligation in regard to compliance with the Food Waste Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2015. Members’ attention was specifically drawn to the Agency’s proposal to request robust evidence from the Council next year that demonstrated our food waste recycling obligations were being effectively met.

The service initiative agreed by Council had been designed with an express key objective of ensuring that Council would be in a position to provide such evidence to NIEA; it would therefore be imperative that the residents of the Borough fully embraced the scheme to ensure that Council did not breach its statutory obligations.

Site Visit to Natural World Products Composting Plant

All green and brown bin waste materials, including food waste, was sent under contract to an ‘In Vessel’ composting plant operated by Natural World Products at Glenside Road, Dunmurry. In order to help better inform members around this important aspect of recycling, a site visit was proposed early in the New Year – details to be advised.

Officers also planned to arrange a site visit to that composting plant in the near future by representatives of local school Eco-committees, in a bid to educate local schoolchildren and encourage their enthusiastic support and promotion of recycling - in particular the green/brown bin recycling service for food and other compostable wastes.

RECOMMENDED that the report be noted. There had been a significant positive response from the public to the most recent article about food waste recycling, with close to a thousand enquiries being received within a very short period of the Borough Magazine being delivered to homes. Councillor Ferguson asked officers to note that some materials suitable for blue bin recycling were noted differently in the Borough magazine and the Council App.

Councillor Barry greatly welcomed increased recycling as an environmental and financial investment avoiding landfill. This waste was a resource that was currently used inappropriately. Council had a responsibility to check what was being put to landfill through the grey bins. He asked if it was possible to identify areas of the Borough where recycling could be improved.

A visit to a recycling plant was being planned to allow Members to view how brown and green bin waste was converted to compost. Eco schools would also be included in a visit to help promote education and recycling engagement.

(Councillor Muir entered the meeting at 8.10 pm).

Councillor Fletcher asked when bin colours would be consistent across the new Borough. The Head of Waste and Cleansing Services confirmed that going forward, all new bins ordered for food and garden waste would be brown in colour.

EC.7.10.15

Councillor Muir said that he lived in an apartment complex and queried when these developments would be in a position to recycle food. The Head of Waste and Cleansing Services advised that work was underway to ensure that all such properties would have access to a food recycling system as part of the new scheme.

(Councillor Edmund left the meeting at 8.17 pm).

AGREED TO RECOMMEND, on the proposal of Councillor Barry, seconded by Councillor Gibson, that the recommendation be adopted.

11. LICENSING AND REGULATORY SERVICES PERFOMRANCE REPORT

PREVIOUSLY CIRCULATED:- Report from the Head of Building Control, Licensing and Neighbourhood Environment detailing the main activity in the Licensing and Regulatory Section for the 6 month period 1st April to 30 September 2015. The level and type of information provided going forward would be refined as new systems and processes were introduced.

Entertainment Licences

During the period 106 applications for the grant and renewal of entertainment licences had been received and 55 licences issued. At present there were 211 places of entertainment licenced across the Borough.

During the period 101 performance inspections of places of entertainment had been completed.

Amusement Permits

During the period 6 applications had been received for the grant and renewal of amusement permits 5 of which had been processed and permits issued. There were presently 11 premises holding amusement permits.

Street Trading Licences

During the period 3 applications for street trading licences had been received, processed and licences subsequently issued. There were presently 10 street trading licences in place.

Approved Places for Marriage and Civil Partnerships

During the period 3 applications had been received for grant and renewal of place approvals for marriage and civil partnerships and one approval had been issued. At present there were 26 place approvals and one temporary place approval in place.

EC.7.10.15

Preparation for the Licensing of Pavement Cafés

As previously reported to Council a Licensing of Pavement Cafés regime was being developed to allow cafes, restaurants and bars and similar premises to place tables and chairs on the pavement and serve customers food and drink. It now appeared that the legislation would be enacted to come into force on 1st April 2016. Final guidance on its implementation was still awaited from the DSD but work had begun on preparing application forms, proposed fees and application processes.

It was hoped that reports on the implementation of the legislation would be available for Council’s consideration early in the New Year.

High Hedge Enquiries:

Approximately 48 requests for information and advice had been received in relation to High Hedge legislation. One formal complaint was received but subsequently withdrawn.

Other activities

Most of the licensing functions had now been amalgamated and new forms and processes established. A new licensing computer programme, Te–licence, was being fully implemented and would help to improve the service offered to licensees and enable the section to better record and report its activities.

Change of Location

The Licensing Section had recently moved from Church Street offices in Newtownards to offices at 40 West Street, Newtownards. The move allowed the Ards Community Safety Team to be relocated in Church Street and therefore be in close proximity to the rest of the Neighbourhood Environment Team and their Service Manager helping improve lines of communication and supervision.

RECOMMENDED that the report be noted.

AGREED TO RECOMMEND, on the proposal of Councillor Barry, seconded by Councillor Smart, that the recommendation be adopted.

12. CAR PARK ADVERTISING HOARDING CONTRACTS

PREVIOUSLY CIRCULATED:- Report from the Head of Building Control, Licensing and Neighbourhood Environment detailing that as previously reported to the Committee in May 2015 as part of the transfer of off street car parks on 1 April 2015 Council had inherited three advertising hoarding site contracts:

 Mills Road, Bangor – 2 hoardings  Old Cross, Newtownards  South Street Newtownards

All of those contracts had now expired.

EC.7.10.15

Advice had been sought from Land & Property Valuation Services (LPS) as to the likely rental value the Council could expect from these three sites. Details of their valuation were detailed below.

CURRENT Offer from EXPIRY DATE LPS LOCATION ANNUAL Clear channel DATE AGREED ASSESSMENT CHARGE Annual Charge

Mills Road, 31 August 1 October £1100 £1400 £1250 Bangor No 1 2015 2010

Mills Road, 30 September 24 October £1100 £1400 £1250 Bangor No 2 2015 2011

Old Cross, 30 April 2015 20 June 2012 £2300 £2800 £2500 Newtownards

South Street, 30 April 2015 20 June 2012 £1400 £1400 £1500 Newtownards

£6500 * TOTALS £5900 £7000

*Five year agreement with a review after 3 years

Discussions had been held with Clear Channel and they had made an offer in respect of a 5 year contract with the Council for these sites. Again details were listed in the table above.

Clear Channel had based their offer on their valuation of the site in the current market but had offered to review their valuation after 3 years to take account of any improvement in the market.

The contracts for Old Cross Street and South Street/Court Street, Newtownards would begin as soon as possible with the Mills Road, Bangor contract beginning as soon as the board was reinstated following its removal due to building works at Hamilton Road. The cost of reinstating the board was estimated to cost approximately £3,500 and would be borne by Clear Channel.

Details of the offer made by Clear Channel had been put to LPS which had recommended that it be accepted.

RECOMMENDED that the offer from Clear Channel was accepted.

EC.7.10.15

AGREED TO RECOMMEND, on the proposal of Councillor Barry, seconded by Councillor Cathcart, that the recommendation be adopted.

13. OFF STREET CAR PARK REVIEW

PREVIOUSLY CIRCULATED:- Report from the Head of Building Control, Licensing and Neighbourhood Environment detailing that as the Committee would be aware Transport NI (TNI) had transferred 22 pay and display off-street car parks to the Council under the Review of Public Administration. TNI had a contract with the Council setting out service standards etc. and TNI had a contract with NSL who actually provided the enforcement, cleaning and maintenance services for the car parks.

During the transfer process TNI advised the Council regarding the projected revenue and expenditure that could be expected to be generated from each of the car parks based on their historical records. Those figures were used when establishing the current Council budget for 2015/16.

Whilst the contract in general was operating well there were a number of concerns around the actual income being generated from Penalty Charge Notices (PCN’s) and the increase in rates levied on car parks. The level of income generated from parking charges was currently exceeding budgeted income levels.

The following figures related to the first six months of the 2015/16 year (April to September).

Parking charges income

Estimated income £414,100

Actual income £421,911

Rates

Estimated expenditure £92,500

Actual expenditure £141,981

PCN’s

NSL Enforcement Officers had been required to patrol the car parks on a set number of occasions daily and issue PCN’s for parking offences. Under the contract with TNI the Council paid an administration cost of £22.06 for TNI to process each PCN.

The Council received the income from each fine when paid.

Estimated PCN income £99,100

Actual PCN income £30,675

EC.7.10.15

In addition there was a sum of £18,240 in respect of unpaid PCN’s issued from 1st April 2015. So in total the income appeared to be 50% less than expected for the first 6 months.

The estimated number of PCN’s that had been projected to be issued: 1728

Actual number of PCN‘s issued: 1480 (14% fewer than estimated).

Most of the other new NI Councils had expressed similar concerns regarding the reduction in income from PCN’s.

TNI had considered this trend and noted that there may be a number of factors that may have led to the downturn including:

 Better compliance  Increased use in Park mobile  £1 for 5 hours tariff  Greater awareness in a time of austerity  Less enforcement visits than before – the specification was now clearly defined  Local town centre economy

To mitigate against the PCN shortfall officers had looked at the enforcement operation and how enforcement visits to car parks were carried out where the £1 for 5 hours tariff was in place. It had been noted that visits/patrols in those car parks prior to 10.00 am may not be as effective in detecting offences for parking beyond the time period allowed for by a ticket displayed. TNI had proposed that the Council considered agreeing that Traffic Attendants visit car parks after 10.00 am as outlined below.

 For car parks with 4 visits o 1st Visit between 10.00 – 12.00 o 2nd visit between 12.00 – 14.00 o 3rd visit between 14.00 – 16.00 o 4th visit between 16.00 - 18.30

 For car parks with 3 visits o 1st Visit between 10.00 – 12.00 o 2nd visit between 12.00 – 15.00 o 3rd visit between 15.00 – 18.30

 For car parks with 2 visits o 1st Visit between 10.00 – 14.00 o 2nd visit between 14.00 – 18.30

TNI further advised that the above proposal of commencing patrolling after 10.00 am came with no guarantees that PCN numbers would increase.

EC.7.10.15

It had also been noted that another option was to increase the number of beats per car park. Again that came with no guarantees that PCN numbers would increase but it did come with an additional cost to the council of £18.79 per deployed hour for Traffic Attendants.

RECOMMENDED that in the first instance the Council agreed to the change in the NSL visiting schedule for the off-street car parks and that the matter be kept under close review.

Members wanted to stress that the Council did not want to be seen as an organisation which fined people unnecessarily, but welcomed an increased level of compliance by the public with parking charges.

AGREED TO RECOMMEND, on the proposal of Councillor Smart, seconded by Alderman Henry, that the recommendation be adopted.

(Councillor Smart left the meeting at 8.41 pm)

14. PROPOSALS FOR PARTNERING ARRANGEMENTS FOR THE REMOVAL OF SNOW AND ICE FROM TOWN CENTRE FOOTWAYS AND PEDESTRIAN AREAS

PREVIOUSLY CIRCULATED:- Report from the Head of Waste and Cleansing Services referring to correspondence from DRD Transport NI relating to proposals for a voluntary partnership arrangement in relationship to clearance of town centre footways and pedestrian areas of snow and ice. A Memorandum of Understanding had been proposed by the Department to set out how the proposed partnership arrangement would work in practice.

Both legacy Councils had in the past, notably in the winter of 2010, assisted with the clearance of snow and ice during a prolonged period of extreme weather which significantly affected accessibility around town centres and caused severe disruption to normal community and business activity.

Officers were content that during periods of exceptionally prolonged, extreme weather conditions (eg such as those that prevailed in the winter of 2010), when routine Council services had been disrupted and Council personnel were as a consequence available, Council could facilitate the spirit of the Memorandum.

RECOMMENDED that the Council agrees to the Memorandum of Understanding with DRD Transport NI, subject to the following conditions:

1. Any Council support in relation to snow and ice clearance from town centres would only be provided under exceptionally prolonged, extreme weather conditions when normal Council services had consequently been disrupted and personnel and other Council resources were available to divert to snow and ice clearance activities. 2. The schedule of agreed footways to be treated, as referred to in section 6 of the Memorandum, shall be as agreed by Transport NI with Council Officers

EC.7.10.15

and may change depending upon operational circumstances and resource availability. 3. Confirmation from Council’s insurers that it was content with Council’s engagement under the Memorandum.

AGREED TO RECOMMEND, on the proposal of Councillor Cathcart, seconded by Councillor Barry, that the recommendation be adopted.

Councillor Muir declared an interest in Item 15 Policy on Provision of Bus Shelters and apologised for not having been able to give apologies at the start of the meeting. He left the meeting at 8.42 pm.

15. POLICY ON PROVISION OF BUS SHELTERS

PREVIOUSLY CIRCULATED:- Report from the Director of Environment detailing that the Council was empowered, with the consent of the Department, to erect and maintain on any road within the Borough, shelters for the protection from the weather of persons waiting to enter public service vehicles.

Bus shelters were normally erected following local representations and it was desirable that Council had in place a policy by which all requests could be considered in a fair, consistent and equitable fashion.

The policy (furnished to members) detailed a framework of criteria that would govern the decision making process around the provision of bus shelters, and sought to balance the allocation of limited Council resources with the desire to promote and facilitate the use of sustainable public transport options by the public.

RECOMMENDED the Policy for the Provision of Bus Shelters be approved.

Members welcomed the clear criteria for bus shelters and a suggestion was made that it could be extended to include senior citizens and those with reduced mobility. The Director explained that in the first instance it was felt school children should be considered as a special case since they often had no option but to use buses on a regular daily basis for school; he stated however that he was willing to take direction from Members.

The need to prioritise bus shelter provision where there was most need without being overly prescriptive was discussed. The need to be equitable and encouraging the use of sustainable public transport was also important.

Alderman Gibson said that he had raised the need for a bus shelter at Belfast Road, Ballygowan on a number of occasions and he was told that having ten children wait at a bus stop at any time would be considered necessary for a stop to receive priority. He welcomed this new policy as it would lead to such a stop now being included in bus shelter provision.

Councillor Barry concluded the comments by asking that when other considerations had been met that due weight also be given to senior citizens and those with reduced mobility.

EC.7.10.15

AGREED TO RECOMMEND, on the proposal of Councillor Barry, seconded by Councillor Fletcher, that the recommendation be adopted.

(Councillor Muir entered the meeting at 8.56 pm).

16. APPLICATION FOR CIVIL PARTNERHIP PLACE APPROVAL

PREVIOUSLY CIRCULATED:- Report from the Head of Building Control Licensing and Neighbourhood Environment detailing that an application had been received from Jan Hollinger for the grant of a civil partnership registration place approval for:

The Orange Tree House, 1 Portaferry Road, Greyabbey

The application was for a 3 year approval to allow civil partnerships to take place on these premises.

RECOMMENDED that the application was recommended for approval subject to the following:

1 The application being completed satisfactorily with all the Council’s requirements being met.

2 The PSNI, Northern Ireland Fire and Rescue Service or members of the public not objecting to the issue of the approval.

AGREED TO RECOMMEND, on the proposal of Councillor Ferguson, seconded by Alderman Henry, that the recommendation be adopted.

17. RESULT OF COURT PROCEEDINGS

PREVIOUSLY CIRCULATED:- Report from the Head of Building Control, Licensing and Neighbourhood Environment detailing that at the Newtownards Magistrates Court on 16 October 2015 Mr Warren Houston was convicted of his dog attacking a person and for breaching a dog control condition. Mr Houston was fined £500 and £1,000 respectively and ordered to pay £450 costs, £25 service fees, £15 Offender Levy and £100 compensation. Mr Houston appealed the decision and the matter was heard on 6th November 2015 where the conviction and sentence were affirmed by the Court.

RECOMMENDED that the Committee notes the report.

AGREED TO RECOMMEND, on the proposal of Councillor Fletcher, seconded by Councillor Cathcart, that the recommendation be adopted.

18. PROVISION OF TOILETS AT KILTONGA WILDLIFE RESERVE

PREVIOUSLY CIRCULATED:- Report from the Head of Assets and Property Services detailing that a sum of £35,000 was included in this year’s capital budget for a new toilet facility at Kiltonga Wildlife Reserve, Newtownards. 21

EC.7.10.15

The reserve was awarded “Green Flag” status last year, and the provision of a public toilet was one of the key criteria set out in the Green Flag standards, which if not already provided, would be expected at some stage in recognition of the process of continuous improvement of the facility.

The matter was first tabled at a Policy and Resources Committee meeting of the legacy Ards Borough Council on 16 October 2014 and it had been agreed that “Council deferred the implementation of Option 2 [an automated unisex public toilet] until a survey was carried out with users and local residents.”

A survey of 50 users of the reserve took place in September 2015. Users were asked “What additional amenities could be added to improve the reserve?” and the responses were tabulated as followed:

What additional amenities could be added to benefit the park?

Street lamps Picnic benches Recycling bins Fouling signs Dog facilities e.g dog fouling bag… Pest control Childrens play area Additional amenity None Rain shelter Dog warden Bins Public telephone Toilet facilities Food vendors Drinking water

0 5 10 15 20 25 No. of respondents

As could be seen from the above chart, by far the most significant potential improvement identified was the provision of toilet facilities.

The initial report to legacy Ards Borough Council presented 2 options. The first was to build a new facility at the cost of approximately £50,000, the second was to lease a unisex/disabled Automatic Public Convenience (APC) at the cost of £18,000 per year.

EC.7.10.15

Whilst both of those options were feasible, officers were now aware of a third option that was to purchase a prefabricated toilet block. Officers believed that option had the low maintenance and anti-vandal properties of the leased option (option 2), but with the low ongoing costs of the new build option (option 1). Indicative costs for such a unit were also in the region of the existing £35K capital budget provision for toilets at Kiltonga, which would mean the option would also be much more cost effective than either of the other two options.

Furthermore, the pre-fabricated option would be very quickly installed; comprising of just a poured concrete base that the unit was set upon and services connected. That approach would mean inconvenience to users of the reserve would be kept to a minimum.

An example of a prefabricated toilet facility (actual model would depend upon on the outcome of tender process):

Proposed location:

EC.7.10.15

The closest residences to the location identified as most suitable for a toilet facility were some distance away and were well screened by high densely growing evergreen trees located behind the dwellings. For that reason it was not considered necessary to consult with residents.

RECOMMENDED that Council approved the expenditure of £35,000 for a prefabricated toilet facility at Kiltonga Wildlife Reserve.

(Councillor Barry left the meeting at 8.59 pm)

The Head of Assets and Property Services detailed that the building was anticipated to cost approximately £27,000 and the remainder of the budget would be used for water, electricity connection and sewerage in the form of a septic tank.

AGREED TO RECOMMEND, on the proposal of Alderman Gibson, seconded by Councillor Cummings, that the recommendation be adopted.

The Director stated that Item 19 and 20 had been referred to as being items to be taken in Legal and Confidence. He said that that had been incorrect and the Items were not to be taken in confidence.

19. PROPOSED STREET NAMING – COPPER GREEN, CONLIG

PREVIOUSLY CIRCULATED:- Report from the Head of Building Control, Licensing and Neighbourhood Environment detailing that a development comprising 32 dwellings was currently under construction on lands adjacent to 49 Green Road, Conlig. The developer had suggested Copper Green to reflect the area’s extinct copper mines which produced important sources of minerals to the United Kingdom during the 19th Century.

EC.7.10.15

RECOMMENDED that the new name of Copper Green be adopted.

AGREED TO RECOMMEND that the recommendation be adopted.

20. APPLICATION FOR ENTERTAINMENT LICENCE

PREVIOUSLY CIRCULATED:- Report from the Head of Building Control, Licensing and Neighbourhood Environment stating at the meeting of the Environment Committee held on 4 November 2015 Members had heard a deputation from Mr Paul O’Kane, the applicant, for the grant of an Entertainment Licence for the Groomsport Inn, Main Street, Groomsport.

In view of objections received in relation to the application a decision on it was deferred in order to allow officers to assess an acoustic consultant’s report referred to in Mr O’Kane’s deputation. Since the Committee’s meeting officers had been assessing the consultant’s draft report and had met with the applicant to discuss the way forward.

RECOMMENDED that based on the above and in order to enable this business to hold entertainment while also ensuring that local residents were not subject to unreasonable disturbance the following was recommended;

1. That the applicant carried out the noise attenuation work to the building structure recommended by his noise consultant. Following such work the consultant shall verify the completed work and the ability of the structure to adequately prevent noise breakout leading to unreasonable disturbance to the occupiers of nearby residential premises.

2. The Environmental Health Service would subsequently monitor to ensure that the premises were not causing unreasonable noise disturbance.

3. Subject to the above, the licence was granted for a period of six months. During that period if noise complaints were received and substantiated by the Environmental Health Service the licensee would be required to again engage a noise consultant to propose what further works may be required. Any necessary mitigation measures would be implemented to the satisfaction of the Council officers.

4. Should a licence be issued, officers would be provided with delegated powers to include additional conditions of licence; which were aimed at ensuring effective controls were in place to control the level of noise emanating from the premises and noise created by patrons. Such conditions would include the requirement to :- Prepare and submit a noise management plan which addressed such issues as;

 Ensuring patrons left the premises quickly and with minimal noise

 Vehicle /taxi noise

EC.7.10.15

 Ensuring windows and doors were suitably sealed and kept closed when entertainment was in progress. In view of that it was important that a suitably silenced mechanical ventilation system was provided and adequate

 Investigate the installation of a noise limiting device if required

 Measures to prevent alcohol being taken out of the premises for consumption outside

Councillor Fletcher referred to the strict conditions being introduced and queried why that was necessary. In response the Head of Building Control, Licensing and Neighbourhood Environment informed Members that there were some concerns about noise break out and that residents around the Inn should not be unreasonably disturbed. All necessary checks would have to be carried out before the licence was issued.

AGREED TO RECOMMEND, on the proposal of Councillor Cathcart, seconded by Councillor Fletcher, that the recommendation be adopted.

21 TERMINATION OF MEETING

The meeting terminated at 9.10 pm.

ITEM 7.3

ARDS AND NORTH DOWN BOROUGH COUNCIL

A meeting of the Corporate Services Committee was held in the Council Chamber, 2 Church Street, Newtownards on Tuesday, 8 December 2015 at 7.00pm.

PRESENT:

In the Chair: Alderman Carson

Aldermen: Chambers (7.15pm) Keery Gibson McDowell Graham

Councillors: Brooks Muir Gilmour McIlveen Kennedy Smart

In Attendance: Councillor Armstrong Councillor Cooper Councillor Robinson

Officers: Director of Organisational Development and Administration (Wendy Monson), Head of Administration (Amanda Martin), Head of Corporate Projects (Andrew Scott) and Democratic Services Officer (Paulene Foster)

UPDATE ON DIRECTOR OF CORPORATE SERVICES

The Chairman (Alderman Carson) informed members that the Director of Corporate Services had recently underwent brain surgery and was currently recovering in the Trauma Centre at the Royal Victoria Hospital, Belfast. He conveyed his good wishes to the Director on behalf of the Committee for a speedy recovery.

NOTED.

1. APOLOGIES

Apologies were received from Councillor T Smith and the Director of Corporate Services.

NOTED.

2. DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST

The Chairman asked for any declarations of interest.

CSC 8.12.15

Councillor Muir declared an interest in Item 17.1 Consultation – Department for Regional Development - Proposal for the Train Driving Licences and Certificates (Amendment) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2016, as an employee of Translink.

Councillor McIlveen declared an interest in Item 14 Proposed Shared Pedestrian Footway/Cycle Track at East Circular Road, Bangor and Item 17 - Department for Regional Development - Proposal for the Train Driving Licences and Certificates (Amendment) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2016.

NOTED.

3. DEPUTATION

3.1 Northern Ireland Water (Appendix I)

The Chairman welcomed Mr Bill Gowdy, Director of Engineering Procurement, Stephen McDonald, Networks Water Area Manager, Dr Steve Blockwell, Head of Strategic Investment Planning and Mr Graeme Smyth of Northern Ireland Water (NIW), to the meeting and invited them to make their presentation.

Mr Gowdy thanked members for the opportunity to update members and officials on NIW’s activities within the Ards and North Down area. He proceeded to take members through a PowerPoint presentation which detailed NIW’s priorities, investments, current initiatives, vision and price controls.

(Alderman Chambers entered the meeting at this stage – 7.15pm)

The Chairman thanked Mr Gowdy for his informative presentation and invited questions from members. The following responses were given:-

 The investment works ongoing at Kinnegar, Holywood had involved the installation of three tunnels below the road and it was anticipated those works would be completed by Summer 2016.  Work to be undertaken at Abbey Street, Bangor would not involve digging up the new pavements recently laid as part of the recent Public Realm works.  In respect of Ballysallagh reservoir, Mr Gowdy stated that NIW was legally required to dispose of any surplus property it owned. He advised that a register of such sites was drawn up on an annual basis for consideration by the Regulator following which a public sector trawl would be undertaken to ascertain if there was any interest in those sites. The price of those sites would be the current market value and therefore would be sold for that value. Referring to Ballysallagh he noted that the Council had not shown an interest in it and therefore it had been placed on the open market for sale and advertised at a price of £200,000. He confirmed that the forest would remain in situ and be maintained by the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development (DARD) and similarly the reservoir would be sold with the current fishing lease. At this stage Mr Gowdy then referred to the ongoing legal challenge regarding Portavoe reservoir.  Alderman Gibson expressed disappointment that no mention had been made of investment by NIW at Ballygowan. He stated that no further housing

CSC 8.12.15

developments could commence in the village as currently there was no capacity in the sewerage system and that, in his opinion, was a tragedy particularly as it was a popular commuting village. Continuing he also referred to the decision two years ago to pump sewerage from Moneyreagh to Ballygowan which now had no capacity. In response Mr Gowdy confirmed that currently there were no investment plans for Ballygowan and that decision had been taken following consideration with the Regulator. He acknowledged the issues currently affecting Ballygowan and undertook to investigate the matter further and report back to the member in due course.  In response to a number of queries raised by Alderman Chambers, Mr Gowdy indicated that the water quality issues at Ballyholme Beach, Bangor were complicated as not all of the contamination had come from NIW assets. He advised that NIW had either replaced or repaired a number of its assets at that location and a Catchment Manager had been assigned overall responsibility for the area who would work in conjunction with the Northern Ireland Environment Agency in an attempt to address the issue. Pipe replacement works at the Groomsport Road, Bangor was a small investment project of £220,000 which would see the upgrade of pipes from 300mm to 600mm in diameter to increase flow capacity. He added that the scheme was primarily trenchless work.  Councillor Gilmour raised concern about NIW’s website being fit for purpose in the event of extreme weather conditions occurring during the winter and asked if it was fit for purpose. She also sought further information on the recently introduced Water Leak App for mobile phones. Mr Gowdy commented that he did not have the information to hand in respect of the App but would report back to the member in due course. Continuing, he confirmed that extensive work had been undertaken in respect of NIW’s website to ensure that it was fit for purpose and he was confident it would have the required capacity to deal with a high volume of traffic in the event of extreme weather conditions.  Reference was made to NIW’s links with NI Direct and Transport NI and Councillor Smart asked if NI Direct was kept up to date with NIW information on a regular basis. Mr Gowdy confirmed that was the case however he added that NIW’s own website should be the first point of contact as it was regularly updated.

The Chairman thanked Mr Gowdy and his colleagues for their interesting and information presentation.

(The deputation from NIW left the meeting at this stage – 7.35pm)

4. ROYAL ARTILLERY – REQUEST TO COUNCIL TO HOST COMMEMORATIVE EVENT - FILE REF: DS21 (Appendix II)

PREVIOUSLY CIRCULATED:- Report dated 25 November 2015 from the Director of Organisational Development and Administration stating that the Council had been approached by representatives of the 206 (Ulster) Battery Royal Artillery requesting its support to celebrate both the Royal Artillery’s 300th anniversary and 25 years

CSC 8.12.15 since 206 Battery was granted the Freedom of the Borough by Ards Borough Council.

The 206 Battery was proposing to hold a parade in Newtownards on Saturday, 14 May 2016 at around 12 noon, comprising 206 Battery Reservists and Royal Artillery Cadets. The Parade would process from the Army Reserve Centre at Crawfordsburn Road, Newtownards, to Conway Square, where a short service, followed by a march past with salute by military vehicles and artillery pieces (which were the Royal Artillery’s Regimental Colours) would be held. The Battery representative envisaged that the main body of the parade would then process back to the Army Reserve Centre where the Battery was based.

The Council had been asked for permission to use Conway Square for the purposes described. It had also been asked to host a reception at which Council members, senior military representatives and special guests would be present, to mark those anniversaries.

Members would be aware that a market was held in Conway Square each Saturday. This was managed by a contractor under a five-year tendered contract. There was a clause, however, in the contract which allowed the Council to ask that the market be cancelled on any given date. The contract was due for renewal on 31 March 2016 and an invitation to tender for the contract would be advertised in the following weeks. Should the Council decide to accede to the Royal Artillery’s requests, it would be desirable to give the prospective contractor as much notice as possible that Conway Square would not be available on 14 May 2016. The Council may be able to assist in identifying an alternative site for the market on that date.

Members would also be aware that the Council recently signed up to an Armed Forces Community Covenant, one of the key principles of which was to encourage support for the Armed Forces Community working and residing in the Borough. The Covenant undertook to focus on those issues that had not been devolved and could be accessed through civilian/military partnerships as part of local government. It cited measures which achieved that aim as “Recognition, Understanding and Communications” and “Local Community Activities and Community Integration”.

It was anticipated that the parade would create a spectacle that would attract additional visitors to Newtownards.

The cost of hosting a lunch and ancillary items was estimated to be in the region of £2,500. That sum had been included at this stage in the Civic Event budget for 2016-17.

RECOMMENDED that the Council:-

1. Permits the use of Conway Square for the purposes of a parade, service and march past of regimental colours by 206 (Ulster) Battery Royal Artillery and Cadets; 2. Agrees to host a reception in the Londonderry Room of the Town Hall Arts Centre, Newtownards, to mark the 300th Anniversary of the formation of two companies of artillery which later became the Royal Regiment of Artillery.

CSC 8.12.15

(Should the recommendations be adopted, a report with further details would be brought to a future meeting).

The Head of Administration advised members that an alternative date would have to be sought in May for this event as it had just come to light that the proposed date of 14 May 2015 clashed with the Pipe Band Championships. She indicated that an update would be provided to members at the following week’s Council meeting.

AGREED TO RECOMMEND, on the proposal of Councillor McIlveen, seconded by Councillor Smart, that the recommendation be adopted.

5. NEW COUNCIL COMMUNITY FACILITY – NAMING - FILE REF: 141204 (Appendix III)

PREVIOUSLY CIRCULATED:- Report dated 25 November 2015 from the Director of Community and Wellbeing stating that as Council would be aware a new community facility was under construction at Hamilton Road, Bangor. The new facility, which would comprise of various community halls and meeting rooms, an advice service wing, and a projectile range in the basement level, was due to open in early summer 2016. In order to ensure that signage for the building was ordered in a timely fashion, and to submit a Planning Application for the same (building names signs only), Council must now decide on a name for the premises.

In line with the new Naming of Council Facilities Policy (copy attached) two options were presented for Council’s consideration. Those were:

 Hamilton Road Community Centre  Hamilton Road Community Hub

The first suggested name was reflective of the building’s location, being both on Hamilton Road, and in the centre of Bangor. Community ‘centre’ would also be the commonly accepted term used for Council premises where halls and meeting rooms were present.

However, as an advice service wing was also present on the site, along with a projectile range for sporting use, the term ‘Hub’ might be considered a more modern and appropriate term. The building would clearly offer space within Bangor town centre for a variety of purposes including a wide range of recreational activity, sport, provision of advice, and it would undoubtedly be a useful geographical reference point in terms of its location and modern design.

RECOMMENDED that the new community facility at Hamilton Road Bangor is named Hamilton Road Community Hub.

AGREED TO RECOMMEND, on the proposal of Alderman Graham, seconded by Alderman Gibson, that the recommendation be adopted.

CSC 8.12.15

6. NAMES OF COUNCIL OFFICE BUILDINGS

PREVIOUSLY CIRCULATED:- Report dated 1 December 2015from the Director of Organisational Development and Administration stating that in line with the new Naming of Council Facilities Policy the names of the main Council offices and buildings were proposed to be as follows;

Existing Name Name from 1 January 2016

Town Hall, Bangor No change Church Street, Newtownards No change Town Hall, Newtownards No change Ards Arts Centre No change Signal Business Growth Centre Signal Centre Waste Transfer Station Environmental Resource Centre North Down Museum No change

The rational for the two main changes was as follows;

Signal Centre – this building was no longer just a North Down economic development base but rather had a broader use as the Headquarter offices of the Regeneration, Development and Planning Directorate. However, the name recognition of ‘Signal’ was well known as the location and should, therefore, be retained.

Environmental Resource Centre – When the legacy North Down Borough Council built the Waste Transfer Station its main purpose was what was in the title. Although there were offices there, they were only in limited use. The Council had now relocated its Environment Directorate Headquarters, administration, Building Control and Technical Services functions there. This broader use, and being a place where the public were now attending in greater numbers, should be considered in changing the name. The Environmental Resource Centre would reflect its new purpose better.

RECOMMENDED that the names listed above for the main council offices and buildings are approved.

AGREED TO RECOMMEND, on the proposal of Councillor McIlveen, seconded by Alderman Gibson, that the recommendation be adopted.

7. RE-REGISTER LOAN FROM HSBC - FILE REF: FIN26

PREVIOUSLY CIRCULATED:- Report dated 27 November 2015 from the Director of Finance and Performance stating that Ards and North Down Borough Council had five market loans (inherited from Ards Borough Council) one of which had been transferred from HSBC Global Custody Nominee (UK) Limited, 8 Canada Square, London E14 5HQ A/C 853748 to HSBC Global Custody Nominee (UK) Limited, 8 Canada Square, London E14 5HQ A/C 886090. The lender had requested that the loan be re-registered to the new account number.

CSC 8.12.15

The loan was originally taken out in August 1992 for £500,000 and would be repaid in August 2017

RECOMMENDED that the Council re-registers this loan as requested. . AGREED TO RECOMMEND, on the proposal of Alderman Graham, seconded by Councillor Muir, that the recommendation be adopted.

8. REVIEW OF THE NORTHERN IRELAND LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE OF CONDUCT – PART 3 (PRINCIPLES) AND PART 8 (DECISION-MAKING)

PREVIOUSLY CIRCULATED:- Report dated 25 November 2015 from the Director of Organisational Development and Administration stating that the Minister had appointed a working group to review two parts of the Code of Conduct for Councillors – Part 3 (Principles) and Part 8 (Decision-Making).

The working group was holding two information gathering events in Randalstown on 9 and 10 December and members would recollect this information was circulated by email previously. In addition, there was an opportunity to make a written response, preferably before 7 January 2016.

RECOMMENDED that this report is noted. . AGREED TO RECOMMEND, on the proposal of Councillor Muir, seconded by Alderman Keery, that the recommendation be adopted.

9. RENEWAL OF LICENCE AGREEMENT – KINGSLAND TABLE TENNIS CLUB - FILE REF: 385011

PREVIOUSLY CIRCULATED:- Report dated 20 November 2015 from the Director of Organisational Development and Administration stating that the five year Licence Agreement under which Kingsland Table Tennis Club occupied the Kingsland Pavilion from September to March each year expired on 31 August 2015. Land and Property Services had recently assessed an annual open market rental of £2,200 per annum (pro rata), an increase of 10% based on the existing terms and conditions. Under the Council’s Abatement Policy, Kingsland Table Tennis Club received a 50% abatement which would give an annual rental of £1,100 per annum.

RECOMMENDED that the Kingsland Table Tennis Club be granted a new 5-year Licence on the existing terms and conditions from 1 September 2015 until 31 August 2020 at an abated annual rent of £1,100.

AGREED TO RECOMMEND, on the proposal of Alderman Graham, seconded by Alderman Chambers, that the recommendation be adopted.

10. REQUEST TO USE BANGOR CASTLE LEISURE CENTRE - FILE REF: LP2BB 7

CSC 8.12.15

PREVIOUSLY CIRCULATED:- Report dated 23 November 2015 from the Director of Organisational Development and Administration stating that the Council had received a request from Sergeant Rikki Pennie from the PSNI Specialist Operations Branch seeking permission to use Bangor Castle Leisure Centre from 6pm to 10pm on the following dates for training purposes:

 27 January 2016  3 February 2016  10 February 2016  17 February 2016  24 February 2016  3 March 2016

The use would be subject to the following conditions

i. Paying the relevant fee as per the Council’s current policy. ii. Providing a risk assessment and event management plan. iii. Providing appropriate welfare facilities at own cost. All toilets, showers and wash hand basins were currently in the exclusion zone. iv. Providing evidence of relevant insurances and fully indemnify Council against all risks associated with the use of land or property. v. Making good any damage caused during the use to the satisfaction of Council officers. Should the Council have to undertake remedial works the costs would be recovered from the organiser. vi. Arranging for the collection and subsequent removal of all litter and other debris from the main event and adjacent areas during the event, as well as once the event had concluded, however, should the Council have to do any additional cleaning the costs would be recovered from the Organiser. vii. Arranging for the prompt removal of any items used in connection with the usage for example staging or fencing. (Timescale for removal to be agreed with Council officers) viii. Obtaining and provide evidence of permits/licences/registrations and approvals. ix. Indemnifying the Council against all claims which may result from the event or use of the area, and provide the Council with a copy of the relevant insurance policy. x. Ensuring that only the designated area, or areas specified by Council officers were used for the event. Lifts were not to be used, those were within the exclusion zone. xi. No petrol generators were to be used. xii. Carrying out their own Fire Risk Assessment and ensuring fire management arrangements were in place.

RECOMMENDED that the Council accedes to the request subject to the PSNI agreeing to the conditions specified above.

CSC 8.12.15

. Alderman Graham proposed, seconded by Alderman Keery that the recommendation be adopted.

Councillor Muir sought an update on decisions made by each of the legacy councils in respect of sites such as this.

The Head of Corporate Projects advised that the process for implementing such decisions remained ongoing and was currently between solicitors. He indicated that he would endeavour to report back to members with an update in due course.

Councillor Muir suggested that quarterly updates on such matters could be useful particularly in respect of sites such as this.

At this stage Councillor McIlveen recalled that an update on such matters had been provided at last month’s committee meeting.

Alderman Chambers sought clarification on the term ‘Exclusion Zone’, referred to in the list of conditions.

In response, the Head of Administration confirmed that it was a small area which contained a small amount of asbestos.

AGREED TO RECOMMEND, on the proposal of Alderman Graham, seconded by Alderman Keery, that the recommendation be adopted.

11. QUARTERLY REPORT ON EQUALITY AND GOOD RELATIONS – DECEMBER 2015

PREVIOUSLY CIRCULATED:- Report dated 25 November 2015 from the Director of Organisational Development and Administration stating that within the Council’s Equality Scheme, a report was to be presented on a quarterly basis to the Council’s Corporate Services Committee. This was to ensure that the Council’s obligations to meet its equality and good relations duties and responsibilities, as identified in Section 75 of The Northern Ireland Act 1998, were continuously monitored. This report listed the actions of Council officers to meet the statutory duties since 1 September 2015:

 Ards and North Down Borough Council internal Screening and Sustainability Group continued to meet as required to screen and review Council policies. This cross-Council officers’ working group ensures Section 75 was mainstreamed across the Council in policy development and review.

 The Council was committed within the Equality Scheme to publish screening reports quarterly. The second quarterly report was uploaded onto the Council’s website on 5 October 2015, and the next quarterly report on the outcome of screened council policies would be uploaded to the website and issued to consultees by Tuesday 5 January 2016.

CSC 8.12.15

 The external Ards and North Down Consultative Panel on Equality and Good Relations met on 29 September 2015 to scrutinise the screening outcomes of 31 Council policies. The workshop, which was independently facilitated by Dr John Kremer, enjoyed a high level of participation. Valuable comments were made by consultees which demonstrated that Council officers, in developing and delivering policies, consistently worked to ensure equality of opportunity and good relations were promoted where appropriate throughout the organisation. It was agreed that the panel membership would be monitored in relation to the Section 75 dimensions to identify if any groups were underrepresented.

 A number of events were held for employees and the public to mark World Mental Health Day on 10 October 2015. Those included a Guided Walk in the Walled Garden and a Pilates session for employees in their lunchtime; a “Chi Me” session facilitated by Sports Development Officers in Ward Park for members of the public and a talk on ‘Dignity in Recovery’ held in the Arts Centre, Newtownards. The Arts Section supported the design and completion of a mural organised through the North Down Community Network and Promote Mental Health at an Open Day in the Flagship Centre.

 The Elected Member Mental Health Champions, Alderman Ian Henry and Councillor Stephen Cooper, met with Council officers and representatives of a range of mental health services. The meeting identified the breadth of services the Council currently provides within the remit of mental health both to external stakeholders and to employees. It was agreed that all agencies involved in this area needed to work together to avoid service duplication.

 Two Diversity Awareness Events were held on Tuesday 3 November 2015 and Thursday 5 November 2015 in the Somme Heritage Centre for Elected Members and employees. The programme included an opportunity to network over lunch provided by the Bangladeshi community within the Borough, a welcome from the Council’s Chief Executive and short talks from three different representatives of S75 groups at each of the sessions, as well as some interactive and thought provoking exercises. The events, sponsored by the Local Government Staff Commission, were well attended by staff and the feedback was positive on both the topics covered and the opportunity to network with colleagues and Elected Members.

 DisabledGo held two public consultations – one in September in Bangor and one in October in Newtownards. Those events were well received by all attendees and the initiative in general had elicited appreciation from all for the potential and current residents and visitors to the Borough. The audit process began in November and feedback had been positive to date.

 A “sharing of good practice” workshop took place on 30 September for the Diversity Champions of the 11 Councils. The Policy Officer had been asked to speak on the good practice of the Council’s External Consultative Panel on Equality and Good Relations. A number of officers from other Councils were considering the adoption of this practice in their respective organisations to encourage meaningful engagement with Section 75 groups.

CSC 8.12.15

 The Safeguarding Policy for Children and Young People and Adults who may be vulnerable was being finalised and would be the subject of a report to this Committee following employee engagement on the policy and operating procedures.

 The Policy Officer represented the Council as a member of the Local Adult Safeguarding Partnership and Safeguarding Board for Northern Ireland South Eastern Panel. The information gained was delivered to the relevant section or Council officer as appropriate. Those panels ensured that there was a broad representation across the statutory, voluntary and community sectors.

 Training had been undertaken for employees who interface with the public and manage publicly accessed facilities to achieve Breastfeeding Welcome accreditation. Each facility would display a sticker and certificate once they met the agreed criteria and those would be monitored at least annually by the Public Health Agency and service users.

 On the request of disabled residents, the Policy Officer arranged for those responsible for public realm work in Bangor to meet them to discuss concerns about the scheme in Bangor. Those included a range of issues such as colour contrast of pavements, street furniture and the gradient and surfaces of pavements. The meeting attracted positive feedback and those present expressed the view that this type of meeting provided a valuable forum to discuss signposting, action or advice.

 The Policy Officer attended an ECNI update for public sector officers responsible for delivering Section 75. The Workshop focused on four areas including the value of the screening process and Equality Impact Assessments as well as relevance of Disability Action Plans.

 The first meeting of the Ards and North Down Borough Council Disability Forum was held on 17 November 2015. The Council’s Diversity Champions and Mental Health Champions were in attendance. The meeting was well attended by a range of people with disabilities and it was agreed that the Forum would focus on the needs of those with autism at the next meeting scheduled for Tuesday 19 January 2016.

 18 Elected Members attended Awareness Training on Section 75 and Social Media on 18 November. The session reminded all those present of the Council’s duties under the legislation and highlighted good practice.

RECOMMENDED that the report is noted.

AGREED TO RECOMMEND, on the proposal of Alderman Graham, seconded by Councillor Brooks, that the recommendation be adopted.

CSC 8.12.15

12. LEARNING, TRAINING AND DEVELOPMENT POLICY (Appendix IV)

PREVIOUSLY CIRCULATED:- Report dated 25 November 2015 from the Director of Organisational Development and Administration stating that in November 2015 Council agreed the methodology for Investors in People (IIP) accreditation.

An effective Learning, Training and Development policy was essential to contribute towards this accreditation and the attached policy had been drawn up for Members’ consideration. In line with due process, the policy had been screened in line with Section 75 legislation, and consultation had occurred with via the Staff Consultative Committee and Trade Unions.

The authorisation limits had been kept fairly stringent whilst the council worked towards IIP. It was however anticipated that, once accreditation was in place, along with a performance management system that included individual development plans, the authorisation limits delegated to Heads of Service and onwards down to Service Managers would be reviewed.

RECOMMENDED that the Learning, Training and Development Policy be approved.

AGREED TO RECOMMEND, on the proposal of Alderman McDowell, seconded by Councillor Smart, that the recommendation be adopted.

13. RETENTION AND DISPOSAL SCHEDULE - FILE REF: IM1 (Appendix V)

PREVIOUSLY CIRCULATED:- Report dated 20 November 2015 from the Director of Organisational Development and Administration stating that in accordance with the Public Records Act (NI) 1923 the Council was required to have in place a Retention and Disposal Schedule which set out the minimum time periods for which records created by the Council should be retained.

The attached Retention and Disposal Schedule document set out the minimum time periods for which the various records created by the Council should be retained, either due to their ongoing administrative value or as a result of statutory requirements. It would enable the Council to dispose of records promptly when they ceased to be of any continuing administrative and, or legal value and would identify records which should be transferred to the Public Record Office of Northern Ireland (PRONI) because of their long-term historical/research value.

The schedule would also ensure the Council’s compliance with the requirements in the Public Records Act (NI) 1923, the Disposal of Documents Order (S.R.& O.1925 No 167), the Data Protection Act 1998 and Freedom of Information Act 2000. A great deal of time had been spent ensuring the Schedule covered all Council records, and all relevant managers and staff had been consulted in the drafting process.

CSC 8.12.15

RECOMMENDED that the Council approves the Retention and Disposal Schedule and forwards it to DCAL for approval, and laying before the Assembly. . AGREED TO RECOMMEND, on the proposal of Alderman McDowell, seconded by Councillor Smart, that the recommendation be adopted.

(Councillor McIlveen declared an interest in the next item and left the meeting at this stage – 7.45pm)

14. PROPOSED SHARED PEDESTRIAN FOOTWAY/CYCLE TRACK AT EAST CIRCULAR ROAD, BANGOR (Appendix VI)

PREVIOUSLY CIRCULATED:- Copy correspondence dated 20 November 2015 from Transport NI detailing its proposals for a shared pedestrian footway/cycle track at East Circular Road, Bangor. A plan of the above proposals was enclosed and Transport NI was keen to receive comments on this at the Council’s earliest convenience.

Councillor Muir expressed his appreciation for the increased cycle provision being made throughout the Borough adding that it was warmly welcomed.

Alderman Chambers questioned where the money was coming from to make such provision particularly as funding was not available to repair street lights, cut grass verges and repair potholes on roads.

AGREED TO RECOMMEND, on the proposal of Councillor Muir, seconded by Councillor Brooks, that the correspondence and proposals contained therein were to be welcomed.

(Councillor McIlveen re-entered the meeting at this stage – 7.46pm)

15. RECOMMENDATIONS FOLLOWING CONSULTATION ON PROPOSALS FOR THE RATIONALISATION OF THE COURT ESTATE (Appendix VII)

PREVIOUSLY CIRCULATED:- Report dated 1 December 2015 from the Director of Organisational Development and Administration stating that the Department of Justice, in association with the NI Courts and Tribunal Service, launched a public consultation exercise in January 2015 on proposals to rationalise the Court Estate in order to make savings. The proposals included the closure of Newtownards Courthouse.

Representations were made to the Minister of Justice by a delegation from legacy Ards Borough Council and subsequently by a delegation from Ards and North Down Borough Council, led by the Chief Executive making the case for the continued operation of Newtownards Courthouse.

The attached letter had since been received from the NI Courts and Tribunal Services which provided links to a document on its website and on the Department

CSC 8.12.15 of Justice’s website entitled “Response and Recommendations following the Consultation on Proposals for the Rationalisation of the Court Estate”. The 114 page document contained the following recommendations for those parts of the Court Estate located in the South Eastern Division.

“Recommendation – South Eastern Division

5.126 As the establishment of a civil and family justice centre at Craigavon did not have significant support from court users in the area, NICTS would recommend that Armagh is closed and all of its current business is transferred to Newry – option 2. 5.127 We acknowledge the importance of the listed status of Armagh courthouse and the civic pride it generates We also appreciate our responsibilities under the protocol for the management and disposal of listed buildings and will work with the Northern Ireland Environment Agency should our recommendation be accepted. 5.128 As indicated in the North Eastern section, to reflect the retention of Newtownards courthouse we have reconfigured the Administrative Court Divisions. The South Eastern Division will now include Newtownards courthouse as well as Downpatrick, Newry and Craigavon. At this time Newtownards business will continue to be allocated as at present with Crown Court matters being heard in Downpatrick. 5.129 We will keep business levels and utilisation rates under review for all of the venues within the Administrative Court Division and we may revisit the allocation of business again in the future”.

In summary, the recommendations included the retention of the Newtownards Courthouse. While this was a positive result, members should be aware that the recommendations were to be considered by the Minister of Justice and that his final decisions would be announced in early 2016.

RECOMMENDED that the Council welcomes the recommendation and writes to the Minister accordingly.

Councillor McIlveen commented that he did not welcome the decision as it did not confirm that Newtownards Courthouse would be retained indefinitely. Instead he believed that its future would remain dependent upon Minister Ford securing the required funding for a project in Belfast.

AGREED TO RECOMMEND, on the proposal of Councillor McIlveen, seconded by Alderman Keery, that the correspondence be noted.

16. REVIEW OF CIVIL CONTINGENCIES ARRANGEMENTS IN LOCAL GOVERNMENT IN NORTHERN IRELAND (Appendix VIII)

PREVIOUSLY CIRCULATED:- Report dated 1 December 2015 from the Director of Organisational Development and Administration stating that following changes brought about by RPA and the need to review the effectiveness of the Local

CSC 8.12.15

Government Emergency Management Group(LGEMG), the Society of Local Authority Chief Executives (SOLACE) requested a review of Civil Contingencies Arrangements in Local Government in Northern Ireland. This was undertaken by DFP Business Consultancy Service and their final report was issued in November 2015. The chair of SOLACE had now written to Dr Malcom McKibben, Head of the Civil Service, to inform him of the findings and to ask for a meeting to discuss the implementation of the recommendations.

Summary of Findings

It was concluded that there were many sound and successful aspects to the current arrangements. A range of recommendations had been made to enhance council arrangements as well as issues identified which could not be resolved by local government.

It was noted that the five Emergency Preparedness Groups (EPGs) have had insufficient time to embed particularly with the structural changes on 1 April and it was suggested the existing multi-agency structures remain in place subject to a review of their effectiveness in 12-18 months’ time.

Table 1 : Proposed Structure

CSC 8.12.15

Each council was to have an internally funded Emergency Planning Officer (resource level individually determined based on risk) and a new Emergency Planning Officer Forum would be formed to aid consistency and communication between councils.

SOLACE NI would be the overarching group monitoring and directing local government emergency planning and the Chair of SOLACE NI (or a nominated Chief Executive) would represent local government at Civil Contingencies Group (NI) to enhance engagement with this strategic planning forum. As an interim measure prior to legislation, Councils would provide the Civil Contingencies Group (NI) with an agreed outline of local government roles and responsibilities in planning and response for discussion and consideration.

There was an urgent need for the completion of NI Civil Contingencies legislation to give a legislative mandate and a lead Minister/government department for civil contingencies to give strong strategic leadership and authority to enhance NI resilience.

Council Chief Executives had a duty to lead the planning, response and recovery in their own area in an emergency. They had no remit or authority beyond their boundaries.

A proposed new local government co-ordinator role would be created, reporting to SOLACE NI and representing local government in regional planning groups (excluding CCG(NI)) and sub-regional/regional responses via liaison with affected council Chief Executives.

The Emergency Planning Co-ordinators, Belfast Programme Manager and Local Government Co-ordinator roles supported multi-agency and area based planning which benefited more than a single council. This could not be solely funded by councils. Civil contingencies was too important an area to allow any agency the option to withdraw their funding and collapse the multi-agency planning structures. Ring fenced, permanent funding must be provided by central government for the sub-regional and regional roles.

Funding

Historically the DoE provided a grant to local government for emergency planning and this was partly used to support those who were supporting the EPGs. When the 2015/16 grant was withdrawn by DoE, work stalled in a number of EPG areas. The funding was recently reinstated for the remainder of the year which would help to resolve some of the issues but only in the short term. Solace considered that the people of Northern Ireland should be afforded the same level of protection as the rest of the United Kingdom and the lack of structured funding was a major cause for concern. District councils were prepared to meet the costs of local planning but the sub regional and regional arrangements should be centrally funded.

RECOMMENDED that the report be noted and that further information is made available after Dr McKibben responds to Solace.

CSC 8.12.15

Alderman Keery proposed, seconded by Alderman McDowell, that the recommendation be adopted.

Alderman McDowell expressed the view that it was important for Councillors to be involved in contingency arrangements. He noted that previously elected members had been involved and received regular updates during periods of inclement weather which had resulted in flooding and he believed it was important for them to receive the appropriate training on this.

Alderman Chambers expressed some concern with elected members becoming too hands on and instead suggested that such matters were co-ordinated by professionals. However he agreed that in respect of communications it was important for elected members to be kept up to date on civil contingencies arrangements.

At this stage the Chairman indicated that he did not think it was Alderman McDowell’s intention for members to become that involved in civil contingencies and instead their involvement would purely be for communication purposes.

Alderman McDowell confirmed that was the case, adding that elected members should be made aware of the up to date information which they could then pass on to their constituents.

The Director of Organisational Development and Administration indicated that she would organise an awareness session for elected members in respect of civil contingencies in the New Year and invite the Council’s Corporate Communications Manager to have an input.

AGREED TO RECOMMEND, on the proposal of Alderman Keery, seconded by Alderman McDowell, that the recommendation be adopted.

17. LIST OF CONSULTATION DOCUMENTS

17.1. Department for Regional Development – Proposal for the Train Driving Licences and Certificates (Amendment) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2016

PREVIOUSLY CIRCULATED:- Consultation Document from DRD on proposals for the Train Driving Licences and Certificates (Amendment) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2016.

RECOMMENDED that the consultation document be noted.

AGREED TO RECOMMEND, on the proposal of Alderman Graham, seconded by Alderman Keery, that the consultation document be noted.

CSC 8.12.15

18. NOTICES OF MOTION

18.1. NOTICE OF MOTION SUBMITTED BY COUNCILLOR ROBINSON

Councillor Robinson proposed, seconded by Councillor Brooks that this council, as an indication of commitment to animal welfare, no longer use the two old, fur- trimmed robes transferred over from Ards Borough Council at civic events, and instead use the fur-free robes already purchased. The inclusion of real fur in clothing is an emotive issue, so the removal of these robes from use will avoid any possible offence.

Thanking the Chairman, Councillor Robinson expressed her appreciation for the opportunity to address the Committee regarding her motion. She indicated that she was also conscious of the time and would not go on any more than was necessary.

She stated that as members would be aware animal welfare issues were very high on her list of priorities although she reassured everyone that she was not a rabid animal rights activist. However, she stated that she was very passionate about the need to end all cruelty to every living creature, as like us they too felt pain and suffering in the same way. She acknowledged there would be some members who may feel that, because they were old furs, a fuss should not be made but she disagreed.

The furs had been gifted to Ards Borough Council in 1958, coincidentally the year of her birth, so they were indeed very old. However, she commented that whenever she saw anyone wearing real fur, what she also saw was the pain and suffering of the animal involved, adding that it was irrelevant how long ago it was killed.

Councillor Robinson noted that a lot of people felt the same way she did, adding that the wearing of real fur was offensive and objectionable to many.

At this point Councillor Robinson mentioned that members may be aware that the Netherlands was the first European country to ban factory fur farming in 1995, with England and Wales following on 23 November 2000, and then Scotland and Northern Ireland in 2002.The cruelty of the industry had been exposed by then, an industry which was all about maximising profit. She added that clearly the furs were valued, but not the animals involved.

Continuing, Councillor Robinson stated there were no humane slaughter laws to police the industry, and very often very gruesome methods were used to kill those poor creatures. The aim was to keep the pelts intact, and, without getting too graphic, smaller animals were often put into boxes and then gassed by engine exhausts (not always effectively) before being skinned, whilst larger animals had electrodes placed in their mouths, before being electrocuted, again, not always effectively. Councillor Robinson expressed relief that a ban on the industry was now in place in the UK, as this was unspeakable cruelty just for vanity. Therefore she felt that, by continuing to parade those fur robes publicly, the Council was giving acquiescence to this outdated and cruel industry, and was, in effect, complicit in, and encouraging of, keeping the wearing of real fur acceptable. Indeed, she noted at this

CSC 8.12.15 very time, the retailer Gap was currently trying to promote the wearing of fox, mink and raccoon fur.

Councillor Robinson recalled that as a small child, going to church every Sunday with her siblings and granny, she had abhorred the wearing of real fur even then. This was particularly the case as a lady would come into church every Sunday with her fur stole on, and heads, paws and all around her shoulders, something she found horrifying. In 1958, the wearing of fur may have been more acceptable but not in 2015.

Councillor Robinson stated that she had been very proud to have been elected to the Council, and was very proud to stand with her fellow elected members, adding that she felt a great affinity with everyone in Council. However, the real fur robes shamed her and indeed she felt they did not belong in this era. She noted that the Council had set about with the vision of creating a progressive, forward-thinking, new council, however in her view, the wearing of the fur robes was regressive.

She indicated that she had already checked, and there were sufficient new robes for everyone, although a member had asked her how they would be able to differentiate between the Aldermen and the Mayor and Deputy. She had replied that their chains of office should be sufficient to distinguish them. Continuing, she expressed the view that when the Council made the decision to use those two old legacy robes, the decision was not an informed one, as no-one had been advised those robes were made of real fur. If that had been revealed she would have raised her objections at that time, and added that she had been shocked when she had seen them for the first time at Groomsport.

So in conclusion, she asked members to consign the fur robes to history. She acknowledged that they had been gifted to Ards Borough Council and therefore they could be placed in the museum, out of use, and not hurting her eyes. She expressed the view that civic occasions should be enjoyed by everyone in the Borough, and therefore the Council should not wish to offend or alienate anyone by continuing to parade the furs in public. She urged members to support her motion and thanked everyone for listening.

The seconder concurring with all of the comments made by the proposer expressed the view that it was no longer appropriate in the 21st century for anyone to be parading around with a dead animal around their necks. He stated that it was totally unnecessary and would ask the Mayor to take the lead and support the motion.

At this stage the Chairman asked if it had been clarified that the fur on the robes was genuine.

Councillor Robinson indicated that had been confirmed.

The Head of Administration advised that the fur on both robes was in fact fox fur.

Taking on board all of the comments which had been made, Alderman Chambers noted the wide variety of synthetic furs which were now available. However he also urged caution and reminded members what each and every one had wrapped

CSC 8.12.15 around their feet. Continuing he referred to the new robes which had been purchased commenting that the old Ards robes worn by the Mayor and Deputy Mayor looked out of place with them now and could even be described as too grand in comparison.

Agreeing with those comments Alderman Keery commented that the fur-trimmed robes looked out of place, showed their age, were old fashioned and did not sit well with the new robes. He added that he would not be sorry to see them go and suggested that the legacy North Down Borough Council robes had their badges removed and were used instead.

Alderman Gibson recalled that he had held the office of Mayor in 1990 and again in 1995 during his time on Ards Borough Council and not once had he ever received any negative comments in respect of the fur. Therefore it was his opinion that if they were good enough then they should be good enough to use now.

Rising to speak Councillor McIlveen noted yet again a clear Ards and North Down split on the matter and reminded members that they were robes of Ards and North Down Borough Council. Continuing, he expressed his support for Councillor Robinson and agreed that the robes did look tired but did not agree that the robes already purchased were a suitable alternative. He added therefore that he could not support the motion in its current format.

At this stage Councillor Muir commented that he had previously assumed the fur on the robes was not real however on hearing that it was in fact real fur he would be supporting the motion as he felt the use of real fur in this manner was wrong.

Alderman Chambers suggested a slight amendment to the motion as follows ‘ that this council, as an indication of commitment to animal welfare, no longer use the two old, fur-trimmed robes transferred over from Ards Borough Council at civic events, and asks officers to bring back a report on possible replacements. The inclusion of real fur in clothing is an emotive issue, so the removal of these robes from use would avoid any possible offence’.

Councillor Robinson indicated that she was happy to accept the amendment.

Councillor Muir requested a Recorded Vote at this stage.

On the amendment being put to the meeting, with 6 voting For, 4 voting Against, 2 Abstaining and 2 Absent, it was DECLARED CARRIED.

RESOLVED, on the proposal of Councillor Robinson, seconded by Councillor Brooks, that this council, as an indication of commitment to animal welfare, no longer use the two old, fur-trimmed robes transferred over from Ards Borough Council at civic events, and asks officers to bring back a report on possible replacements. The inclusion of real fur in clothing is an emotive issue, so the removal of these robes from use will avoid any possible offence.

Councillor Muir having requested a recorded vote, the voting was as follows:-

CSC 8.12.15

FOR (6) AGAINST (4) ABSTAINING (2) ABSENT (2) Aldermen Aldermen Aldermen Councillors Chambers Gibson Carson Barry Keery Graham Councillors T Smith McDowell Councillors Gilmour Councillors Kennedy Brooks McIIveen Muir Smart

18.2. NOTICE OF MOTION SUBMITTED BY COUNCILLOR ARMSTRONG

Councillor Armstrong proposed, seconded by Alderman McDowell, that this Council agrees to extend Audio Recording of Council meetings to include all Committee meetings, on the same basis as already in place for full Council meetings thus offering an opportunity to both increase openness and transparency plus improved acoustics for those in the Public Gallery at Committee meetings.

Councillor Armstrong stated that it was her pleasure to attend the Committee meeting and extended her warmest congratulations to the Chairman, the Director and staff for a very orderly committee.

She referred to her notice of motion which was to ask that the Council agreed to the audio recording of all committee meetings, on the same basis as already in place for full Council meetings as this would increase openness and transparency and provide improved acoustics for those seated in the Public Gallery at Committee meetings.

At this stage she indicated that she would deal with the second issue first, which was the issue of acoustics in the Chamber in Ards. She stated that she was not embarrassed to say that she had a hearing impediment which made it very difficult for her to hear low tones and some softly spoken members, especially in the Chamber. She stated that she had the same issue since the legacy council, the shadow council and now the new Ards and North Down Borough Council. Continuing she stated that some members may have noticed that she cupped her right ear, especially when a member was speaking to either side of her. She added that if a member was facing her she could lip read but the size and set up of both the Committee Room and Council Chamber did not allow for this. However the difference was the Council Chamber in Bangor had an audio system with microphones and speakers which boosted the sound making it very easy to hear all that was being said. The Chamber in Ards only had microphones for guests and officers, not for each member and that meant sometimes she struggled to hear all that was said.

Continuing, Councillor Armstrong commented that she was not the only person that had difficulties with the sound and acoustics in the Chamber and reported that she had been approached by some people who had sat in the public gallery to advise that it was very difficult to hear all that was said because of the poor acoustics. Having sat in the Public Gallery on this occasion and on other occasions she could confirm the sound in the Chamber was deadened by both the wood panelling and the councillors’ high backed chairs. The only way to improve acoustics was for a

CSC 8.12.15 sound system with microphone and speakers to be used, preferably with a built in loop system. Councillor Armstrong indicated that she had spoken with officers who had confirmed the system used in the Town Hall, Bangor was owned by the Council, could be transported and may be able to work with the speaker system already in place here in Ards. It was noted the sound system used in Bangor cost over £14,000 and was currently being used once a month for Council meetings. Councillor Armstrong believed a better and more efficient use of that system would be for it to be housed in Ards, and transported back to Bangor during that week between Committee and Council meetings. Having the sound system in place in Ards would provide the opportunity to improve accessibility for those with hearing problems and would also enable the Council to use the ‘built in’ recording equipment.

At this stage Councillor Armstrong referred to the first aspect of her motion, that being the audio recording of all committee meetings. She acknowledged the Council was in a new era of local government and at a time when the public’s faith in politicians was at an all-time low by agreeing to audio record all committee meetings it allowed the Council to send a strong signal that openness and transparency were important. She stated that by providing an audio recording of the Council and Committee meetings ratepayers could hear for themselves all that was said and agreed during meetings. Ratepayers could already listen to Council meetings, so why not record Committee meetings too. She commented that audio recording of Council meetings had not stopped or prevented debate as most members probably forgot that it was being recorded. Continuing she acknowledged that all members were happy to stand over the words they said, adding that they had nothing to hide. Councillor Armstrong stated that if members wished to show the public that they were open and transparent then why not audio record all of Committee meetings, in the same way as the Council meeting was. The only exception of course being when there were confidential matters to discuss where the meeting would go ‘into committee’ and the recording stopped as was the case at Council meetings. As members were all used to the system, the equipment was available and it could be used outside the Town Hall, there was nothing to stop the Council from taking the next step and providing the public with another way to learn about what was said and what business was carried out at Council meetings.

Continuing Councillor Armstrong stated that there was also a second benefit to having Committee meetings recorded. For the last number of Council meetings, everyone had been there to witness the amount of amendments being made to Committee minutes. Those amendments were not being requested because there was a problem with the minute takers. In fact she stated that she would like very much to thank all of the minute takers for their hard work, adding that she would not like to have to sit taking notes for hours on end, and thanked the Democratic Services team for their work. Continuing she commented that the issue was that there was no proof of what exactly was said at Committee meetings and if there was an audio recording it would give the minute takers the opportunity to revisit any comments made in order to ensure the gist of the discussion was recorded accurately. She added that it would provide a ‘back up’ for them and the difficult job they had capturing all comments made by members and added that written minutes would still be signed off. She also believed the amount of time being used up at Council to amend minutes would vastly reduce and would provide members with proof of what they had said. As Councillors were bound by the Code of Conduct,

CSC 8.12.15 everyone wanted to make sure that when a comment was attributed to them, it was correct and an audio recording would clearly have resolved the issue which had come up at the last Council meeting. If audio recordings were made of Committee meetings it would not only provide the public with the ability to hear what was said and agreed, but would also afford each member with the confidence and protection of having what they actually said on record for all to hear.

Finally in summing up Councillor Armstrong thanked the Chairman for allowing her time to present her motion and asked everyone to support her motion.

The seconder acknowledged all of the points which had been well made by the proposer. He too agreed that it was difficult to hear the proceedings in the Chamber from the Public Gallery and acknowledged the importance of those seated in it being able to hear and understand the debate in the Chamber. In respect of the suggested recording of Committee meetings, he noted this was already happening at the monthly Council meetings and to date there had been no real problems with that.

(Councillor Smart left the meeting at this stage – 8.20pm)

Continuing, Alderman McDowell referred to last month’s Council meeting and the debate which had ensued about who had said what and commented that at this stage he was still unsure what the right way of it had been. He stated that openness and transparency were key adding that it would be good for the public to have the ability to listen to debates at Committee meetings. At this stage he asked for a Recorded Vote on the matter.

(Councillor Smart entered the meeting at this stage – 8.21pm)

Alderman Chambers referred to each of the issues contained in the motion in turn. Referring to the acoustics in the Chamber at Ards he agreed that there were issues with that and was supportive of the use of microphones at Committee meetings. In respect of the suggested audio recording of Committee meetings, he referred to last month’s Council meeting also stating that during his 23 years in local government he had never experienced such a major query about what was said at a Committee meeting. He stated that he did not believe it had been necessary to have that particular debate. He asked what the Mayor would have been expected to do and suggested that he may have asked for the tape to be brought in from that particular Committee meeting for all to hear. Continuing he expressed the view that audio recording came with its own problems and added that transparency was already in place by way of minutes, the public gallery and the presence of the press at Committee meetings. He added that current arrangements for Committees allowed for debate to flow freely, for rough and tumble comments to be made and encourage more brain storming. Minutes could then be ratified at the monthly Council meeting which was audio recorded. In summing up Alderman Chambers indicated that he was content for the status quo to remain in place.

Agreeing with those comments Councillor McIlveen acknowledged that the presence of the press, the public gallery and minutes provided the transparency referred to by the proposer. Continuing he expressed concern that to audio record Committee meetings could stifle debate and, on the other hand, there may be those elected

CSC 8.12.15 members who would be keen to have their comments recorded as if on some form of ego trip. He indicated that he was agreeable with the first part of the motion to use the microphone system to address the acoustic issues at Committee meetings in Ards and recalled a decision taken previously by the legacy Ards Borough Council to install a loop system into its Council Chamber.

Alderman Keery stated that the legacy North Down Borough Council sound system was very good adding that there had never been any problems in respect of the ability to hear debate. He suggested that the Council Chamber at Ards had not been designed for this and suggested that all Committee meetings were held in the Town Hall, Bangor. Continuing he expressed the view that the Council Chamber at Ards was not a facility to be used for such important work and added that transporting the sound system between Bangor and Ards was not an ideal solution either.

Alderman Gibson concurred with the comments made by Alderman Chambers and Councillor McIlveen and agreed that members of the public present in the Public Gallery needed to be able to hear the proceedings in the Chamber. He noted the microphones were available and the loop system was in place and expressed the view that Committee meetings did not need to be recorded in an effort to encourage free debate. He added that the status quo should remain and members encouraged to speak more audibly.

Alderman Graham expressed concern with the suggestion to transport the audio equipment between Bangor and Newtownards and instead suggested consideration was given to a purpose built system for Ards. Continuing he stated that he did not buy into the recording of Committee meetings and suggested that for some members the recording of such meetings had become too big an issue. He suggested that the minutes in their current format were too detailed and questioned who would ever take the time to read a set of minutes, never mind listen to a recording of a meeting adding that people had a life. He added that to record all meetings could encourage members to prolong debates and admitted that he too had not understood the difficulties which had arisen at last month’s Council meeting. He reiterated that people needed to get a life and suggested that minutes should only record each proposer and seconder.

In summing up Councillor Armstrong reiterated the need for Council debate to be open and transparent adding that she valued everyone’s words said during debate. She stated that she did not agree with the Mayor’s comments, as many groups and people she knew did read minutes to find out what was happening in respect of items such as grant applications. Continuing she stated that not all ratepayers were able to travel to Bangor to attend Council meetings and acknowledged that minutes were not verbatim and indeed that that was not expected. She too referred to last month’s Council meeting and difficulties which had resulted in respect of who had said what at a Committee meeting. She expressed disappointment that members had not been keen for Committee meetings to be recorded particularly as officers had confirmed the current system used in the Town Hall, Bangor could be adequately transported in flight cases to Ards. She commented that although it had been mentioned that her motion comprised of two parts, she indicated that she was not prepared to amend the wording presented and urged members to support her notice of motion as written.

CSC 8.12.15

Alderman McDowell requested a Recorded Vote at this stage.

On the amendment being put to the meeting, with 2 voting For, 9 voting Against, 1 Abstaining and 2 Absent, it was DECLARED LOST.

Alderman McDowell having requested a recorded vote, the voting was as follows:-

FOR (2) AGAINST (9) ABSTAINING (1) ABSENT (2) Alderman Aldermen Alderman Councillors McDowell Chambers Carson Barry Councillor Gibson T Smith Muir Graham Keery Councillors Brooks Gilmour Kennedy McIlveen Smart

18.3. NOTICE OF MOTION SUBMITTED BY COUNCILLOR COOPER

Councillor Cooper proposed, seconded by Councillor Kennedy, that this council condemns the unnecessary apology made to IRA Sinn Fein's Martin McGuinness for the singing of our National Anthem after its deliberate and provocative removal by Mitchell McLaughlin at the remembrance service in Stormont on Armistice Day, and urge the NI assembly to include God save the Queen in all future services.

Councillor Cooper commented that he had initially raised his Motion at the November meeting of the Community and Wellbeing Committee where it was referred to the November Council meeting and subsequently to this meeting. He expressed disappointment that it had taken so long to be considered by members adding that was something which he deeply regretted, particularly as it was something he felt very strongly about.

Continuing, he stated that he had left the Armed Forces in 1997 and had always been totally opposed to terrorism. He expressed the view that no Unionist should ever apologise for the singing of the National Anthem particularly on Armistice Day and acknowledged there would be those who would be opposed to this and would even suggest that the TUV engineered the entire situation. On the day in question the singing of the National Anthem had been removed 15 minutes before the start of the service by Mitchell McLaughlin, the man who was a member of the IRA Army Council which had ordered the abduction of Jean McConville and subsequent murder, adding that it was utterly repugnant. Continuing he stated that it was shameful particularly as Mitchell McLaughlin had been installed by Unionists as Speaker of the Assembly. He expressed the view that it was a gross insult for anyone to feel it was appropriate to apologise to Martin McGuiness for the singing of

CSC 8.12.15 the National Anthem, particularly as it had been played at previous services and should always be in the future.

The seconder Councillor Kennedy acknowledged that Remembrance Day was a solemn day of remembrance for those who had paid the ultimate sacrifice to provide us our freedom today, which many were guilty of taking for granted. It was also a reflection of the ultimate sacrifice of others for example during the First World War 200,000 men, 26,000 of those were members of the 36th Ulster Division, 1,700 of whom were from the Ards and North Down Borough. Continuing, he stated that during the 2nd World War 4,000 Ulster men paid the ultimate sacrifice, 650 of those again from the Ards and North Down Borough. Councillor Kennedy stated that the members of the Armed Forces deserved everyone’s thanks and gratitude and continuing noted that the IRA had taken the lives of 1,700 during the 40 years of the troubles with many more victims left traumatised by those events. He stated that what happened in the Great Hall at Stormont on Armistice Day had been simply stunning and therefore he was fully supportive of the motion.

At this stage Councillor Smart indicated that he had spoken with a number of MLA’s regarding the actions of the Speaker, Mitchell McLaughlin, about the matter and it was noted the Royal British Legion did not dictate the playing of the National Anthem at such events. Continuing he stated that the apology made was not for the National Anthem but instead to those that may potentially have felt ambushed by the fact that it had not been included on the Order of Service. He acknowledged the necessity for the National Anthem to have its rightful place and emphasised that it should have been included on the Order of Service for that day’s proceedings.

Councillor Smart proposed an amendment, seconded by Councillor Brooks that this Council writes expressing great disappointment at the removal of the National Anthem from the Order of Service by Mitchell McLaughlin MLA at the remembrance service in Stormont on Armistice Day 2015 and urge the Northern Ireland Assembly to include God Save the Queen on all future services.

Councillor Brooks rose in support of the amendment adding that he too had military experience.

Councillor Muir commented that he was extremely disappointed to see the Notice of Motion appearing for debate. He stated that to have representatives from all political parties together at Stormont remembering those who died during World War One was another major step forward. However, it was unfortunate some then took it upon themselves to try and embarrass other people by doing something not entirely in the spirit of the occasion nor required as per British Legion guidance on Acts of Remembrance which provided a long Order of Service with hymns and the anthem as options. The guidance added “the Order of Service can be altered to suit the needs of local resources; however the Exhortation, placing of the wreaths and the two-minute silence is essential. It is desirable to include sounding the Last Post and the Reveille preferably by a bugler.” He added all of that was included.

Continuing Councillor Muir stated that he wore his poppy with pride and had stood on many occasions to remember the dead of World War One, Two or subsequent conflicts, regardless as whether the National Anthem or another was played, in

CSC 8.12.15

Northern Ireland, Dublin, at the Somme or elsewhere. However he emphasised that he was not ignorant of the reality that it was difficult for some others and therefore would never dream of embarrassing others by tagging on something outside the Order of Service for a cross community event focused upon remembering War Dead of World War One.

Whilst many people outside the Chamber wanted to see politicians working together to build a peaceful and prosperous future, Councillor Muir expressed the view that this motion only served to divide and set back joint efforts to remember everyone’s shared past and shared sacrifices made by men and women across Northern Ireland, Ireland and Great Britain during the First World War and subsequent conflicts. Therefore he encouraged members to remember on what day the event referred to in this Notice of Motion occurred on, that being Armistice Day. Armistice Day was commemorated every year on November 11 to mark the armistice signed between the Allies of World War I and Germany agreed on a train parked in a railway siding in a French forest and taking effect at eleven o'clock in the morning—the "eleventh hour of the eleventh day of the eleventh month" of 1918.

Councillor Muir commented that whilst World War One was considered to be the war to end all wars, the Great War sadly resulted in the loss of approximately 18 million people. Since World War One, Ireland, North and South had travelled a long and troubled road. A few years after the end of the war, Ireland witnessed the War of Independence, Partition, establishment of Northern Ireland and sadly a contested view of World War One for many years. Recent years had thankfully demonstrated significant progress to heal the legacy arising from World War One left across Ireland, North and South. Whether it was opening of Island of Ireland Peace Park in Messines, near Ypres in Flanders, Belgium by HM The Queen and the President of Ireland Mary McAleese on 11 November 1998 or the historic visit by Her Majesty to Ireland in May 2011. Councillor Muir stated that he would forever remember that visit as a watershed in British Irish relations especially the visits to both the Garden of Remembrance and National War Memorial Gardens. For many years and numerous reasons, including the negative influence of Éamon de Valera's government, Ireland’s National War Memorial Gardens were allowed to fall into disrepair following construction in 1937. However today he noted that they stood in proud memory of the Irish men & women, Catholic, Protestant and Dissenter who died during World War One.

Councillor Muir commented that this progress to remember on Armistice Day those who made the ultimate sacrifice from across Ireland was to be welcomed and should not be cast aside for political expediency. He added that to do so would be both short sighted and an insult to the legacy of those who gave their tomorrows for our today. For this reason and many others he urged the proposer to reflect and withdraw this motion.

Councillor McIlveen stated that he had listened intently to Councillor Cooper’s speech and been struck by his tone and dignity in which he had delivered it and added that his words had touched him. Continuing, he expressed his support for the motion and commented that it was disappointing that it had been felt necessary for some to make an apology on behalf of their party leader.

CSC 8.12.15

Indicating that he too had served in the Armed Forces, Alderman Chambers commented that Remembrance Day was significant for him also. He recalled in the early 1990’s the occasion when the Queen had visited Northern Ireland to officially open the Queen Elizabeth Bridge and as part of that service the National Anthem had not been sung and instead Danny Boy had been sung. He commented that at a formal event of that nature it would be expected to sing the National Anthem and he had written several letters of complaint along those lines to the then Secretary of State who had accused him of being a bigot. Continuing, Alderman Chambers noted that on Armistice Day at the event in the Great Hall at Stormont, the speaker had removed the National Anthem 15 minutes before the service and members were not aware whether or not it had appeared on the Order of Service as they had been unavailable. He expressed his support for the amendment adding that he hoped next year the Northern Ireland Assembly would set out clear rules and guidelines in respect of the playing of the National Anthem at future remembrance services.

Councillor Smart called for a Recorded Vote to be taken on his amendment.

On the amendment being put to the meeting, with 3 voting For, 5 voting Against, 4 Abstaining and 2 Absent, it was DECLARED LOST.

Councillor Smart having requested a recorded vote, the voting was as follows:-

FOR (3) AGAINST (5) ABSTAINING (4) ABSENT (2) Alderman Aldermen Aldermen Councillors Chambers Gibson Carson Barry McDowell Graham T Smith Keery

Councillors Councillor Councillors Kennedy Gilmour Brooks Muir Smart McIlveen

In summing up his original proposal, Councillor Cooper thanked members for their comments adding he was pleased some Unionists had been able to back his motion which had at the heart of it to point out the folly of bending the knee to IRA/Sinn Fein on the removal of the National Anthem at this remembrance service to honour those who sacrificed their lives for our freedom and liberty in the many conflicts over the centuries. He also acknowledged that he along with many other politicians were in agreement that nothing would change unless the matter of terrorism was dealt with. He added that terrorism was the elephant in the room. He questioned how the Unionist electorate could ever have faith in any party which apologised for the playing of the National Anthem commenting that it was an absolute disgrace. He stated that the removal of the National Anthem was a deliberate and provocative insult to the fallen and had politicised what should have been a dignified and solemn occasion. Councillor Cooper commented that any diminishment of our British heritage and our right to commemorate those fallen heroes by those responsible for murdering thousands of citizens would be resisted by the TUV and all principled unionists.

CSC 8.12.15

AGREED TO RECOMMEND, on the proposal of Councillor Cooper, seconded by Councillor Kennedy, with 5 voting For and 4 voting Against that this council condemns the unnecessary apology made to IRA Sinn Fein's Martin McGuinness for the singing of our National Anthem after its deliberate and provocative removal by Mitchell McLaughlin at the remembrance service in Stormont on Armistice day, and urge the NI Assembly to include God save the Queen in all future services.

EXCLUSION OF PUBLIC AND PRESS

AGREED, on the proposal of Councillor McIlveen, seconded by Councillor Muir, that the public and press be excluded from the meeting for the undernoted items of business.

19. CLOUGHEY TENNIS COURTS REDEVELOPMENT – UPDATE – FILE REF: CS21A (Appendix IX)

***NOT FOR PUBLICATION***

Schedule 6 – Information relating to the financial or business affairs of any particular person (including the Council holding that information).

22. STAFFING MATTER

***NOT FOR PUBLICATION***

Schedule 6 – Information which is likely to reveal the identity of an individual.

RE-ADMITTANCE OF PUBLIC AND PRESS

AGREED, on the proposal of Alderman Graham, seconded by Alderman Gibson, that the public and press be re-admitted to the meeting.

23. Termination of Meeting

The meeting terminated at 9.25pm

Staff in Confidence

ITEM 7.3.1

Ards and North Down Borough Council

Report Classification Staff in Confidence

Council/Committee Council

Date of Meeting 17 December 2015

Responsible Director Director of Organisational Development and Administration

Responsible Head of Service

Date of Report 10 December 2015

File Reference

Legislation

Section 75 Compliant Yes ☒ No ☐ Not Applicable ☐

Subject Arising from Corporate Minutes - Staffing Matter

Attachments

The report to Corporate Committee stated that there were two members of staff absent from work suffering from life threatening illnesses. Very tragically, the employee from Legacy Ards Borough Council has since passed away. Our condolences have been sent to the family.

The other staff member’s absence is being managed under the new Council policy on Managing Attendance which states

Critical Illness (Terminal/Life Threatening Illness) …”each case will be assessed on its own merits and adjustments to the procedure made as appropriate. This may include suspension of the policy or extension of timescales”

It is considered appropriate to extend the timescale of sick pay entitlement and so the employee will remain on half pay at the end of her entitlement period (2nd December 2015) until 31 March 2016 to allow some time for further information to be made available

RECOMMENDATION

The extension of entitlement to sick pay at half pay is agreed as stated above.

Page 1 of 1

ITEM 7.4

ARDS AND NORTH DOWN BOROUGH COUNCIL

A meeting of the Community and Wellbeing Committee was held in the Council Chamber, 2 Church Street, Newtownards on Wednesday, 9 December 2015 at 7.00pm.

PRESENT:

In the Chair: Councillor Armstrong

Aldermen: Chambers (7.10pm) Irvine

Councillors: Adair Edmund Anderson Kennedy Boyle Roberts Brooks Menagh Cooper Thompson Dunne (7.15pm) Wilson

Officers: Director of Community and Wellbeing (G Bannister), Head of Community and Culture (J Nixey), Head of Leisure and Amenities (I O’Neill), Head of Environmental Health, Development and Protection (M Potts) and Democratic Services Officer (E Erwin)

1. APOLOGIES

The Chairperson (Councillor Armstrong) welcomed everyone to the meeting. Apologies for inability to attend were received from Councillor Allen, Councillor Smart and Councillor Martin. Apologies for lateness were recorded for Alderman Chambers (7.10pm) and Councillor Dunne (7.15pm).

NOTED.

2. DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST

Alderman Irvine declared an interest in Item 4 – Council’s Request to Place a Second Member on the Board of the Northern Community Leisure Trust (NCLT) being Council’s representative on that Board of Trustees.

NOTED.

3. REVIEW OF THE PUBLIC HEALTH ACT (NI) 1967 (Appendix I, Annexes 1 to 3)

PREVIOUSLY CIRCULATED:- Copy Review Consultation Document; Questionnaire, and Technical Supplement with accompanying report dated 25 November 2015 from CW.09.12.15 the Director of Community and Wellbeing detailing that the Department of Health Social Services and Public Safety had issued a consultation on the review of the Public Health Act (Northern Ireland) 1967.

The 1967 Act was one of the many and diverse laws that made up the field of public health law and was concerned primarily with the notification and prevention of certain infectious diseases. It gave some public bodies unusual powers for dealing with certain dangerous scenarios. The Act had changed little since 1967. That fact did not in itself mean the Act was in need of reform, but the work done so far on the review pointed clearly to its limitations.

The Ebola crisis of 2014/15 had tested how well prepared Northern Ireland would be to deal with an imported case of Ebola. However, could the Council be confident that the 1967 Act would have been up to such a task. Part of that question was whether the 1967 Act was too narrow in its scope. The Act was about infectious diseases but the Chernobyl disaster and chemicals released into the air from fires and industrial accidents, or contamination of the land from spills or the illegal dumping of waste, could also pose serious threats to people’s health. Other countries and the international community had modernised public health law to address such threats, and in doing so had adopted an ‘all hazards’ approach.

RECOMMENDED that the Council responds to the consultation in line with the draft Public Health Act (Northern Ireland) 1967 review document attached. (Appendix I)

AGREED TO RECOMMEND, on the proposal of Councillor Roberts, seconded by Councillor Anderson, that the recommendation be adopted.

4. COUNCIL’S REQUEST TO PLACE A SECOND MEMBER ON THE BOARD OF THE NORTHERN COMMUNITY LEISURE TRUST (Appendix II)

(Alderman Irvine declared an interest and left the meeting at this stage – 7.04pm)

PREVIOUSLY CIRCULATED:- Report dated 17 November 2015 from the Director of Community and Wellbeing detailing that in March 2015, the Shadow Council had written to the Northern Community Leisure Trust (NCLT) (which operated the Leisure facilities in the former North Down area with Serco Leisure as its agent) asking that consideration be given for Council to have a second elected member on its Board of Trustees. That was requested to reflect the new larger authority which would assume responsibility from 1 April 2015.

The Director of Community and Wellbeing had written again to NCLT on 9 October asking for an update on the matter, and it was subsequently discussed at a Trustees meeting on 5 November 2015. The Secretary of NCLT had now provided an interim response to the request, which appeared positive. That letter of response was as attached for Members information by way of an update.

RECOMMENDED that the attached correspondence from the Trust is noted. (Appendix II)

CW.09.12.15

Proposed by Councillor Thompson, seconded by Councillor Edmund, that the recommendation be adopted.

Councillor Roberts sought feedback on the length of time taken by NCLT to issue a response to Council, possible governance issues and the matter of further business being conducted with that Board of Trustees due to significant costs involved in the management of Council leisure facilities. The Director of Community and Wellbeing responded that those matters had been raised with NCLT in advance of their AGM during September 2015 and Council Officers were satisfied that identified issues were currently being addressed and resolved within the Trust, and everything was now moving in the right direction. The Director of Community and Wellbeing offered to provide further information regarding this matter at the end of the current meeting when ‘in committee’.

NOTED.

AGREED TO RECOMMEND, on the proposal of Councillor Thompson, seconded by Councillor Edmund, that the recommendation be adopted.

(Alderman Irvine re-entered the meeting at this stage – 7.06pm)

5. MINUTES OF ARDS AND NORTH DOWN SPORTS FORUM AGM DATED 14 SEPTEMBER 2015 (Appendix III)

PREVIOUSLY CIRCULATED:- Minutes of Ards and North Down Sports Forum Annual General Meeting held on Monday, 14 September 2015.

Proposed by Councillor Menagh, seconded by Councillor Cooper, that the minutes be noted.

Page 4, Item 4 – Election of Office Bearers for Ards and North Down Sports Forum

Alderman Irvine provided clarification that due to two nominations being made for the position of Chairman at the above AGM, he had subsequently withdrawn his nomination of Councillor Thompson, and Councillor Menagh had been duly elected as the Chairman of the Sports Forum for 2015/16.

NOTED.

The Director of Community and Wellbeing advised that the above matter could be noted, however, the tabled minutes were those of the Sports Forum and had been already ratified by that body at a subsequent meeting. The Chairperson (Councillor Armstrong) took the opportunity to congratulate Councillor Menagh on his appointment as Chairman of Ards and North Down Sports Forum.

AGREED TO RECOMMEND, on the proposal of Councillor Thompson, seconded by Councillor Menagh, that the Minutes of Ards and North Down Sports Forum AGM dated 14 September 2015 be noted.

CW.09.12.15

6. SPORTS DEVELOPMENT CAPITAL GRANTS (FILE SD94) (Appendix IV)

PREVIOUSLY CIRCULATED:- Schedule of Sports Development Capital Grants and covering report dated 24 November 2015 from the Director of Community and Wellbeing detailing that the Sports Development Capital Grants Scheme was available to sports clubs within the Borough. The Council had set aside £50,000 for 2015/2016 financial year and could award up to 50% of eligible capital costs with a maximum award of £5,000 in respect of any one project.

The Capital Grants Scheme had previously been open from Monday, 3 August to Friday, 18 September 2015. Subsequently, the report along with recommendations was tabled at the Community and Wellbeing Committee meeting on 11 November 2015. An underspend of £42,758.00 was retained.

As a result of that underspend in the first round a further funding opportunity was made available to sports clubs within the Borough which opened from Monday, 26 October 2015 to Friday, 20 November 2015. The Council had received 14 applications requesting a total of £49,559.06. Twelve of those applications were recommended for funding, as two of the applications did not meet the specified criteria and therefore were not recommended for funding. All applications were as detailed in the attached Schedule. (Appendix IV)

The responsible Council Officer dealt with a number of queries and requests for applications from the following clubs: Bangor Ladies Hockey Club, Portaferry Sailing Club, Newtownards Sailing Club, Ards Rugby FC, Ballydrain Harriers Athletic Club, Comber Recreation FC, Donaghadee Sailing Club and Ards Cycling Club, however, only three sports clubs (Newtownards Sailing Club, Donaghadee Sailing Club and Comber REC FC) submitted applications at this time.

Nine sports clubs who applied for the first round in September 2015 had re-applied to the second round of funding. Those were; North Down Cycling Club, Ards Rangers FC, Lough Cuan Bowmen, Castle Juniors FC, Royal British Legion FC, Donaghadee Bowling Club, Holywood Cricket Club, Ballygalget GAC and 1st Bangor FC. Seven out of the nine were recommended for funding, and the other two sports clubs had been directed towards alternative options.

An initial screening of the applications was carried out by the Sports Development Officer. Applicants who met the essential criteria were then assessed against the following criteria:

1. Demonstrate the benefits to the club/organisation and the local community 2. Demonstrate anticipated outcomes of the project. 3. Increase participation numbers within the club 4. Targeting priority groups ( women, disability, over 50’s and socially disadvantaged areas/ groups) 5. Improving and sustaining activities within the club 6. Improving the Health and Wellbeing of individuals/communities.

CW.09.12.15

Applicants were required to demonstrate how their projects met at least three of the criteria listed above. The applications were assessed by the Head of Leisure and Amenities and the Leisure Officer. The Sports Development Officer had been present at the assessment meeting.

The second phase of funding had allocated £25,918.77, and that amount combined with the first phase of funding of £7,242 .00 equated to £33,160.77. That had been match funded by the sport clubs and therefore the total amount proposed for investment for capital projects within local sports clubs in the Borough would be over £66,000.

As previously mentioned the allocated spend for 2015/2016 was £33,160.77 out of a possible £50,000. Over recent years the Council had been approached by a variety of sporting organisations regarding the provision of defibrillators. The Council and its Officers recognised the significance of defibrillators within the Borough and in particular for sports clubs. It was recommended that £12,000 of the remaining budget was allocated to fund a number of defibrillators to sports clubs who owned/had dedicated sports facilities. That project would provide a number of clubs with a defibrillator and possible storage box, also a training course to equip their volunteers with the necessary skills and knowledge to use and maintain the defibrillator would be delivered centrally. The Officer would envisage that project being delivered through the Ards and North Down Sports Forum and that it would be available to any Club who had affiliated to the Forum by Monday, 15 February 2016. A number of PR exercises would be undertaken to promote the initiative in conjunction with the Forum making the draw at the next Ards and North Down Sports Forum meeting which was due to take place on Monday, 15 February 2016.

RECOMMENDED that the Council approves the recommendations of the assessment panel which is listed in Appendix IV and the Defibrillator Project.

Proposed by Councillor Menagh, seconded by Councillor Adair, that the recommendation be adopted.

Councillor Menagh welcomed Council’s commitment of funding to Sports Clubs which would enable a range of capital projects and investment to be delivered throughout the Borough. Councillor Menagh also highlighted that it was excellent that the Sports Clubs who had made application were all affiliated to the Sports Forum.

Councillor Boyle welcomed the above report and thanked Council Officers for all their work involved in delivery of the Sports Development Capital Grants Scheme. Councillor Boyle also welcomed that all the available Council funding would now be totally committed under that Capital Grant Scheme and he commended and encouraged all aspects of sports provision across the Borough.

(Alderman Chambers entered the meeting at this stage – 7.10pm)

In respect to a query from Councillor Thompson regarding defibrillator costs, the Head of Leisure and Amenities responded that defibrillators cost approximately £1,000 each, therefore twelve defibrillators could be delivered and the Ards and

CW.09.12.15

North Down Sports Forum would be responsible for delivery of that project under the Sports Development Capital Grants Scheme.

NOTED.

AGREED TO RECOMMEND, on the proposal of Councillor Menagh, seconded by Councillor Adair, that the recommendation be adopted.

7. UPDATE OF POSSIBLE DEVELOPMENT OF QUEEN’S HALL, NEWTOWNARDS IN ASSOCIATION WITH LIBRARIES NI (FILE SD94)

PREVIOUSLY CIRCULATED:- Report dated 24 November 2015 from the Director of Community and Wellbeing detailing that the Queen’s Hall in Newtownards, as well as being a hireable community hall was also home to the Newtownards Library, and had been since District Councils were responsible for Library services prior to 1973 when it was transferred from the Legacy Council to the South Eastern Education and Library Board. Presently, the Library Service (Libraries NI) which was now directly responsible to DCAL continued to pay a fee to the Council for the use of the space the Library occupied at the front of the building.

Over the past number of years, various discussions had taken place between Ards Borough Council and Libraries NI about the possible modernisation of the Newtownards Library and refurbishment of the Queen’s Hall generally. One of the most recent discussions that took place was in March 2015, where a modern library specification combined with a bookable community space based around a theatre style design and flexible arts usage was envisaged.

The Councils Capital Projects Portfolio Board during review of the Councils approved capital expenditure plan as part of the current rates setting process had identified that the Council contribution previously agreed and set aside for potential refurbishment of the Queen’s Hall amounted to approximately £1.5m. The Board had deemed it prudent to engage with Libraries NI again to assess the status of the potential project from the Library Services perspective so that a decision on carrying forward that sum or not could be reached. It was also considered necessary given the recent Theatre Feasibility Study presented to Council that a Theatre was not recommended for Bangor ‘or any other part of the Borough’ at this time. Thirdly, the debate over entertainment noise arising from the current use of the Queens Hall gave another reason for a re-examination of any changes to the building to be considered at this time, and to review that simultaneously.

An initial review meeting had taken place with Libraries NI and Council Officers on Wednesday, 28 October 2015 to discuss the issues outlined above. The outcome of that meeting was that Council now needed to reconsider what the most appropriate use for the Queen’s Hall should entail as part of any refurbishment plan. The Libraries NI stated position was that it was very keen to progress a refurbishment project and provide Newtownards with a new modern state of the art community hub style library, and would seek to make an investment into that project in excess of the Council’s approved financial commitment as detailed above (subject to Departmental

CW.09.12.15 approval). The potential combined investment if approved could therefore be in the order of £3.5m.

Consequently, a Capital Project Board had been established under the Council’s Finance and Performance Directorate, with a remit initially to determine stakeholder needs and work up a scope and a business case for a modernisation plan that could suit both the Council and the Library Service and meet users needs best. That Board, which consisted of staff from both Organisations met for the first time on 26 November 2015, and intended to bring back proposals for consideration simultaneously by the Council and the Education Authority next year. Any draft proposals would be brought to a future meeting of the Community and Wellbeing Committee for discussion and agreement before progressing further.

RECOMMENDED that the Council notes the above report.

Proposed by Councillor Cooper, seconded by Councillor Thompson, that the recommendation be adopted.

Councillor Cooper raised concerns regarding the substantial combination of £3.5m investment and he queried if the necessary funding would be made available within the current financial year. The Director of Community and Wellbeing confirmed that Council had already committed its financial contribution within its capital investment plan towards the project, however, the investment from Libraries NI depended on a successful business case being made for the possible development of the Library. The Director of Community and Wellbeing advised that in discussing the proposal, positive feedback had been provided by Libraries NI and he anticipated that Council might be made aware of the outcome of their business case in early Spring 2016.

(Councillor Dunne entered the meeting at this stage – 7.15pm)

Councillor Kennedy sought feedback on the prioritisation of Newtownards Library by Libraries NI, as the possible development of Queen’s Hall and Library had been ongoing for a number of years involving the legacy Council. The Director of Community and Wellbeing further advised that in recent discussions, Libraries NI had been positive about the proposed capital project and he had been given the impression that it would be moved forwards as soon as possible. In respect of a query from Councillor Kennedy regarding the need for a business case, the Director of Community and Wellbeing explained that Council needs had changed particularly in light of the Theatre Provision Feasibility Study and that a new needs analysis had now commenced involving Council Officers and users. Councillor Kennedy indicated his frustration at the length of time it was taking for the project to reach fruition, and he encouraged Council to push forward the upgrade of the Library and facilities at the Queen’s Hall, which was a great asset to Newtownards.

AGREED TO RECOMMEND, on the proposal of Councillor Cooper, seconded by Councillor Thompson, that the recommendation be adopted.

CW.09.12.15

8. GOOD RELATIONS GRANT FUNDING 2015 – 2016 (FILE 141830)

PREVIOUSLY CIRCULATED:- Report dated 27 November 2015 from the Director of Community and Wellbeing detailing that Council wanted to continue supporting local groups, so that a variety of exciting and innovative good relations projects could take place locally. Through commitment to good relations and community development work, groups and individuals from different political, racial and religious traditions had been enabled to engage with one another to meet the aims of the Good Relations grant guidelines:

 Develop understanding, trust, equality and fairness  Build confidence and inclusion  Encourage meaningful dialogue and sustainable relationships based on the principles of equity, respect for diversity and interdependence.

Members would be aware that a call for Good Relations grants had opened on 29 October and closed on 26 November 2015. That call was publically advertised in the press and on the Council’s website.

A total of 20 applications had been received. One application was received after the closing deadline, from RECON in Holywood and in line with the published grant criteria, that late application was not scored.

A scoring panel comprising of two Good Relations Officers and Acting Community Development Officer, had met on 27 November 2015. A pass mark of 40% was set and all applications were scored against set criteria. Below is a list of applications processed by the scoring panel, the amount awarded and the Officer’s recommendations.

Name of Group Amount Amount Recommendation Requested Awarded

Ballywalter Community Action £1,000 £1,000 Approved Bangor Youth Safety Partnership £2,000 £2,000 Approved (Bangor Alternatives) Portaferry & Strangford Trust Ltd £3,546 £2,000 Approved (PAST) Kilcooley Women’s Centre £939 £939 Approved Cumann Gaelach Ard Mhic £600 £600 Approved Nasca (Holywood Irish Society) Portavogie Culture & Heritage £1,172 £1,172 Approved Society Millisle Youth Forum £1,235 £1,235 Approved Bangor Stroke Support Group £1,090 £1,090 Approved Ballyphilip Youth Club £2,640 £2,000 Approved Neurodiversity UK(Comber) £1,950 £1,950 Approved Comber Youth For Christ/ £1,911 £1,911 Approved The Net Youth Project

CW.09.12.15

Name of Group Amount Amount Recommendation Requested Awarded

Movilla Historical and Cultural £919.50 £919.50 Approved Society North Down First Flute £2,010 Approved £2,000 County Down Traction £1920.50 £0.00 Rejected – no Engine Club Good Relations Element Holywood Shared Town £2,000 £1,200 Approved Beyond Skin £1,700 £1,700 Approved Polish Association in Co. Down £2,000 £2,000 Approved Whitehill Community Association £1,850 £1,850 Approved East End Residents Association £2,090 £2,000 Approved

Total £32,573.00 £27,566.50

The total grant budget available was £32,000. A total of £32,573 was applied for and £27,566.50 was recommended for approval. In some instances, Officers had recommended that applicants were awarded less than the amount requested, due to those requests exceeding the maximum budget of £2,000, also a reduction in excessive budgets had been implemented e.g. hospitality.

As there was insufficient time in this financial year, to process a further call for applications, it was recommended that a request was made to OFMDFM to reallocate funding within the agreed Good Relations Action Plan towards the costs involved in provision of an educational programme for young people on legacy issues.

RECOMMENDED that the Council approves the recommended grant awards above, and that a request is submitted to OFMDFM to reallocate the grant balance of £4,433.50 to agreed Good Relations programme costs, detailed above.

Proposed by Councillor Adair, seconded by Councillor Menagh, that the recommendation be adopted.

Councillor Adair welcomed the recommended grant awards to the successful groups who all conducted vital good relations work across the Borough.

Councillor Roberts sought feedback on the recommended re-allocation of the balance of funding rather than going out to advertise another call for further funding applications. The Head of Community and Culture explained that due to the nature of the length of time generally required by local Community Groups to develop relevant good relations initiatives, there was not enough time to re-advertise especially as the deadline for project delivery was 31 March 2016.

Councillor Dunne welcomed the successful awards of funding to a range of local Community Groups, however, he expressed his disappointment that the County

CW.09.12.15

Down Traction Engine Club had been unsuccessful in its application, especially as that Organisation delivered a renowned annual event attracting hundreds of people of different cultural and religious backgrounds to the Borough. In response, the Head of Community and Culture explained that all the funding applications were scored against set criteria to ensure the aims and objectives of good relations grant guidelines were met accordingly. The Head of Community and Culture further assured Councillor Dunne that following approval of the above funding awards, the applicants of County Down Traction Engine Club would be advised that their funding request should be appropriately submitted for consideration under Council’s Events Grant Scheme which was currently open for submission of applications.

In respect of a query from Councillor Wilson regarding re-allocation of the remainder funding, the Head of Community and Culture outlined that the Council had previously approved the Good Relations Action Plan including the education proposal, therefore the balance of funding could be re-invested towards delivery of that educational programme.

Alderman Irvine sought feedback on details of funding applications, Recon’s late submission and the spread of applications across the Borough. In response, the Head of Community and Culture explained that the applicants on behalf of Recon had been contacted and accepted that their funding submission was too late for consideration and therefore could not be scored. The Head of Community and Culture advised that the call for applications had been advertised widely and a number of workshops had also been delivered to ensure a spread of applications resulting in nine applications from North Down which was a good representation of Community Groups from that area. The Head of Community and Culture undertook to email the full details of good relations initiatives recommended for delivery to Members for information purposes. Members could also avail of information held on file records following termination of the current meeting. Councillor Menagh reminded members that these grants were open to all, also that grant criteria and deadlines had been set for a reason and all applicants would have been aware of those matters therefore it was not an issue.

Councillor Cooper queried the timetable for next year’s grants. The Head of Community and Culture reported that with regards to various Council Grant Schemes, Council Officers were currently conducting an overall review and it was the intention to publish an indicative timetable for funding submissions on the Council’s website, which would assist local Community Groups in having more preparation time for development of projects and submission of funding applications.

NOTED.

AGREED TO RECOMMEND, on the proposal of Councillor Adair, seconded by Councillor Menagh, that the recommendation be adopted.

9. MULTI-ANNUAL ARTS GRANTS

PREVIOUSLY CIRCULATED:- Report dated 24 November 2015 from the Director of Community and Wellbeing detailing that the first round of Multi-Annual Arts Grants Funding for Ards and North Down Borough Council (2016 – 2018) was opened on

CW.09.12.15

1 October 2015 with a closing date of 30 October 2015 at 12:00noon.

The two year multi annual funding programme was available to arts Organisations in the Ards and North Down Borough who wished to undertake larger scale arts activities. Organisations were asked to demonstrate a substantial impact to the arts sector in the Ards and North Down area and were assessed on three key areas:

• Artistic Quality (35%) • Organisational Management and Governance (30%) • Public Benefit (35%)

Grants of up to £5,000 per annum were available for a period of two years. The total budget for the Multi Annual Arts Grants Programme was £20,000 per annum.

Three applications were received from the following Organisations:

• Holywood Music Festival - requested amount £4,500 • Seacourt Print Workshop - requested amount £5,000 • Bangor Choral Festival - requested amount £5,000

A panel meeting to assess the applications had taken place on 13 November 2015 and the following Elected Member and Arts and Heritage Panel representatives attended: Alderman Keery and Joan Dempster.

The panel was advised by Council Officers; Patricia Hamilton (Arts Officer) and Amy McKelvey (Community Arts Development Officer).

All three applications received full marks in all areas of the assessment.

The budget for each year was £20,000 and the maximum amount that was applied for in this round was £14,500, leaving a total left of £5,500 per annum (2016 – 2018).

RECOMMENDED that the Council approves the three successful applications and award each of them their requested amount per annum (2016 - 2018). It further recommended that the Grants Programme is opened again in January 2016 with the remaining budget of £5,500.

Proposed by Councillor Dunne, seconded by Councillor Roberts, that the recommendation be adopted.

Councillor Dunne welcomed the recommended awards of funding which would assist in continued delivery of three positive annual events and he indicated that those successful Organisations should indeed be appreciative of Council’s Multi-Annual Arts Grants Scheme.

AGREED TO RECOMMEND, on the proposal of Councillor Dunne, seconded by Councillor Roberts, that the recommendation be adopted.

CW.09.12.15

10. ARDS AND NORTH DOWN CULTURAL EXPRESSION FESTIVAL COSTS

PREVIOUSLY CIRCULATED:- Report dated 24 November 2015 from the Director of Community and Wellbeing detailing that in September 2015, Council Officers had committed to providing Members with details of the total cost of the Council’s Cultural Expression Programme.

Twenty-two applications had been received from groups wishing to celebrate with a community festival in or around the 11th and 12th of July 2015. Two applications had been received from groups wishing to celebrate with a community festival in and around Halloween 2015.

The final total cost of the Programme was not yet available, final balancing payments and costs in relation to Halloween festivals and some July festivals, had not yet been processed and paid. However, to date the total cost for the 2015/2016 Cultural Expression Programme, to include grants awarded, disposal of waste materials, disposal of tyres, hire of beacons and gas beacons, etc was as follows:

Description Cost to Date

Grants for festivals (£44,900 offered to groups) 41,680.00 Alternatives – beacons/gas/ etc - 16,860.00 Fireworks 2,300.00 Barriers/ clearing/ signs 17,180.00 Manpower/labour 520.00 Evaluation 3,000.00 Disposal of waste material and tyres 17,610.00 Total 99,150.00

Of this total cost to date, the Office of the First Minister and Deputy First Minister (OFMDFM) would provide 75% of the total grant awarded to Community Organisations, through the Council’s Good Relations Programme. Therefore £31,260 of the grant awarded to date could be recouped by Council and the remaining costs and 25% of the grant awarded, would require to be met by the Council. The current total cost to be met by Council was £67,890, which included the disposal of sand and waste material.

RECOMMENDED that the Council’s Cultural Expression Programme costs be noted.

AGREED TO RECOMMEND, on the proposal of Councillor Cooper, seconded by Councillor Boyle, that the recommendation be adopted.

11. COMMUNITY FESTIVAL FUND (FILE CG10231 PART F) (Appendix V Annexes A and B)

PREVIOUSLY CIRCULATED:- DCAL Letter dated 11 November 2015 and covering report dated 24 November 2015 from the Director of Community and Wellbeing detailing that the above letter had been received from the Department of Culture,

CW.09.12.15

Arts and Leisure advising Council of the Community Festivals Fund Revised Policy and Guidance Outcome and Final 2015 Framework Document (Annex A).

The Policy and Guidance Framework had been developed following public consultation (Annex B) and would come into effect for the 2016/17 financial year onwards providing information for the Council’s Community Festivals Grants Scheme 2016.

RECOMMENDED that the Council notes this report.

Proposed by Councillor Thompson, seconded by Alderman Irvine, that the recommendation be adopted.

Alderman Irvine sought feedback on when Council’s Community Festivals Fund would next open for application following the above consultation process. The Head of Community and Culture responded that the timeframe was dependant on Council being in receipt of a confirmed Letter of Offer for funding from DSD. In respect of a query from Councillor Boyle regarding any significant changes to the revised policy, the Head of Community and Culture confirmed that there were no major amendments and that Council Officers would revisit application forms and funding criteria to ensure compliance with DSD’s formal Letter of Offer.

NOTED.

AGREED TO RECOMMEND, on the proposal of Councillor Thompson, seconded by Alderman Irvine, that the recommendation be adopted.

12. VOLUNTEER NOW

PREVIOUSLY CIRCULATED:- Report dated 24 November 2015 from the Director of Community and Wellbeing detailing that the Council had recently engaged with the three Community Networks and a range of communities through a comprehensive consultation exercise to establish how its Community Development Services would be delivered across the Council. Through the exercise eight key works areas were identified, two of which had a strong focus on volunteering:

 Provide effective and needs based training programmes for volunteers including: Capacity Building, Safeguarding, Committee Skills, Governance, Project Management Funding

 To promote and support local volunteering

In addition, through other public engagement sessions, e.g. Community Planning events, the important role of volunteers had been highlighted. Those included the potential benefits to the wider community, the Council and Council employees.

In order to explore the development of a Volunteer Policy for the Council, Officers had met with representatives from Volunteer Now, the lead regional Organisation which worked to promote, develop and support volunteering across Northern Ireland. Their work enhanced recognition for the contribution volunteers made, provide

CW.09.12.15 access to opportunities, encouraged people to volunteer and provided information and support to volunteers involving Organisations on volunteer management and safeguarding vulnerable groups.

Volunteer Now could provide the Council with support to develop a Corporate Volunteer Policy. The cost of that support was estimated at £980.00 to include facilitation, the design of a volunteer application pack, establish volunteer roles and agreements, and staff training.

RECOMMENDED that the Council approves the appointment of Volunteer Now to assist Council Officers in the production of a Volunteer Policy.

AGREED TO RECOMMEND, on the proposal of Councillor Cooper, seconded by Councillor Adair, that the recommendation be adopted.

12.1 REGENERATION BILL (Appendix VI)

PREVIOUSLY CIRCULATED:- Copy DSD Letter from Minister Storey MLA dated 26 November 2015 and covering report dated 4 December 2015 from the Director of Community and Wellbeing detailing that the Council had previously been advised that the Regeneration Bill would not proceed in 2014 and therefore certain Housing and Regeneration functions would not transfer from the Department for Social Development to the new Councils at their formation on 1 April 2015. A commitment was given that those powers would transfer on 1 April 2016.

The Council had since received confirmation that this was to happen subject to the Bill passing through the Assembly and that the financial allocation for this Council area was £4,252,000. Under the Bill that amount of allocation would be transferred to the Council annually, to undertake urban regeneration and community development work. The housing function had already been removed from the Bill.

Over the past period Council Officers had been working with DSD Officials to get a better understanding of the projects which were funded by DSD and to consider how best to plan for the transfer on 1 April 2016 and beyond.

However, Council had now received the attached Ministerial letter and it was clear that the Bill would not be put to the Assembly due to the reasons detailed, therefore that function and funding allocation would not be transferred to the Council on 1 April 2016. The Minister had also stated that he believed it would be unwise to consider the transfer of functions at all, at this time, whilst the restructuring of Departments was ongoing and that it should be for the new Minister of DSD to consider that matter at a future stage.

The above information had serious implications for the forward work plan of the Council. Some major areas of concern, for the Community and Wellbeing Directorate were as outlined below:

1. It was likely that DSD would continue to target and allocate funding only to specific areas of need, identified through their current deprivation and population measures. Those measures of deprivation had been in place for at least ten

CW.09.12.15

years and should the function have transferred the Council could have reviewed the measure and adopted a specific Community Development policy which met the needs of the Borough.

2. DSD would continue to directly fund the Council under the Community Support Programme. To date that funding had been used by Council to support a range of Community Development work to include staffing costs, community grants and funding for advice services. However, the Minister had indicated in separate correspondence that the Executive was facing significant financial pressures that were likely to result in budget reductions which may impact the amount of funding available. Therefore, at this point there was no guarantee that current budgets would be maintained.

3. In addition, the Council had recently undergone a comprehensive community engagement exercise to inform the delivery of its Community Development services from 1 April 2016, details of which would be reported to Council in January 2016. If that funding had been transferred to Council, additional resources could have been made available to enhance Community Development service delivery.

RECOMMENDED that Council notes the above but seeks an urgent meeting with Minister Storey to seek assurances that although the functions will not transfer that the funding allocated to this Council area remains earmarked to be spent in this area and in partnership with the Council.

Proposed by Councillor Brooks, seconded by Councillor Kennedy, that the recommendation be adopted.

The Director of Community and Wellbeing updated Members that a similar report with the same recommendation had been approved at the meeting of the Regeneration and Development Committee on 3 December 2015 and it was therefore of value that both Committees would be making the same recommendation to Council.

Councillor Anderson referred to issues arising as a result of this DSD funding matter and he registered his disappointment at the unfortunate decision which left Council in an ambiguous position for future delivery of service provision. Councillor Anderson indicated his support of Council seeking an urgent Ministerial meeting to re-address this matter.

Councillor Boyle indicated that this was disappointing news affecting the whole Borough due to funding from DSD possibly not being transferred. Councillor Boyle pointed out that following delivery of public realm works in the five towns, Council Officers and local communities had commenced a great deal of work in development and delivery of village plans which had now all been placed at risk and there also would be a great deal of disappointment if that funding would be unavailable for community groups.

The Chairperson (Councillor Armstrong) welcomed that two Council Committees (Regeneration and Development/Community and Wellbeing) were working towards re-addressing this funding matter, which should send a clear message to DSD.

CW.09.12.15

AGREED TO RECOMMEND, on the proposal of Councillor Brooks, seconded by Councillor Kennedy, that the recommendation be adopted.

13. EXCLUSION OF PUBLIC/PRESS

AGREED, on the proposal of Councillor Cooper, seconded by Councillor Boyle, and that the public/press be excluded during discussion of the undernoted items of confidential business.

13.1 ADVICE SERVICES TENDER

*** NOT FOR PUBLICATION ***

Schedule 6 – Information relating to the financial or business affairs of any particular person (including the Council holding that information).

14. EXTENSION OF OPERATING CONTRACT WITH COFFEE CURE AT NORTH DOWN MUSEUM

*** NOT FOR PUBLICATION ***

Schedule 6 – Information relating to the financial or business affairs of any particular person (including the Council holding that information).

15. ANY OTHER BUSINESS

(a) Further Consideration of Item 4 of the Agenda - Council’s Request to Place a Second Member on the Board of the Northern Community Leisure Trust

(Alderman Irvine declared a Conflict of Interest and left the meeting at this stage – 7.38pm.)

*** NOT FOR PUBLICATION ***

Schedule 6 – Information relating to the financial or business affairs of any particular person (including the Council holding that information).

(Alderman Irvine re-entered the meeting at this stage – 7.38pm.)

15.1 RE-ADMITTANCE OF PUBLIC/PRESS

AGREED, on the proposal of Councillor Adair, seconded by Councillor Wilson, that the public/press be re-admitted to the meeting.

(b) Motion to Implement 30mph Speed Limit in Cloughey

Councillor Boyle raised the issue of Notice of Motions taking up to two and half months to be actioned, and he requested if the Committee could consider the matter

CW.09.12.15 of amending the current 40mph speed limit to 30mph in Main Street, Cloughey. Councillor Boyle outlined that Minister McIlveen MLA had lobbied for the 30mph speed limit and he put forward the suggestion that Council should submit a follow-up letter to the current DRD Minister. In response, the Chairperson (Councillor Armstrong) confirmed that in order for any action to be taken by Council, the matter would require to be formally addressed through a Notice of Motion or perhaps DUP Members could provide some direction on the above matter. Councillor Adair took this opportunity of assuring that this matter remained as a priority on the agenda of Minister McIlveen MLA.

NOTED.

In respect of a remark made by Councillor Adair regarding previous opposition to the road safety measure of crash barriers, Councillor Boyle outlined that he was not prepared to spend ratepayers money on crash barriers as during that debate it had not yet been established if Council was financially responsible for provision of those road safety measures.

NOTED.

Councillor Adair raised the matter of a fence being erected by Council due to parents complaints regarding dog fouling and childrens safety as the playpark at Kircubbin was close to the sea. Councillor Adair suggested that existing materials at Council’s maintenance depot could be utilised for that provision. The Head of Leisure and Amenities responded that there were currently seven requests for fences around Council playparks due to issues with anti-social behaviour, dog fouling and children’s safety and this matter required to be strategically reviewed.

The Head of Leisure and Amenities informed Members that it was the intention that Council would implement a review of play park facilities incorporating Multi-Use Games Areas (MUGA) in conjunction with expert consultants such as Playboard in order to inform a new Council Playpark Strategy for the next 10 years. The Head of Leisure and Amenities advised that in the meantime Council had previously given a commitment to a programme of refurbishment and delivery of two new play parks at Linear Park, Bangor and Scrabo Estate, Newtownards and there was an allocation of £350,000 funding to deliver that provision within the next 2 to 3 years. The Head of Leisure and Amenities updated that suitable sites within Linear Park required to be identified, including transfer of land from the Housing Executive in order for Council to meet its commitment of playground provision as recommended in the previous playpark strategy.

In response to a further plea from Councillor Adair, the Head of Leisure and Amenities recognised the importance of child safety and undertook to arrange for a risk assessment to be conducted at the playpark in Kircubbin.

NOTED.

(d) Consultation Process to Date on Community Development Service Delivery Plan

CW.09.12.15

In respect of formal notification of Any Other Business on the above matter being received from Alderman Irvine, the Head of Community and Culture tabled the following response:-

It was reported to Council during March 2015 that Council Officers had met with representatives of the three main Networks; North Down Community Network, Ards Bureau and Community Network and County Down Rural Network to consider a process of community consultation and engagement to develop a Service Delivery Plan for Community Development.

Since then ‘Community Places’ had been appointed as an independent facilitator to assist in the production of a draft Service Delivery Plan for wider community consultation. The draft proposal had collectively been produced and completed by 30 June 2015.

Given the summer period, community consultation on the draft proposal had commenced in September 2015. The Working Group had collectively developed a questionnaire which was available on line and paper format. The consultation opened on 3 September to 28 October 2015 for a period of eight weeks and seven DEA community engagement sessions had been facilitated during that period.

To date, there had been:  Approximately 14 formal meetings of the Council/Network Working Group;  367 Questionnaire Reponses returned  14 informal meetings between Council Officers and Community Groups  A total of 775 direct individual engagements

Council Officers were currently finalising the results of the data collated to date and one final meeting was scheduled during December 2015 to finalise the proposed Service Delivery Plan. All of the completed information would be presented to Council in January 2016, and subject to final Council approval a phased approach for implementation of the Service Delivery Plan would be introduced to commence by April 2016.

Alderman Irvine notified that concerns with the process to date had been previously raised at a public meeting called by ND Community Network. The Head of Community and Culture pointed out that there was due to be a further community consultation engagement meeting and three written responses including one from the North Down Community Practitioners Forum which Alderman Irvine had alluded to, were also being taken into consideration. The Director of Community and Wellbeing also assured members that since the close of the formal consultation period, he had held some further meetings with some local Community Groups to address any further concerns or issues identified to him, for example, by a number of Elected Members, and therefore attain as much information as possible for the Community Development Service Delivery Plan that was due to come before the Committee in January 2016.

NOTED.

CW.09.12.15

16. TERMINATION OF MEETING

The meeting terminated at 7.56 pm.

The Chairperson (Councillor Armstrong) took this opportunity of wishing everyone Seasons Greetings.

ITEM 7.5

ARDS AND NORTH DOWN BOROUGH COUNCIL

A meeting of the Regeneration and Development Committee was held in the Council Chamber, 2 Church Street, Newtownards on Thursday, 3 December 2015 at 7.00pm.

PRESENT:

In the Chair: Alderman Girvan (Vice Chairman)

Alderman: McDowell

Councillors: Adair Kennedy Allen McClean (8.10 pm) Cathcart Menagh Cooper Roberts Gilmour Walker

Also in Bill Megraw (Ards Peninsula Village Partnership) Attendance: Frances McCormick (Ards Peninsula Village Partnership) Ken Webb (Chief Executive, SERC)

Officers: Chief Executive (S Reid), Head of Regeneration (B Dorrian), Head of Economic Development and Tourism (C McGill) and Democratic Services Officer (M McElveen)

1.1 APPOINTMENT OF CHAIRMAN

In the absence of the Chairman (Councillor T Smith), the Vice Chairman (Alderman Girvan) chaired the meeting.

1.2 APOLOGIES

Apologies were received from the Chairman (Councillor T Smith), Alderman M Smith, Councillors Cummings, Ferguson and Leslie and from the Director of Regeneration and Development (C Mahon).

An apology for lateness was received from the Deputy Mayor (Councillor McClean).

2. DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST

The Chairman (Alderman Girvan) asked for any declarations of interest and none were advised.

NOTED.

RDC.03.12.15

3. DEPUTATIONS

3.1 DEPUTATION FROM ARDS PENINSULA VILLAGES PARTNERSHIP (Appendix I)

Mr Megraw thanked Members for affording them the opportunity to address the meeting. Before commencement of the powerpoint presentation, he provided background to the formation of the Ards Peninsula Villages Partnership (APVP). Given their involvement with the Rural Community Network for Millisle and Portaferry, he and Ms McCormick believed their roles provided a means of planning for the entire peninsula. The Partnership encompassed nine villages situated both on the seashore side and the loughshore and also the undernoted community organisations:

. Ballyhalbert & District Community Association . Ballywalter Community Action Group . Ballywalter Youth & Community Co-operative . Carrowdore Early Years & Community Centre . Cloughey & District Community Association . Greyabbey & District Community Association . Kircubbin Regeneration Ltd . Millisle & District Community Association . Millisle Regeneration . Portaferry Community Collective Ltd . Portaferry Regeneration Ltd . Portavogie Action Group . Portavogie Culture & Heritage Society . Portavogie Regeneration Forum

It was formed six months ago with the predominant aim of widening community plans and building a stronger identity. They viewed Ards Peninsula as being ‘a great place to live, work and visit and were hopeful with in conjunction with the Council and other stakeholders, they could fulfil the Partnership’s strategic vision as follows:

The Ards Peninsula, a vibrant scenic area of charm and character, providing an abundance of opportunities to explore an unspoilt and stunning coastline of quaint villages rich in wildlife, heritage, culture, arts and crafts.

Following on, Ms McCormick emphasised the importance of the partnership working collaboratively with the Council to build on strengths and overcome weaknesses and to feed into the overall Masterplan for the region. She brought attention to the four main aims of the Partnership as being:

1. Promoting Tourist Development

o Development of an Ards Peninsula Brand/Logo o Create sense of arrival and village identity – gateway and village entrance signage o Develop an Ards Peninsula Festival Programme of Events/Activities o Development of promotional material for the Ards Peninsula 2

RDC.03.12.15

2. Stimulating Economic and Social Development

o Create opportunities to develop and grow rural businesses and investment o Create opportunities to enhance employability o Undertake an Ards Peninsula programme of regeneration to include Public Realm Works o Lobby for fast Broadband and Mobile coverage throughout the Ards Peninsula o Develop innovative recreational community facilities and amenities

3. Safeguarding the Environment and Heritage

o Encourage community consultation in decisions impacting on the local environment o Compile information on local Heritage and identify Heritage Trails o Identify projects to restore and promote heritage o Improve and create access to historical sites o Develop public access points to the Irish Sea and Strangford Lough o Develop cycle and walking paths (opening Rights of Way) o Identify wildlife trails o Link in with Ards Peninsula Coastal Erosion Group, SLLP, etc

4. Building Stronger Communities

o Provide opportunities for community groups within different villages to network o Identify needs and priorities of communities on the Ards Peninsula o Identify and co-ordinate projects with common themes between villages on the Ards Peninsula o Engage with the Council Community Planning Process o Support the implementation of the Rural White Paper and engage in consultation exercises on everything affecting villages and Ards Peninsula

Current Priorities

Request Ards and North Down Borough Council’s assistance to develop:

o Ards Peninsula Masterplan o Develop Ards Peninsula Logo and Branding o Development of Ards Peninsula Village Entrance Signage in partnership with APVP

The APVP imagined that those three projects could be part funded by the NI Rural Development Programme.

Ms McCormick further advised that the APVP envisaged that achievement of those aims would permit a joined up strategic approach for the Ards Peninsula.

The Chairman thanked Ms McCormick and Mr Megraw for sharing the many issues currently facing the Ards Peninsula and invited questions from Members.

RDC.03.12.15

Councillor Adair commended the speakers on their excellent presentation. He was of the opinion that the Ards Peninsula held plenty of potential that should be explored and mentioned the success of the Mourne Coastal Route. He sought clarification as to the key issues facing the Ards Peninsula Masterplan.

Mr Megraw explained that transport was of paramount significance together with a commonality for the villages to move forward. He said the ethos was more than just about the village plans, it was about an approach that would address the wider issues not picked up within those.

On that same point, Ms McCormick indicated that the Council’s strategic plan was a positive first step. She was mindful that unemployment throughout the Ards Peninsula was twice the NI average and it was vital to look at all of the objectives in broad terms.

Mr Megraw noted the necessity in ticking more than one box ie tourism, economy and jobs to achieve an overall result.

Councillor Roberts welcomed the viewpoint that the whole was greater than the sum of the parts. He commented on the uniqueness of the Ards Peninsula and how lovely it was to drive along it. It was essential that its assets be built upon and he favoured the Council’s assistance alongside the APVP.

Councillor Allen wondered if key stakeholders could be called upon to help with promotion of the business aspect.

In response, Ms McCormick made reference to the regional focus and the benefits of linking with other organisations. In that regard, she suggested that the Council could host a meeting between the Partnership and Transport NI.

Mr Megraw mentioned that the NI Environment Agency could be approached as it had been involved in the significant restoration programme for the Ballycopeland Windmill.

In praising the Partnership, Councillor Walker reiterated earlier comments that the Ards Peninsula had so much to offer and asked why it could not appear to sustain a tourist offering. He observed the broadband problems which had been identified and also outlined the Council’s role as a facilitator rather than a funder but insisted there should be ample chances for the Council to give assistance.

Ms McCormick referred to the proposed village signs and the anticipation that a degree of funding could be obtained from the Rural Development Programme. It was expected that the partnership with the Council would foster new contacts.

Councillor Kennedy offered his congratulations to the APVP for their proactive intentions to improve the quality of life for those living throughout the Ards Peninsula. He spoke of the NIEA’s assistance towards the Ballycopeland Windmill and enquired about the APVP’s plans.

RDC.03.12.15

Mr Megraw indicated that the use of volunteers would be explored as a number of Government departments embarked upon policies related to volunteering. The local community could work in tandem with the NIEA and utilise sections of that structure as an interpretative centre which would be an asset to the community.

Responding to a question from Councillor Kennedy in respect of a five year business plan, Ms McCormick clarified that they would prefer the Masterplan to provide the drive as to the appropriate direction to take. It was early days for the Partnership but perhaps at a later stage it could evolve into a Limited Company to tackle additional concerns.

Councillor Kennedy was encouraged by the fresh thinking adopted by the Partnership. In terms of signage, he was cognisant that the Council was in the process of developing an identity for the Borough. He said it would be helpful to examine identities within the entire area rather than having a concoction of differing ideas. Taking the time to put those thoughts onto paper boded well for the future.

Having displayed examples of possible signage, Mr Megraw was aware that the Council was beginning to erect new signs and the Partnership was aware that the development of Ards Peninsula signage would prevent duplication and save money.

The Chairman thanked the APVP representatives for their informative presentation which represented a good foundation to take forward.

(Ms McCormick and Mr Megraw left the meeting at this stage – 7.20 pm)

3.2 DEPUTATION – MR KEN WEBB, SERC – SPACE BUILDING (Appendix II)

Mr Webb was appreciative of the Committee extending him an invitation to provide an update on SERC’s facilities at its Bangor Campus. He was delighted that the SPACE building had now opened with plans for a studio theatre and a conference hall ready to be implemented. He showed Members photographs of internal and external views adding that the conference hall comprised 4,000 square feet with 400 seats which would also be used as a conference centre. 2,000 square feet was available in SPACE for the performing arts which offered a number of wide ranging performing spaces, recital rooms, dance studios, two recording studios and rehearsal rooms. Primarily, the main aim was education and the centre was deemed to be an asset for the whole area. It was predicted that the local community would want to utilise those facilities and to that end, 182 days, for either all or part use were available for external users. There was also a comprehensive engineering centre offering world class facilities with a focus on upskilling. The studio theatre in the main building was a fully fledged theatre equipped to high specifications.

In response to enquiries from Councillor Menagh, Mr Webb verified that there were 167 fixed seats in the new theatre but depending on the performance, more could be made available. He made mention of a recent Peter Corry concert which also comprised a choir of 60 and there was still room to put in moveable seats. In theatres nowadays, performances often took place in the centre or to the side rather than the traditional stage at the front. The room also had a double storey height

RDC.03.12.15 meaning that it was suitable for theatrical performances with good sound and lighting. He displayed front and side elevations of the proposed new entrance at the hall in the main building and reception whereby attendees would be directed upstairs to a new foyer to eat and drink beforehand and then escorted to the ground floor for a concert or event. He believed that provided flexibility whether it was a 400 seated performance or 100 seats and also ensured a welcoming atmosphere.

Councillor Menagh acknowledged that it was an excellent concept and the facilities were second to none.

Alderman McDowell also expressed his satisfaction at the useful update and questioned when the conference facility would be completed.

Mr Webb commented that a capital programme bid had been made to DEL and it was anticipated that clarity would be gained in the New Year. Nevertheless, he pointed out that the college was normally successful in bids towards its capital projects and a total of £110 million had been put to good use across SERC’s seven campuses. SERC was recognised as being the best further education provider in Northern Ireland but he was not content to leave it there. It was hoped to obtain the next funding element before the end of the current financial year. In terms of lead time, Mr Webb reported that the plans were drawn up and ready to go. Procurement of equipment would be undertaken simultaneously with those capital works and therefore completion was estimated at three months.

Alderman McDowell thought it was a win-win situation and with regard to the 182 full or part days available for use of the facilities by the local community, he sought feedback if any of those would be during term time.

In reply, Mr Webb confirmed that a significant quantity would be during term time, with more available during holiday periods. They could operate with a level of adaptability and move things around to accommodate a group. Furthermore, in relation to operatic/theatrical performances, students would have the opportunity to assist with the sound system or lighting and attain much needed practical experience of putting on a show as evidence for their coursework.

Councillor Roberts outlined the community gains as well as the enhanced educational advantages. He touched upon the recent opening of Londonderry Park and asked if students would be utilised to provide hospitality at functions.

Undoubtedly, Mr Webb concurred that there were definite rewards and for SERC’s own purposes of open days and parents evenings, a better facility was helpful. Increasingly, six colleges were working collaboratively and as an example he cited Continuous Professional Development (CPD), where the focus was of a regional nature.

Councillor Gilmour praised the excellent technical facilities encompassed in SPACE and was pleased to learn of the opportunities for students to obtain practical hands on experience to progress and enrich their learning.

RDC.03.12.15

Councillor Walker felt that they were great facilities both for the public and SERC’s responsibility to its students. He hoped it may be developed into a Centre of Excellence for Creative Arts and asked if the students lived in the area.

Mr Webb stated that they did live locally and with SERC offering a high level of educational courses, together with the North West College, Mr Webb established that SERC was already judged to be a Centre of Excellence. Taking account of the facilities and staff, it was the objective to expand those higher educational offerings to attract more students.

Responding to queries from Councillor Cathcart, Mr Webb remarked that a survey of relevant prices charged elsewhere had been carried out and the college had a pricing regime in place for use of its premises. He was mindful that SERC was a not for profit organisation and although it would not deliberately undercut commercial businesses, prices set had to be favourable. Generally, income was required as Government funding for the FE sector had been cut by £12 million. At SERC, a total of 17 staff had left voluntarily and had not been replaced. The rates bill was continuously rising and now amounted to over £1 million per year and yet funding costs per student had not been raised since 2006/07. Given those pressures, he realised it was a situation that necessitated examination to maintain the best quality facilities and staff.

The Chairman commended Mr Webb and the college for its good work and great facilities and wished him every success with SERC’s future endeavours.

(Mr Webb left the meeting at this stage – 7.45 pm)

4. QUAY MARINAS SECOND QUARTER REPORT – JULY TO SEPTEMBER 2015 (Appendix III)

PREVIOUSLY CIRCULATED:- Report from the Director of Regeneration, Development and Planning detailing that Members would be aware that Quay Marinas operated Bangor Marina on behalf of Council. As part of the agreement Quay Marinas provided a quarterly and annual report which was presented to Committee as received.

Attached was the second quarter report for 2015/16. The report covered the entire range of activities that were undertaken in the Marina.

RECOMMENDED that this report is noted.

The Head of Economic Development and Tourism verified that Quay Marinas was undertaking an excellent role in managing Bangor Marina. Challenging weather conditions had seen a decrease in overall visitor numbers. However, a number of short term stays had been secured and it was anticipated that the Marina would be back on track by the end of the year. Packages to attract notable boats and to ensure people left their vessels to visit the location were also being considered.

AGREED TO RECOMMEND, on the proposal of Councillor Gilmour, seconded by Councillor Roberts, that the recommendation be adopted.

RDC.03.12.15

5. REPORT ON THE REGENERATION BILL (Appendix IV)

PREVIOUSLY CIRCULATED:- Letter from Minister Storey MLA dated 26 November 2015 and accompanying report from the Director of Regeneration, Development and Planning detailing that Council was previously advised that the Regeneration Bill was not to proceed in 2014 and therefore certain Housing and Regeneration functions would not transfer from the Department for Social Development to the new Councils at their formation on 1 April 2015. A commitment was given that those powers would transfer on 1 April 2016.

The Council received confirmation that that was to happen subject to the Bill passing through the Assembly and that the financial allocation for this Council area was £4,252,000. Under the Bill that amount of allocation would be transferred to the Council annually, to undertake urban regeneration and community development work. The housing function had already been removed from the Bill.

Over the past period Council officers had been working with DSD officials to get a better understanding of the projects that had been funded by DSD and to develop an initial two year work plan, post transfer of function.

I would now refer to the Minister’s letter which was attached. It was clear that the Bill would not be put to the Assembly due to the reasons detailed and therefore the function and the funding allocation would not be transferred to the Council on 1 April 2016. The Minister had also said that he believed that it would be unwise to consider the transfer of functions at all, at this time while the restructuring of Departments was ongoing and that it should be for the new Minister to consider this in future.

The above had serious implications for the forward work plan of the Council. I would outline some major areas of concern within this Department and my colleague the Director for Communities and Wellbeing would do the same in due course.

1. Queen’s Parade – this site would not transfer to the Council and would remain under the control of the DSD. It was anticipated that the Council, as in the past, would be involved as a partner. This change had serious implications for how the Council took forward the work and financed the proposals for Marine Gardens.

2. Revitalisation Works – four towns at present had received some monies to start this process following the public realm works. It was anticipated that this would be completed post 1 April and funding would also be made available for Newtownards.

3. Masterplans – at present there was a Masterplan in place for each of the five towns. Some work had been commenced and completed but it was envisaged that this would continue following the transfer of functions and resources.

4. Public Realm Works at Redburn Square, Holywood – plans were currently being developed for this scheme to the value of approximately £1m. That was to be undertaken in the next financial year with the bulk of the finances coming from the transferred funds.

RDC.03.12.15

5. Urban Development – much of the work with the five Chambers of Trade was based on delivering the projects detailed in the Masterplans and undertaking joint initiatives to develop the five towns.

RECOMMENDED that the Committee notes the above but seeks an urgent meeting with Minister Storey to seek assurances that although the functions will not transfer, that the funding allocated to this Council area remains earmarked to be spent in this area and in partnership with the Council.

AGREED TO RECOMMEND, on the proposal of Councillor Cathcart, seconded by Councillor Walker, that the recommendation be adopted.

6. MINUTES OF THE BATTLE OF THE SOMME CENTENARY WORKING GROUP DATED 18 AUGUST 2015 (Appendix V)

PREVIOUSLY CIRCULATED:- Battle of the Somme Centenary Working Group minutes and accompanying report from the Director of Regeneration, Development and Planning detailing that further to the report dated 20 May 2015, Officers had been tasked with exploring the opportunity to mark the Battle of the Somme in 2016.

At the Regeneration and Development Committee on 4 June 2015, it was recommended that four Elected Members joined a working group to propose suitable activities to be delivered in 2016. It was resolved that Alderman Girvan, Councillor Cathcart, Councillor Cummings and Councillor Ferguson joined the Somme Centenary Working Group.

A meeting of the Battle of the Somme Centenary Working Group was held in SIGNAL Centre of Business Excellence, Bangor on Tuesday 18 August 2015. Whilst it was recognised there had been some delay, in order to progress plans a further meeting was proposed to be held before the end of the year.

RECOMMENDED that the minutes of the Somme Centenary Working Group on 18 August 2015 be approved.

AGREED TO RECOMMEND, on the proposal of Councillor Cathcart, seconded by Councillor Roberts, that the recommendation be adopted.

7. SKILLS GAP ANALYSIS OF ARDS AND NORTH DOWN

PREVIOUSLY CIRCULATED:- Report from the Director of Regeneration, Development and Planning detailing that as the economy evolved new technologies emerged and new skills were required to allow businesses to compete and develop new markets.

Anecdotally over the last 3-4 years businesses had informed the business support team that they found it difficult to fill positions due to the lack of qualified applicants. In addition, in reviewing the statistics for the Borough it was apparent that Ards and North Down, whilst demonstrating high levels of those who attained qualifications higher than NVQ level 4, also showed one of the highest population percentages with no formal qualifications. 9

RDC.03.12.15

A Skill Gaps Analysis had never been carried out at a level which would allow the economic development unit to have a detailed insight into issues such as skills mismatch and the lack of seamless transition from education/training to employment. The business support team carried out an annual survey with local businesses in order to identify their training needs and changing work processes however, there are gaps in information as, on average, 5 to 8% of businesses typically return the survey.

What is a Skills Gap Analysis?

Developing a skill gap analysis typically involved defining the skills and knowledge required to complete a task and then comparing a person’s current level to that requirement. After identifying the gap between the two, training professionals worked with personnel to create a plan to remedy the situation. It was thought that the underlying causes of skills gaps typically included shifts in the market, emerging economic trends, and lack of education and training. Determining the required skill levels usually included defining the job responsibilities when companies introduced new technologies or processes.

In order to remain competitive there was a need to anticipate future skills which would be needed as the market evolved and other industries started to develop.

Proposal

It was felt that Ards and North Down should actively pursue the implementation of a four-step process to allow its economic development services and its partners to intervene where gaps had been identified and facilitated the acquisition of appropriate skills where they were wanted. The research would be carried out through a third party organisation, in close partnership with Council.

The four steps highlighted above could be described as follows:

Step 1

Identify business goals by mapping or surveying the number and types of companies in the Borough and, in partnership with the Council, consult with them on their training and capacity building needs. To remain competitive, small businesses typically needed to maintain a skilled work force. Assessing the critical skills needed by an organisation allowed the company to ensure current and future employees possessed the right skills to enable optimal business performance. That step should include the preparation of a project plan that listed the current business needs and strategic objectives of the organisation. In addition, it should identify the procedures and processes in place as well as the types of personnel required to carry out company functions. Finally, it should take in to account the future development plans of the company in order to anticipate further training needs.

Step 2

Collect data. Create a skills inventory to list the skills and knowledge to perform each role in the company. For example, create a spreadsheet that listed the tasks in

RDC.03.12.15 one column and the skills and knowledge in another. Observe people completing the work to validate your assumptions. Rate employees as entry level, master level or expert level. Additionally, conduct focus groups or create an online survey using a tool such as SurveyMonkey to gather information. Compare the outcomes of experts with the outcomes of less experienced personnel to identify the tactics used by skilled professionals. That helped determine what training needed to be implemented to improve professional development and company performance.

Step 3

Interpret the data and make recommendations. Prepare a report that listed the missing skills and knowledge required to complete work successfully. For example, list the skills lacked by existing workers, newly hired college graduates or temporary employees. Job competencies may fall short in areas such as communication, creativity, leadership and teamwork. Other typical gaps could involve project management, sales, technical or customer service skills.

Step 4

Prepare recommendations which could inform our strategic objectives to enhance Ards and North Down as a place to do business and to attract not only high quality jobs but offer solutions to our citizens to be able to play an active part in the economic life of the borough.

Create an action plan to address identified skills gaps in the current environment. This plan should be developed in partnership with the Economic Development Unit and education providers such as SERC and the universities. It would be a desired outcome to see plans to facilitate accreditation being awarded to staff at all levels. It was expected that that comprehensive process would result in improved business performance and enhance the available workforce and ultimately employee morale and retention.

RECOMMENDED that Council approves:

1. The procurement of a Skills Gap Analysis for Ards and North Down to be completed by 31 March 2016.

2. A budget for the work, of up to £20,000, which can be met from existing budgets

In welcoming the report, Councillor Cathcart pointed out the merit in having the skills available to help local businesses but the Council had to decide on its long term focus.

The Head of Economic Development and Tourism conveyed that this work would feed into the Council’s bigger strategy. Anecdotal evidence had been gleaned from a variety of businesses and many sectors had detailed the difficulties trying to find appropriately skilled people, such as joiners or those with administrative and financial expertise. The skills gap analysis would help inform what the Borough’s focus should be to address those problems.

RDC.03.12.15

Once the skills gap had been identified, Councillor Roberts was of the opinion that it was part of the Council’s responsibility to intervene in narrowing that gap but wondered how that could be funded. He conceded that it was a pertinent issue for employers and the unemployed in our Borough.

As an initial step, the Head of Economic Development and Tourism clarified that an action plan would be created in conjunction with partner organisations. Funding streams would be sourced within the wider context of the Community Plan.

Alderman McDowell was conscious that the Ards area had a strong small business sector and had not managed to attract many large multi-national companies. It was essential to obtain feedback from that sector. On the one hand there were many well qualified University graduates whilst on the other; there were people in possession of very few formal qualifications. He pondered as to the best means to marry them to businesses to utilise their full potential.

The Head of Economic Development and Tourism indicated that a third party organisation would be appointed to conduct the research in close partnership with the Council. She reiterated that 99.2% of the Borough’s businesses were classed as being a relatively small size. The skills gap analysis would identify where skills were needed and working collaboratively with Enterprise Agencies and SERC would form an educational plan, perhaps bespoke in nature.

Councillor Walker shared some of the uneasiness expressed by Alderman McDowell. He appreciated the responses given by the Officer but he felt there was a lack of coherence. In his company a mere 5% return was obtained for an annual survey.

In response, the Head of Economic Development and Tourism said that the average return on surveys was only 3%. It was anticipated that information obtained would be collated on an ongoing basis at workshops. She underlined that it was a collective process and delivery would be with the help of partners.

The Chairman made reference to businesses that had highlighted the lack of training in the realm of social media and wished for clarification.

The Head of Economic Development and Tourism commented that those concerns had been gathered at training sessions held in SIGNAL. To that end, a well-received business clinic had been held in Portaferry in October to provide assistance with digital marketing and social media.

In terms of the £20,000 budget, Councillor Allen queried if it was anticipated at this stage if that full amount would be spent. He also speculated about how effective that third party would actually be.

Survey Monkey would be utilised and with other pieces of work, the Head of Economic Development and Tourism supposed it would equate to £15,000 – £20,000. At this point in time it would be set aside for those works and if agreed, a tendering process would commence. The third party organisation would talk to

RDC.03.12.15 people and do the much needed research behind the scenes. She reminded Members that the recommendations were for approval to appoint a Consultant.

AGREED TO RECOMMEND, on the proposal of Councillor Cathcart, seconded by Councillor Gilmour, that the recommendation be adopted.

EXCLUSION OF PUBLIC/PRESS

AGREED, on the proposal of Councillor Allen, seconded by Councillor Cathcart, that the public and press be excluded from the meeting for the undernoted item of confidential business.

8. MOURNE COASTAL ROUTE

*** NOT FOR PUBLICATION ***

Schedule 6 – Information relating to the financial or business affairs of any particular person (including the Council holding that information).

9. POTENTIAL ACQUISITION OF LOUGH COWEY – OUTLINE BUSINESS CASE (Appendix VI)

*** NOT FOR PUBLICATION ***

Schedule 6 – Information relating to the financial or business affairs of any particular person (including the Council holding that information).

10. TOURISM EVENTS PROGRAMME REPORT 2016/2017 (Appendix VII)

*** NOT FOR PUBLICATION ***

Schedule 6 – Information relating to the financial or business affairs of any particular person (including the Council holding that information).

RE-ADMITTANCE OF PUBLIC/PRESS

AGREED, on the proposal of Councillor McClean, seconded by Councillor Cathcart, that the public/press be re-admitted to the meeting.

11. ANY OTHER BUSINESS

11.1 Job Losses at 3M Bangor

Councillor Cathcart recalled that at the last meeting of the Committee, Members regretted that 34 employees of 3M would be losing their jobs. Since then he had met with representatives of the Company together with the Mayor, the Head of Economic Development and Tourism and the Chief Executive. They had defined the rationale behind the job losses and it had largely been for production reasons. There was a

RDC.03.12.15 high level of competition in respect of the lower grade tape and it was determined that the factory in Italy was better suited. Having said that, the Company intended to invest $1 million into new equipment at its Bangor factory, as it was committed to its long term future. A total of 30 positions were earmarked for closure with 22 of those voluntary redundancies and 7 compulsory. A range of support systems ranging from advice and training were in place to assist those employees.

Councillor Cathcart proposed, seconded by Councillor Gilmour that the Officer write to 3M seeking clarity on the support services proposed for those being made redundant.

Councillor Roberts advised that his Company, Positive Futures was currently seeking staff and in light of that perhaps it could approach 3M. Their ethos was not about the skills gap; rather the values a person can bring to their organisation and it may represent a new career choice for some of those persons. The Head of Regeneration undertook to write to 3M following ratification of the Committee’s minutes at the Council meeting.

AGREED.

11.2 Business Awards

Councillor McClean made mention of the Business Awards and was pleased to report that a number of winners were located within the Borough. Those included the Boathouse Restaurant, the Frying Squad and the Salty Dog.

Councillor McClean proposed, seconded by Councillor Gilmour that the Council forwards a letter of congratulations to each of those worthy winners.

The Chairman was mindful that the Poacher’s Pocket and Pier 36 had also been awarded.

The Head of Economic Development and Tourism clarified that the majority of those businesses had already received letters of congratulation from the Council and the remainder would be sent out forthwith.

NOTED.

11.3 Cloughey Beach

Although accepting of the fact that he had raised Cloughey Beach at last month’s meeting, Councillor Adair again voiced concern about the delay in the acquisition of that amenity beach.

The Head of Regeneration informed the Member that the matter was in the hands of the farmers’ solicitor and no additional information was forthcoming. He noted that it was now an issue for the Corporate Services Committee.

NOTED.

RDC.03.12.15

12. TERMINATION OF MEETING

The meeting terminated at 9.00 pm.

ITEM 7.6

ARDS AND NORTH DOWN BOROUGH COUNCIL

A meeting of the Audit Committee was held in the Council Chamber, 2 Church Street, Newtownards on Monday, 14 December 2015 at 7.03pm.

PRESENT:-

In the Chair: Alderman Chambers

Councillors: Allen McIlveen Fletcher Thompson Gilmour

Independent Member: Mr Sam Hagen

In Attendance: Mr Brian O‟Neill – Northern Ireland Audit Office

Ms Camille McDermott – Moore Stephens

Officers: Chief Executive (S Reid), Head of Finance (S Grieve) and Democratic Services Officer (E Brown)

1. APOLOGIES

Apologies were recorded for Councillors Adair, Armstrong-Cotter, Muir and Walker.

NOTED.

2. CHAIRMAN’S REMARKS

There were no Chairman‟s remarks.

NOTED.

3. DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST

The Chairman asked members to advise of any declarations of interest. No declarations were made.

NOTED.

4. MATTERS ARISING FROM COMMITTEE MEETING HELD ON 26 OCTOBER 2015 (Appendix I)

PREVIOUSLY CIRCULATED: - Minutes of Audit Committee meeting held on 26 October 2015. A.C. 14.12.15

There were no matters arising.

NOTED.

4.1 FOLLOW UP ACTIONS FROM PREVIOUS MEETINGS

PREVIOUSLY CIRCULATED: - Report dated 7 December 2015 from the Director of Finance and Performance stating that in line with best practice, the purpose of this report was to make the Audit Committee aware of the status of outstanding recommendations of any outstanding actions from the previous Audit Committee meetings. It was noted that seven actions were required from previous committee meetings and these were detailed in the table below:

Item Title Action Status October 2015 5 Risk Management Update Draft Corporate Risk Register Item 5 available for circulation at the next Committee meeting scheduled for December 2015. 6 Performance Improvement Final Letter of Assurance from Item 6 Auditing NIAO to be brought back to the Committee. 8 Internal Audit Reporting Year 1) Register of Internal Audit Report to March to Date 2015-2016 Recommendations to be Committee kept and followed up in a timely fashion with reports brought back to the Committee. Arts and 2) Ensure Valuable Assets Heritage Register incorporates all Manager valuable assets (artefacts) Advised of both legacy Councils. 3) An overarching procedure to be devised in respect of income. In progress 9 Draft Reports to those External Audit Report to March Charged with Governance Recommendations to be added Committee for the Year Ended 31 March to the Internal Audit 2015 Recommendations Register. 11 Fraud and Whistleblowing Finalised Internal Audit of Ards Item 9a Update Leisure Centre to be presented at the December Audit Committee meeting.

RECOMMENDED that the Committee notes the action sheet of matters arising from the October meeting.

A.C. 14.12.15

The Head of Finance (S Grieve) stated that the report on follow up actions would be a standing item on the agenda. He advised that the actions stated above were either included as an item on the current agenda or would be included on a future agenda.

AGREED TO RECOMMEND, on the proposal of Councillor Fletcher, seconded by Councillor Gilmour, that the recommendation be adopted.

5. RISK MANAGEMENT UPDATE

PREVIOUSLY CIRCULATED:- Report dated 3 December 2015 from the Director of Organisational Development and Administration reminding members that a report had been tabled at the Audit Committee meeting on 26 October 2015 which stated that Service Plans, incorporating Service Risk Registers highlighting the main risks to meeting service objectives, were to be completed by 27 November 2015. The Service Risk Registers would serve to “sense check” and inform the development of the final Corporate Risk Register which was currently in draft form.

Work remained on-going to review Service Plans and Service Risk Registers; to align service and corporate objectives and review consistency of approach across the Council. It was envisaged at this stage that a workshop would be scheduled for January 2016 to complete this alignment exercise with a final draft of the Corporate Risk Register being completed for approval by the Council in February 2016.

RECOMMENDED that the Progress Report be noted.

AGREED TO RECOMMEND, on the proposal of Councillor Fletcher, seconded by Councillor Thompson, that the recommendation be adopted.

6. PERFORMANCE IMPROVEMENT REPORTING (Appendix II)

PREVIOUSLY CIRCULATED: - Report dated 23 November 2015 from the Director of Finance and Performance stating that the Local Government Act (Northern Ireland) 2014 legislated for the introduction of performance improvement audits and assessments by the Local Government Auditor.

These exercises would be carried out annually by the Northern Ireland Audit Office (NIAO) in accordance with guidance issued by the Department of the Environment.

On conclusion of the 2015-16 performance audit, the Local Government Auditor had recently written to the Chief Executive reporting satisfaction that the Council had established arrangements to secure continuous improvement.

It should be noted that in the 2015-16 introductory year assessments had been conducted primarily through correspondence and desk-based research, with more detailed assessments to follow in future years.

RECOMMENDED that the report be noted.

A.C. 14.12.15

AGREED TO RECOMMEND, on the proposal of Councillor Fletcher, seconded by Councillor Gilmour, that the recommendation be adopted.

7. FINAL REPORTS TO THOSE CHARGED WITH GOVERNANCE AND ANNUAL AUDIT LETTERS FOR THE YEAR ENDED 31 MARCH 2015 (Appendix III)

PREVIOUSLY CIRCULATED: - Report dated 7 December 2015 from the Director of Finance and Performance stating that Draft Reports to those charged with Governance had been presented to the Committee at its October meeting. These had now been finalised to include management responses where required. Any recommendations would be followed up in due course and a status report would be prepared for the Committee‟s March meeting.

Following the conclusion of each audit the Northern Ireland Audit Office issued an „Annual Audit Letter‟ which the Council must publish on its website. These had been reviewed by the Chief Executive (as Chief Financial Officer) and were circulated for information to the Committee.

7.1 Down Rural Area Partnership Joint Committee

PREVIOUSLY CIRCULATED: - Report to those charged with governance and annual audit letter for the above Committee.

RECOMMENDED that the Committee notes the NIAO report to those charged with governance and the annual audit letter.

Page 8 – Item 4.13 - Councillor Fletcher raised a point of accuracy advising that the new Rural Development Programme 2014-20 would be open for applications during 2016 and not in 2015, as stated in the report. He requested that going forward care be taken by the Auditor to ensure that details such as this were correct.

AGREED TO RECOMMEND, on the proposal of Councillor Fletcher, seconded by Councillor Gilmour, that the NIAO report be noted.

7.2 North Down, Ards and Down Peace III Joint Committee

PREVIOUSLY CIRCULATED: - Report to those charged with governance and annual audit letter for the above Committee.

RECOMMENDED that the Committee notes the NIAO report to those charged with governance and the annual audit letter.

AGREED TO RECOMMEND, on the proposal of Councillor Thompson, seconded by Councillor McIlveen, that the NIAO report be noted.

A.C. 14.12.15

7.3 North Down and Ards Statutory Transition Committee

PREVIOUSLY CIRCULATED: - Report to those charged with governance and annual audit letter for the above Committee.

RECOMMENDED that the Committee notes the NIAO report to those charged with governance and the annual audit letter.

AGREED TO RECOMMEND, on the proposal of Councillor Gilmour, seconded by Councillor Fletcher, that the NIAO report be noted.

7.4 North Down and Ards District Council

PREVIOUSLY CIRCULATED: - Report to those charged with governance and annual audit letter for the above Committee.

RECOMMENDED that the Committee notes the NIAO report to those charged with governance and the annual audit letter.

AGREED TO RECOMMEND, on the proposal of Councillor McIlveen, seconded by Councillor Gilmour, that the NIAO report be noted.

7.5 Ards Borough Council

PREVIOUSLY CIRCULATED: - Report to those charged with governance and annual audit letter for the above Committee.

RECOMMENDED that the Committee notes the NIAO report to those charged with governance and the annual audit letter.

AGREED TO RECOMMEND, on the proposal of Councillor Thompson, seconded by Councillor McIlveen, that the NIAO report be noted.

7.6 North Down Borough Council

PREVIOUSLY CIRCULATED: - Report to those charged with governance and annual audit letter for the above Committee.

RECOMMENDED that the Committee notes the NIAO report to those charged with governance and the annual audit letter.

Page 7 – Item 1 – Management Response – In response to a query from Mr Hagen about the Management Response, the Chief Executive clarified that the Council had disagreed with the Auditor‟s opinion and this would normally be stated in the report.

Mr O‟Neill, NIAO, advised that this situation was not unusual and did occasionally occur. He continued that the NIAO was not disputing the rationale behind the Council‟s decision or the powers to award compensation, rather it was concerned there had been a lack of transparency on behalf of the Council. He further stated that a similar instance had occurred at the Council the previous year and this was 5

A.C. 14.12.15 the reason the issue had been highlighted in the report. Mr O‟Neill stated that while the Council had every right to take that course of action, the NIAO maintained that more transparency could have surrounded the process.

Councillor Fletcher queried if a consensus could be reached to avoid this situation happening again. In response, the Head of Finance stated that discussions had been held between Council officers and the NIAO and they had endeavoured to reach a consensus as it was not in anyone‟s interest to have a difference of opinion. He continued that it came down to the judgement about whether due process had been followed and Council officers believed that with the support of legal advice it had, and the Auditor had disagreed with this opinion.

Councillor Fletcher commented that while the NIAO had to ensure that the Council did not overstep the mark, he believed it was inclined to be concerned with insignificant details and this had led to a „them and us‟ situation. He was keen that the Council achieved 100% in the audit process and that there was open communication with the NIAO.

The Chairman (Alderman Chambers) reiterated that it had been an unusual situation and the process had been underpinned with legal support and advice.

Councillor McIlveen stated that that NIAO was there to show best practice and guide the Council and it was important that it flagged up discrepancies and helped the Council not to make mistakes. He continued that the Council was a new organisation and had inherited these recommendations from the legacy Councils. He asked whether moving forward the Council was bound to adopt the recommendations. In response, the Head of Finance advised that it was an appropriate course of action to bring the recommendations forward and he noted that some of the issues raised were no longer relevant, adding that the remaining significant issues had to be brought forward.

Councillor McIlveen requested that an update on the status of the recommendations be a standing item on future agendas so that members could be kept informed of any progress on a regular basis as opposed to just annually. The Head of Finance confirmed this could be done if members so wished.

Mr O‟Neill advised that the NIAO only looked at the recommendations once a year when the audit decreed it and confirmed that the NIAO had the final say about the content of the report.

AGREED TO RECOMMEND, on the proposal of Councillor Gilmour, seconded by Councillor Allen, that the NIAO report be noted.

8. REVISED INTERNAL AUDIT STRATEGY (Appendix IV)

PREVIOUSLY CIRCULATED: - Report dated 7 December 2015 from the Director of Finance and Performance stating that following the Committee‟s decision to revise the Annual Internal Audit plan as a result of fewer audit days being available during 2015/16 for audit work, it had been necessary to revise the Strategy agreed in June.

A.C. 14.12.15

The revision to the Audit plan had resulted in a number of audits being removed from the Plan for the current financial year.

In line with a risk-based approach to Internal Audit, the Internal Audit Strategy would be reviewed again at the start of each year.

RECOMMENDED that the Council approves the revised Internal Audit strategy.

AGREED TO RECOMMEND, on the proposal of Councillor McIlveen, seconded by Councillor Gilmour, that the recommendation be adopted.

EXCLUSION OF PUBLIC AND PRESS

AGREED, on the proposal of Councillor McIlveen, seconded by Councillor Gilmour, that the public and press be excluded from the meeting for the undernoted items of business.

9. INTERNAL AUDIT REPORTING YEAR TO DATE 2015-2016 (Appendix V)

*** NOT FOR PUBLICATION ***

Schedule 6 – Information relating to the financial or business affairs of any particular person (including the Council holding that information).

10. FRAUD AND WHISTLEBLOWING UPDATE – VERBAL UPDATE

*** NOT FOR PUBLICATION ***

Schedule 6 – Information relating to the financial or business affairs of any particular person (including the Council holding that information).

RE-ADMITTANCE OF PUBLIC AND PRESS

AGREED, on the proposal of Councillor McIlveen, seconded by Councillor Gilmour, that the public and press be re-admitted to the meeting.

11. ANY OTHER BUSINESS

Pre-Meeting with Auditors

Councillor McIlveen advised that in the past, members had held a brief pre-meeting with the Auditor prior to the Audit Committee meeting, but on the same night. He noted that no senior management had been included in the pre-meeting and this had allowed for freedom of conversation between members and the Auditor. He proposed that the Committee adopt that approach to facilitate this forum for discussion.

A.C. 14.12.15

AGREED, on the proposal of Councillor McIlveen, seconded by Councillor Thompson, that a brief pre-meeting with members and the Auditor, without officers present, be held prior to each Audit Committee meeting.

Northern Ireland Audit Office Publications

Mr O‟Neill advised that the NIAO had recently published two reports, namely „Financial Auditing and Reporting: General Report by the Comptroller and Auditor General for Northern Ireland – 2015‟ and „Managing Fraud Risk in a Changing Environment‟. He advised he had copies of both reports for any members who wished to avail of them.

NOTED.

Item 9 – Leisure Services Executive Summary

Referring to Item 9, which had been discussed earlier in the meeting, Councillor Fletcher asked whether the recommendations had been applied. In response the Head of Finance advised that nine out of the thirteen recommendations had been implemented; one or two of them were still pending; and the two recommendations in respect of stock management were both dependent on the installation of a new till system. Currently management did not believe that it would be appropriate to invest in that until a decision was reached in respect of outsourcing this service. If outsourcing did not go ahead then available options would need to be re-considered.

NOTED.

WORD OF THANKS

At this stage in the meeting the Chairman thanked Mr O‟Neill and Ms McDermott for their service to the Committee during the year and also thanked officers for their contribution.

In bringing the meeting to a close he expressed his best wishes to everyone for Christmas.

TERMINATION OF MEETING

The meeting terminated at 7.30pm.

Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety

Consultation Document

Establishing a Helicopter Emergency Medical Service (HEMS) for Northern Ireland A public consultation to discuss the key issues related to the establishment of a HEMS for Northern Ireland

Date of issue: 23 November 2015

Action required: Responses by 22 January 2016 CONTENTS

Section Page

Foreword by Simon Hamilton MLA, 1 Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety

1. Introduction 3

2. Terminology: HEMS & AA 5

3. Options and Proposals: 7

 Theme 1: Management and Funding models  Theme 2: HEMS Service Configuration / Models of Care  Theme 3: Target Patient Groups  Theme 4: Home Base Locations  Theme 5: Collaboration with other services

4. Equality Considerations and FOI 24

5. How to provide your views 27

Annex A Consultation Response Form

Appendix 1 Policy Background

Appendix 2 Overview of Current Service Provision  NIAS Ground Ambulance Service  NIAS Inter Hospital Transfers  Use of Helicopters and other Aircraft

Appendix 3 Overview of Service Provision in Great Britain and Republic of Ireland

Appendix 4 Glossary of Abbreviations & Acronyms Foreword by Simon Hamilton MLA Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety

In my Statement to the Northern Ireland Assembly on 3 September 2015 I announced my decision to invest in the development of both the Regional Trauma Network and a Helicopter Emergency Medical Service (HEMS) for Northern Ireland. I stated that I intended to launch a public consultation on the key issues related to the development of a HEMS; that process starts today with the publication of this consultation document. Alongside this consultation we are establishing the Northern Ireland Trauma Network, to be in place by Autumn 2016. This is a first key step in strengthening our trauma and medical emergency response services to be followed by the introduction of the HEMS.

As Minister of Health I have had the opportunity to hear at first hand from clinicians, members of the public and their representatives who have given the campaign for a HEMS support and momentum to bring it to the current stage. In June of this year I also had the privilege of meeting the late Dr John Hinds, who worked passionately for the enhancement of our major trauma services and the introduction of a HEMS so that more lives can be saved. The fact that over 80,000 people recently signed a petition backing the campaign is a testament to the efforts of all involved, and to the strength of support for making their vision a reality.

I share their belief that a HEMS will help to save lives. In particular, it will enhance the excellent services that our trauma clinicians, nurses, paramedics and support staff currently provide. However, before I make my final decision on how the service will operate, I want to ask the public for their views on some key issues, including:

 how the HEMS should be managed and funded;  how it should be staffed;  the main patient groups it should serve; and  the most suitable home base location.

In doing so, I believe it is important that we provide the public with a full understanding of the background to the development of my Department’s policy on

1 this subject, the previous studies that have been carried out, the terminology that is commonly used, the relationship between a HEMS and major trauma services, and how HEMS are operated in our neighbouring regions. This document therefore presents an overview of these issues, and a description of the proposals and available options for delivering a HEMS in Northern Ireland.

I am of the view that this is a necessary service development which will help to strengthen our emergency services. However, it will require significant investment to implement and operate, at a time when there are many other competing priorities and budget constraints faced by my Department. That is why I want to explore the possibility of securing a recurrent charitable contribution towards the running costs, as that will help to protect resources for other key health and social care services requiring investment.

I look forward to receiving your views. Please accept my thanks for participating in this consultation.

2 1. Introduction

This document has been published by the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety, referred to below as “the Department” or “DHSSPS”, in order to consult with the public, clinicians and other stakeholders about the key issues relating to the establishment of a Helicopter Emergency Medical Service (HEMS) for Northern Ireland. The key issues to be discussed and decided upon are: service configuration, target patient groups, home base location and possible funding models for the service.

In a Statement to the Northern Ireland Assembly on 3 September 2015, the Minister for Health, Social Services and Public Safety, Simon Hamilton MLA, announced plans to further strengthen existing trauma services in Northern Ireland by committing to invest in the establishment of the Northern Ireland Trauma Network, one of the key recommendations of Transforming Your Care (2011). Alongside this he also announced plans to move forward with a HEMS as a key component of the network. The Minister’s full Statement can be viewed on the Assembly website at: http://www.niassembly.gov.uk/assembly-business/official-report/written-ministerial- statements/department-of-health-social-services-and-public-safety--northern-ireland- trauma-network-and-hems-public-consultation/

We therefore invite the public and stakeholders to use this consultation exercise to send us their views on HEMS, particularly on the key issues outlined in this document. These will be given full consideration by the Department and will inform the advice given to the Minister before he makes his final decision regarding the service model to be adopted.

The consultation will run from 23 November 2015 until 22 January 2016. Information on how to submit your views to the Department is set out in Section 5 below. A consultation response form is provided at Annex A – this is also available as a separate document to download from the Department’s website at https://www.dhsspsni.gov.uk/consultations. The form may help you in providing your

3 views on the most appropriate service model, but is not intended to limit your comments.

An explanation of the specific HEMS and Air Ambulance terminology used in this document is provided in Section 2.

The key issues for consultation (management and funding models, medical staffing models, target patient groups, home base location, and collaboration with other services), and the Department’s proposals/options, are set out in Section 3.

In relation to the specific issue of funding the service, the Minister’s Statement highlighted the need to explore the possibility of establishing a robust and recurrent charitable funding contribution to maintain this service, given the many competing priorities in health and social care. The Department therefore proposes to use this consultation as an opportunity to invite prospective voluntary sector organisations to express their interest in fulfilling this role. In doing so, they are asked to set out their proposed delivery model and provide supporting information, as described on page 8.

The appendices to this document have been included to provide consultees with an understanding of the current context within which the consultation is taking place, including:  the policy background to this issue, including previous HEMS reports;  the establishment of the Northern Ireland Major Trauma Network;  an overview of current ambulance service provision in Northern Ireland, including the current use of helicopters and other aircraft through partner organisations such as the Police and Coastguard;  an overview of HEMS provision in Great Britain and the Republic of Ireland;  a glossary of common abbreviations and acronyms.

4 2. Terminology: HEMS and AA

There can be confusion over the terms Helicopter Emergency Medical Service (HEMS) and Air Ambulance (AA) used to describe this service. This section aims to provide clarity over the use of these terms in order to facilitate discussion and responses to the consultation questions in Annex A.

A HEMS flight is a mission carried out by a helicopter operating under a formal HEMS approval and aims to facilitate emergency medical assistance where immediate and rapid transportation is essential, by carrying:  medical personnel; and/or  medical supplies (equipment, blood, organs, drugs); and/or  ill or injured persons and other persons directly involved.

Response to a HEMS mission is solely based on the clinical condition of the patient(s).

An Air Ambulance mission is one where the aircraft is used as an extension of the Ambulance Service’s land vehicles for the transfer of patients from / to hospital.

According to aviation regulations1, helicopters providing medical services can be deployed either as HEMS or Air Ambulances. There are generally three types of helicopter response:

 Primary Response – helicopter transport of medical personnel and equipment direct to a scene of an incident and rapid transport of an unstable casualty to the nearest appropriate hospital; Only Primary Response cases fall wholly within the HEMS definition and specific guidelines exist for these missions.

 Secondary Response – dispatch of a helicopter to a designated site to meet a road ambulance coming either from an incident or from a hospital and rapid onward transport of the patient by helicopter to a hospital. Secondary

1 Detailed in the Joint Aviation Authority (JAA) regulations JAR-Ops 3 5 Responses may relate to inter-hospital transfers (i.e. Air Ambulance cases) or intervention in a primary response (i.e. HEMS case).

 Tertiary Response – planned urgent and rapid transfers of critically ill patients requiring specialised care between hospitals either within Northern Ireland, or to a hospital outside Northern Ireland (also referred to as inter hospital transfers). Tertiary Responses are defined as Air Ambulance cases and operate under different guidelines, often using fixed-wing planes rather than helicopters.

6 3. Options and Proposals for the Northern Ireland HEMS

This section describes options and proposals for the Northern Ireland HEMS in order to inform discussion and responses to the consultation questions at Annex A. These are grouped under the main themes on which Ministerial decisions will be taken following the consultation, as follows:

 HEMS Management and Funding models  Service Configuration / Models of Care  Target Patient Groups  Home Base Location  Collaboration with other services

Respondents are invited to provide views on these options and proposals, or to put forward alternative proposals and supporting evidence, using the consultation questionnaire at Annex A.

NB. A 2012 Feasibility Study2 commissioned by the Health and Social Care Board considered a number of delivery options for the future configuration of a HEMS for Northern Ireland, including various profiles for medical staffing and operating hours, and analyses of potential demand and effectiveness.

2 Feasibility Study on the Provision of a Helicopter Emergency Medical Service / Air Ambulance for Northern Ireland, 2012 (conducted by Deloitte), available on the DHSSPS consultation page at: https://www.dhsspsni.gov.uk/consultations

7 3.1 Management and Funding models

Management of the Service

The majority of HEMS in England and Wales are operated and funded by voluntary sector organisations within a partnership arrangement with the NHS. The Scottish model is publicly funded and operated as is the model in the Republic of Ireland.

The Association of Air Ambulances3 (AAA), a representative body for UK HEMS/AA services established in 2007, has produced a Framework Document that serves as a basis for member organisations to consistently develop services, by providing guidance on governance, the legal and regulatory environment, clinical standards, operational management, dispatch of aircraft, staffing and training. It does not advocate any particular management or financial model as it recognises the different regional needs of its member organisations.

AAA recommends that each HEMS should have a Clinical Advisory Group (CAG) with a defined structure, nominated chair and Medical Director. The CAG would be responsible for advising on all clinical matters related to the service.

In establishing the Northern Ireland HEMS we have the benefit of learning from the experience of others in order to tailor the Northern Ireland model to best fit our existing health and social care system. Health and Social Care (referred to as “the HSC”) in Northern Ireland provides an integrated model of care providing local services as required and regional services to reflect our population size and need. While HSC services in Northern Ireland are almost wholly publicly funded, the Department regards the introduction of the HEMS as an opportunity for the voluntary sector to play a vital role in contributing to the funding and delivery of this service in a way that would minimise the potential financial impact on other key health and social care services.

However, the key principle for the service will be that decisions about the treatment and care of patients, including their transportation, are the responsibility of the HSC. Within

3 http://www.associationofairambulances.co.uk/ 8 this context the Department wishes to explore the opportunity to develop the service with a voluntary sector partner similar to the models operating in England.

Irrespective of whether the eventual model for this service will be wholly publicly funded and operated, or delivered in partnership with the voluntary sector, the lead HSC body for delivering this service will be the Northern Ireland Ambulance Service Trust.

Proposals for the HEMS Management Model

Based on the above, views are sought in the consultation questionnaire at Annex A on the following proposals regarding the management of the HEMS:

Proposal 1: It is proposed that, irrespective of the funding model adopted, the Northern Ireland HEMS should seek to join AAA and be guided by its Framework Document in relation to key management issues, with the advisory role in clinical matters to be undertaken by a Clinical Advisory Group.

Proposal 2: It is proposed that, irrespective of the funding model adopted, the Northern Ireland HEMS should be commissioned through the Northern Ireland Ambulance Service (NIAS).

Funding and Operational Model for the Service

Development of a dedicated HEMS will involve both initial capital investment and annual recurrent expenditure. Start-up costs (capital infrastructure upgrades and staff training) were estimated in the 2012 Feasibility Study in the region of £2.1m. Annual running cost estimates (staff costs, operating costs, helicopter lease and aircrew, administration, fundraising), based on a daylight hours model, ranged from £1.40m-£1.46m. Allowing for inflationary uplifts to 2015 costs would give a current estimate of £1.8m.4

4 These costs are indicative at present. They are dependent on decisions to be taken following this consultation, and will be subject to further analysis, inflationary uplifts and business case approval. 9 In his Statement of 3 September 2015, the Minister highlighted the need to explore the possibility of establishing a robust and recurrent charitable funding contribution to maintain a HEMS in Northern Ireland. A potential public/voluntary partnership model would envisage the voluntary sector and procuring, providing funding for, a helicopter service provider to provide an aircraft and operate it with trained aircrew. The tasking of the aircraft and the staffing, training and deployment of medical staff would be the responsibility of the HSC. The detail of such a model would be set out in a partnership agreement between NIAS and the voluntary organisation.

The Department is therefore using this consultation as an opportunity to invite prospective charity organisations to express their interest in fulfilling this partnership role, by replying to the supplementary question at the end of the consultation questionnaire. In doing so, they are asked to set out their proposed delivery model, including their proposed partnership with the HSC, and provide the following information:

 Confirmation of registered charity status.  Details of charity leadership comprising individuals with a track record of successful charitable fundraising, or the potential to deliver this, and experience of working or participating in public/voluntary partnerships.  A business plan which demonstrates: - the ability to raise at least £1m funds annually and recurrently; - an understanding of successful public/voluntary HEMS operational models, and the associated financing and procurement required to deliver the service; - evidence of the ability to secure a community-based network of volunteers to support fundraising efforts.

Submissions containing the above will be considered and followed up with a formal selection process to select a voluntary partner. This process will comply with all necessary statutory and regulatory requirements and will be subject to business case approval.

10 Options for the HEMS Funding and Operational Model

The consultation questionnaire at Annex A seeks views on the preferred funding options which have been identified for the Northern Ireland HEMS as follows:

Option 1a – The annual operating costs of the Northern Ireland HEMS, estimated at £1.8m, should be fully publicly funded from existing Departmental resources.

Option 1b – The Northern Ireland HEMS should be funded and operated on the basis of a formal partnership with a voluntary organisation, in line with defined criteria, in order to secure community involvement and provide a recurrent source of charitable funding.

11 3.2 HEMS Service Configuration / Models of Care

Medical Staffing

HEMS/AA medical teams can be led by either paramedics or physicians5. The AAA Framework Document6 recommends that:

The staffing of the HEMS crew should be guided by predicted regional medical requirements, and operations should be designed around serving those patients who will benefit from helicopter services. If the predominant need is acute retrievals and critical transfers then the trauma team who can provide the requisite skills should be recruited or trained. If the predominant need is primary trauma care, then whichever clinicians can best care for that patient group should be selected or trained.

Different staffing models on the helicopters have therefore evolved in other parts of the UK. The main staffing models are:

 Paramedic Model - State-registered paramedics operating within Joint Royal Colleges Ambulance Service Liaison Committee (JRCALC) guidelines complemented by local Patient Group Directives (PGDs).  Critical Care Paramedic (CCP) Model - Enhanced care can be delivered by this model to include advanced analgesia and interventions.  Paramedic/CCP & Physician Model - this provides further levels of clinical expertise for major trauma and medical patients.

Paramedic-led Service

The introduction of air ambulances in parts of the UK in 1987 was a major development in getting to, and treating, patients quickly. Since then, paramedic practice has evolved,

5 N.B. Guidelines on aircraft operating crew have been developed by the Joint Aviation Authority, and are not the subject of this consultation. 6 http://www.associationofairambulances.co.uk/resources/events/AOAA-Framework%202013-OCT13- %20Final%20Document.pdf 12 through third level education, the introduction of paramedic registration and national guidelines. In addition, pre-hospital emergency care is now also recognised as a sub- speciality by the General Medical Council. Health and Care Professions Council (HCPC) registered paramedics offer a wealth of current pre-hospital experience supported by underpinning education. In addition to their practical skills, HEMS paramedics have a vast array of non-technical skills including logistics; communication and leadership.

HEMS paramedics will be responsible for the dispatch of the HEMS service ensuring accurate triage and appropriate dispatch to high acuity calls. In addition to pre-defined dispatch criteria, they will use their clinical knowledge to interrogate 999 emergency calls in order to ascertain if the HEMS team is required. The HEMS paramedic who operates the dispatch desk will also be responsible for offering clinical telephone advice to other clinicians on scene to assist with the appropriate treatment of critically ill patients.

They are the natural link between the HEMS team, ambulance crews and other emergency services. Their primary role is that of scene management and scene safety, working jointly with a HEMS doctor, where present, and complimenting each other’s skill sets. Using Crew Resource Management (CRM) skills, they will ensure that simultaneous activity takes place; patient care is expedited and the most appropriate triage decision is made.

HEMS paramedics are an integral part of the HEMS team and work jointly with the doctor when undertaking advanced clinical procedures e.g. advanced airway management. The HEMS paramedic will also have a comprehensive understanding of major incident Medical Management and Support (MIMMS) procedures. During a major incident the HEMS paramedic assists the doctor with their role as incident commander. As the incident develops, the HEMS paramedic will be required to undertake a Bronze role to ensure that the most appropriate treatment and triage decisions are made. The HEMS paramedic is able to act autonomously at incidents with multiple patients. They have the ability to administer drugs which are currently outside the normal paramedic scope of practice e.g. ketamine.

13 For patients requiring a secondary response, i.e. inter hospital transfer, the HEMS paramedic has a comprehensive knowledge of intensive care unit (ICU) equipment and procedures including the maintenance of sedation and anaesthesia.

HEMS paramedics will work with the doctor regarding patient follow up; clinical audit / governance and peer review, in order to ensure continuing high standards of patient care.

Physician-led Service

The recognition that many patients require a higher level of clinical care at the point of illness or injury has resulted in many UK Air Ambulance Services evolving towards utilising the services of doctors experienced in pre-hospital care, by employing a team approach with both a doctor and specialist paramedic. As the doctors are a continuum of the hospital system, essentially this doctor led team brings the skills and experience of the Emergency Department (ED) to the roadside. The HEMS doctor can carry out life and limb saving interventions and advanced therapeutics (e.g. thoracotomy and blood transfusion). The HEMS doctor can also use additional diagnostic tools (e.g. ultrasound to diagnose internal bleeding). These procedures can only be undertaken by the doctor as HEMS paramedics are currently unable to perform them. The skillset of the HEMS doctor means that these interventions can be undertaken without prolonging on scene time. The HEMS doctor, as lead clinician, brings critical clinical decision making skills to the scene, for example transporting a critically ill poly trauma patient directly to the Operating Theatre rather than to the ED.

The HEMS doctor will also take on the role of incident commander at any major incident. The doctor will have overall control of the scene and provide instructions regarding patient treatment and triage decisions.

Operating Hours

Current practice across most established HEMS services is to operate during daylight hours. Until recently, HEMS operating hours have been restricted by the Civil Aviation

14 Authority (CAA) in terms of both pilot duty hours and official daylight hours. Pilots’ hours are strictly regulated, governed and monitored. HEMS pilots are limited to 60 hours per seven days. In summer, when a pilot may exceed his hours during a HEMS call, they must reclaim the time during the next shift to maintain overall compliance.

In addition to pilots’ duty hours, HEMS operating times are usually governed by official daylight; however flying at night can be approved, but only if an aircraft lifts from and lands upon a ‘class one landing site’, such as a secure airfield, airport, or a night-lit, approved hospital helicopter pad. On HEMS operations it is highly unlikely that any primary HEMS mission landing at an incident will be on a designated class one site.

At its inception, it is envisaged that the Northern Ireland HEMS would be established as a daylight hours service, with the possibility of evolving remaining open depending on future requirements and feasibility. The same operating hours would be common to both staffing options identified above.

Costs of Paramedic and Physician Service Models

Irrespective of the funding model eventually adopted (see Section 3.1), the medical staffing costs would be publicly funded, as staff would be employed by HSC Trusts. The table below summarises the 2012 Feasibility Study estimated annual staff costs of both models, based on a daylight hours service. However, these cost estimations are subject to further analysis, inflationary uplifts and business case approval.

HEMS Medical Staffing Model Annual cost (2012) Staff costs – 2 paramedic crew7 £353,870 Staff costs – 1 paramedic8 & 1 doctor £415,247 crew

7 Based on a requirement of 6 paramedics to provide a 12 hour / 7 day service 8 Based on a requirement of 3 paramedics to provide a 12 hour / 7 day service 15 Options for the Northern Ireland HEMS Service Configuration

Based on the above, the consultation questionnaire at Annex A seeks views on the preferred service configuration options which have been identified for the Northern Ireland HEMS as follows:

Option 2a: The Northern Ireland HEMS should adopt a paramedic-led service model which will deliver primary trauma care and undertake acute retrievals and critical transfers.

Option 2b: The Northern Ireland HEMS should adopt a physician-led service model, comprising a doctor and paramedic, which will deliver primary trauma care and undertake acute retrievals and critical transfers.

16 3.3 Target Patient Groups

Section 2 (page 5) describes the different types of response – primary, secondary and tertiary – for which a HEMS can be typically deployed.

The AAA Framework Document states:

HEMS success is dependent upon finding the right jobs, arriving in a timely manner and delivering advanced interventions to the patients before transporting them to the most appropriate hospital.

Helicopters are an expensive resource and their use is not without risk. Whichever tasking system is in operation some decision has to be made, either in the control room for primary responses or at the scene for secondary responses, about which incidents HEMS should be dispatched to. This requires some form of call selection to identify calls that may benefit from a HEMS response and therefore appropriate deployment.

Whilst there are no definitive guidelines nationally for call selection and HEMS tasking, a variety of criteria have been proposed by AAA to guide local HEMS services in developing their own deployment strategies, by adhering to the following basic principles:

 the purpose of aero medical emergency transfer is to provide better initial patient care and transport than available alternatives;  air response is only justified where the speed of transport, skill of the medical team and/or ability of the helicopter to overcome environmental obstacles contribute to improved patient outcome;  in trauma, helicopter deployment is not justified if it does not significantly reduce the time between injury and the patient arriving at an appropriate hospital unless the response delivers additional medical expertise or equipment to the scene.

17 Primary Response Group

Major trauma is widely regarded as the medical specialty likely to derive most benefit from the introduction of a HEMS (see Appendix 1 for more detail on the establishment of the Northern Ireland Major Trauma Network). It is estimated that up to 540 major trauma cases occur annually in Northern Ireland, however the number of times a major trauma response is activated by the emergency services is in fact much higher, estimated at up to 1800 cases per year. Whilst not all major trauma activations would necessitate a HEMS response, it is envisaged that these would represent a significant proportion of the primary response cases to which a HEMS would be tasked. Other primary HEMS responses would include (but are not limited to) cases such as cardiac, stroke, burns and paediatric emergencies in which rapid transfer and/or specialist care is required.

The advantages of HEMS in primary response situations include:  allows a rapid and direct approach to the scene;  delivers a highly trained team providing emergency enhanced care at the scene;  ability for the team to recognise, stabilise and optimise treatment of complex evolving patho-physiological effects across all age ranges (e.g. an agitated child with a severe head injury, a flail chest, ruptured spleen and multiple long-bone fractures or an elderly patient with severe burns to head and body);  enhances the accurate and appropriate triage of patients and scene management decisions;  continues seamless care from point of injury to the most appropriate receiving hospital;  allows for safe and controlled in-transit care of critically ill patients;  ensures appropriate handover and liaison both before and on arrival at hospital;  rapid turnaround times at hospital;  the ability to rapidly return to normal working geographical area after transfer to a specialist facility.

18 Secondary Response Group

Air Ambulance Services do not restrict their activity to solely responding to emergency incidents in the pre-hospital setting. In secondary transfers, HEMS provides a subsequent transfer for patients who require specialist care, who were delivered initially to a local emergency department by a road crew. The transfer is undertaken in order to expedite their ongoing care to a specialist unit such as a cardiac, stroke, burns, spinal injuries or paediatric centre, whereby rapid transfer and/or specialist care is required.

Proposals for Target Patient Groups

Based on the above, the consultation questionnaire at Annex A seeks views on the following proposals regarding the patient groups that should be targeted by a HEMS:

Proposal 3: It is proposed that a local deployment strategy should be developed for the Northern Ireland HEMS that takes account of the specific needs of the region, in line with the principles recommended by the Association of Air Ambulances. This strategy will provide guidance on, for example, incident response and HEMS tasking.

Proposal 4: It is proposed that the Northern Ireland HEMS would facilitate two main response groups i.e. primary and secondary. It is likely that the service would start with responding to the primary group, particularly major trauma patients, and over time evolve to include the secondary group.

19 3.4 Home Base Location

The most appropriate home base location for a HEMS will be influenced by the preferred medical staffing model and the principal groups of patients likely to be targeted by the service.

NIAS estimates that the majority of destinations in Northern Ireland would be reached within a 30 minute flight time, regardless of home base location. It is important to note, however, that overall response times would be affected by other factors which will be common to all possible locations, such as time to mobilise the aircraft, weather conditions etc.

The new Critical Care Building at the Royal Victoria Hospital (RVH), constructed at a total cost of £151.7m, houses the Regional Major Trauma Centre (MTC) for Northern Ireland. This is supported by Major Trauma Units (MTU) located throughout Northern Ireland within a ‘hub and spoke’ network. Further detail on the establishment of the Major Trauma Network is provided in Appendix 1.

If a physician-led model is to be adopted (as in Option 2b), it is likely that the physicians will be drawn from the staff of the MTC or MTUs on a rotational basis. It could be argued, given that the majority of the Primary Response Group Patients are likely to be transferred to the MTC at the RVH for treatment, that it would seem appropriate for the HEMS to operate from a home base in that area. This would allow it to be located close to these services.

However, it could also be argued that a base located outside of the greater Belfast area could effectively deploy a HEMS across the region, particularly if the Trauma Network were to put in place appropriate arrangements for the medical staffing model which would deliver the same level of effectiveness as a Belfast base.

Therefore, the Department will consider alternative proposals that would provide a clinically effective location for a home base compared with a base in the greater Belfast

20 area and demonstrate clear value for money given the recent significant investment in the MTC.

Proposal for Home Base Location

The consultation questionnaire at Annex A seeks views on the most appropriate home base location for the HEMS:

Proposal 5: Consultees are invited to provide their views on the most suitable home base location for the HEMS, explaining how their preference meets practical requirements such as the availability of a hangar and associated services, the proximity to medical personnel who will staff it, and the ability to reach target destinations within an acceptable timeframe.

21 3.5 Collaboration with other services

Once a HEMS has been established in Northern Ireland it would be desirable to establish/maintain links with other helicopter services in order to ensure coverage and continuity of service. An overview of these services, and how they are currently accessed by NIAS, is provided in Appendices 2 and 3.

For example, the AAA recommends that bad weather contingency support arrangements should be made with Police Air Support Units (ASUs), most of whom have a stretcher-fit modification and the ability to assist in out-of-hours primary HEMS transfers at the request of the ambulance service. Further capability may be offered by regionally-based Search and Rescue (SAR) helicopters, coordinated by the Coastguard.

Many UK Air Ambulance Services have mutual aid agreements to ensure that cross- regional coverage for incidents with multiple patients or paramedic-only crews requiring medical support is available. Similarly, NIAS has arrangements in place with the National Ambulance Service (NAS) and the Emergency Aeromedical Support Service (EAS) in the Republic of Ireland that allow cross-jurisdictional ground and air responses to be coordinated in the most appropriate way.

Mutual agreements can also increase the number of airborne assets that can be mobilised in the event of a major incident.

SAR aircraft are essential for search and rescue, and are often staffed by aircrew that hold State Registered Paramedic status; however once a patient has been found and removed to a safe position, transfer to experienced fully qualified medical staff is advised. SAR aircraft may be available when the weather dictates that normal HEMS aircraft are unable to operate. Similarly, an incident occurring at night, or when temperature levels are conducive to ice formation on the leading edge of the rotors, may threaten HEMS aircraft but not necessarily SAR helicopters.

22 Proposal for Collaboration with other services

In line with the above, the consultation questionnaire at Annex A seeks views on the following proposal:

Proposal 6: It is proposed that the Northern Ireland HEMS should establish and maintain collaborative partnerships with other helicopter transport providers, such as the PSNI, Coastguard and EAS (ROI), in order to maximise coverage and continuity of service.

23 4. Equality Screening

Human Rights and Equality Implications Section 75 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998 requires Departments in carrying out their functions relating to Northern Ireland to have due regard to the need to promote equality of opportunity:  between persons of different religious belief, political opinion, racial group, age, marital status or sexual orientation;  between men and women generally;  between persons with a disability and those without; and  between persons with dependants and those without.

In addition, without prejudice to the above obligation, Departments should also, in carrying out their functions relating to Northern Ireland, have due regard to the desirability of promoting good relations between persons of different religious belief, political opinion or racial group. Departments also have a statutory duty to ensure that their decisions and actions are compatible with the European Convention on Human Rights and to act in accordance with these rights.

DHSSPS has carried out a preliminary screening of the policy decision to introduce a HEMS, with the final model to be informed by this public consultation, and as part of this screening process has concluded at this stage that an Equality Impact Assessment is not necessary.

Human Rights Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights guarantees a right to privacy which can only be interfered with when it is necessary to meet specified legitimate needs. The Department recognises that any use of patient information for the HEMS will only be considered in prescribed conditions, and in circumstances which clearly have a legitimate need.

24 Privacy The Department acknowledges that any use of patient information for the HEMS will be within required safeguards and the control of access should therefore mitigate the concerns and risks involved.

Rural Proofing Patients who reside in rural areas are likely to benefit from the HEMS in terms of access to services.

Health Impact It is considered that the introduction of a HEMS would have a positive impact on the health of patients for whom it is tasked to respond to, in particular major trauma patients who would be considered the group likely to derive most benefit from the service. Evidence from other regions and countries using HEMS (endorsed by local trauma experts) suggests that mortality and morbidity outcomes are significantly improved by providing specialist medical treatment at the scene of an incident.

Sustainable Development It is considered that there are no negative impacts on sustainable development opportunities.

Regulatory Impact Assessment The Department does not consider that a Regulatory Impact Assessment is required as the development of a HEMS service does not have any significant new impact on local business. Better health outcomes for trauma patients may, in the longer term, result in added social and economic benefits.

25 Freedom of Information Act 2000 – Confidentiality of Consultation Responses The Department will publish a summary of responses following completion of the consultation process. Your response, and all other responses to the consultation, may be disclosed on request. The Department can only refuse to disclose information in exceptional circumstances.

Before you submit your response, please read the paragraphs below on the confidentiality of consultations and they will give you guidance on the legal position about any information given by you in response to this consultation. The Freedom of Information Act gives the public a right of access to any information held by a public authority, namely, the Department in this case. This right of access to information includes information provided in response to a consultation. The Department cannot automatically consider as confidential information supplied to it in response to a consultation. However, it does have the responsibility to decide whether any information provided by you in response to this consultation, including information about your identity, should be made public or be treated as confidential. This means that information provided by you in response to the consultation is unlikely to be treated as confidential, except in very particular circumstances. The Lord Chancellor’s Code of Practice on the Freedom of Information Act provides that:

 The Department should only accept information from third parties in confidence if it is necessary to obtain that information in connection with the exercise of any of the Department’s functions and it would not otherwise be provided;  The Department should not agree to hold information received from third parties “in confidence” which is not confidential in nature; and  Acceptance by the Department of confidentiality provisions must be for good reasons, capable of being justified to the Information Commissioner.

For further information about confidentiality of responses please contact the Information Commissioner’s Office (or see website: https://ico.org.uk/).

26 5. How to provide your views on the establishment of a HEMS for Northern Ireland

We should be grateful for your views to help the Department finalise its policy on the future configuration the HEMS for Northern Ireland.

The questions in the Response Form in Annex A attached may help you in providing your views on the most appropriate service model, but are not intended to limit your comments.

How to Respond

Please use the Response Form at Annex A in this document (also available to download in Microsoft Word format from our website at www.dhsspsni.gov.uk/index/consultations/current_consultations.htm) and send your completed responses by 5.00pm on Friday 22 January 2015 to:

Email: [email protected]

Hard Copy: HEMS Consultation Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety Room 1 Annex 1 Stormont Estate Belfast BT4 3SQ

Further Information and Related Documents

Large print, Braille and alternative language versions of this document are available on request to the above email address or postal address.

If you have any questions please contact [email protected]. Thank you for your assistance.

27 ANNEX A

Consultation on the key issues related to the establishment of a HEMS for Northern Ireland

CONSULTATION RESPONSE FORM

I am responding:

As an individual ______

As a health and social care professional ______

On behalf of an organisation ______

As a potential HEMS charity partner ______(NB. Please complete additional sections on final page of questionnaire)

(please tick one option)

About you or your organisation:

Name: Job Title: Organisation: Address:

Tel: E-mail:

Consultation Questions related to options described in Section 3 above Management and Funding models

Management of the Service

Views are sought on Proposals 1 & 2 regarding the management of the HEMS:

Question 1. Do you agree with Proposal 1?

Yes ______

No ______

If ‘no’ please feel free to comment below, providing evidence to support any alternative proposal:

If ‘yes’ please feel free to comment further below: Proposal 2: It is proposed that, irrespective of the funding model adopted, the Northern Ireland HEMS should be commissioned through the Northern Ireland Ambulance Service (NIAS).

Question 2. Do you agree with Proposal 2?

Yes ______

No ______

If ‘no’ please feel free to comment below, providing evidence to support any alternative commissioning and management model:

If ‘yes’ please feel free to comment further below: Funding and Operational Model for the Service

Views are sought on Options 1a and 1b regarding the funding of the HEMS:

Option 1a – The annual operating costs of the Northern Ireland HEMS, estimated at £1.8m, should be fully publicly funded from existing Departmental resources.

Option 1b – The Northern Ireland HEMS should be funded and operated on the basis of a formal partnership with a voluntary organisation, in line with defined criteria, in order to secure community involvement, provide a recurrent source of charitable funding, and minimise impact on other health and social care services

Question 3. Which funding option would you prefer to see implemented?

*Option 1a ______

*Option 1b ______

* Please tick your preferred option

Please use the space below to provide any comments in support of your preference: HEMS Service Configuration / Models of Care

The Department has identified the following service configuration options for the Northern Ireland HEMS:

Option 2a: The Northern Ireland HEMS should adopt a paramedic-led service model which will deliver primary trauma care and undertake acute retrievals and critical transfers.

Question 4. Which service configuration option would you prefer to see implemented?

*Option 2a ______

*Option 2b ______

* Please tick your preferred option

Please use the space below to provide any comments in support of your preference: Target Patient Groups

Views are sought on Proposals 1& 2 which relate to the deployment of the HEMS for various patient groups.

Question 5. Do you agree with this proposal?

Yes ______

No ______

If ‘no’ please feel free to comment below, providing evidence to support any alternative proposal:

If ‘yes’ please comment on how you think this might work best: Proposal 4: It is proposed that the Northern Ireland HEMS would facilitate two main response groups i.e. primary and secondary. It is likely that the service would start with responding to the primary group, particularly major trauma patients, and over time evolve to include the secondary group.

Question 6. Do you agree with this proposal?

Yes ______

No ______

If ‘no’ please feel free to comment below, providing evidence to support any alternative proposal:

If ‘yes’ please comment on how you think this might work best: Home Base Locations

Views are sought on Proposal 3 regarding the HEMS home base location:

Question 7. Please provide your response in the space provided below: Collaboration with other services

Question 8. Do you agree with the proposal?

Yes ______

No ______

If ‘no’ please feel free to comment below, providing evidence to support any alternative proposal:

If ‘yes’ please feel free to comment further below: Please use the text box below to provide any additional comments you wish to provide regarding the introduction of a HEMS for Northern Ireland: NB. This section should only be completed by prospective charity partners.

The Department is using this consultation as an opportunity to invite prospective charity organisations to express their interest in fulfilling a partnership role, as described in section 3.1. Voluntary organisations are asked to use the space below to set out their proposed delivery model, including their proposed partnership with the HSC, and to provide the following information:

ITEM 9.2

Ards and North Down Borough Council

Report Classification Unclassified

Council/Committee Council Meeting

Date of Meeting 17 December 2015

Responsible Director Director of Organisational Development and Administration

Responsible Head of Service

Date of Report 10 December 2015

File Reference 290478

Legislation

Section 75 Compliant Yes ☒ No ☐ Not Applicable ☐

Subject Consultation on the NI Local Government Code of Conduct for Councillors: Alternative Action

Attachments Consultation Document

Part 9 of the Local Government Act (Northern Ireland) 2014 (the 2014 Act) introduced a new ethical standards framework for local government in Northern Ireland. The 2014 Act requires councillors to observe the Northern Ireland Local Government Code of Conduct for Councillors (the Code) and it gives the Northern Ireland Commissioner for Complaints (the Commissioner), powers to investigate and adjudicate on complaints of alleged breaches of the Code.

1.2 Under section 55(2) of the 2014 Act, the Commissioner may take action instead of, or in addition to, conducting an investigation in dealing with an alleged breach of the Code. The Commissioner has delegated the authority to conduct investigations and report on the outcome of those investigations to the Deputy Commissioner. A decision to take alternative action in any particular case will be made by the Deputy Commissioner, in exercise of her delegated authority.

The objective of Alternative Action is to bring about a satisfactory resolution of the complaint without the cost and resource implications of an investigation and/or an adjudication. Alternative Actions are also intended to encourage compliance with the Code of Conduct and to demonstrate the Commissioner’s commitment to promoting good ethical conduct as well to do deal with potential breaches of the Code in a proportionate and appropriate manner.

Page 1 of 2

Unclassified

The Commissioner is inviting the Council’s comments on his proposals for Alternative Action in dealing with minor breaches of the Code.

A copy of Consultation document is attached and responses should be sent to [email protected] before 15 January 2016.

RECOMMENDATION

It is recommended that this report be noted and the Council may wish to agree a corporate response or any member wishing to respond does so before the closing date.

Page 2 of 2

Commissioner for Complaints for Northern Ireland

Consultation on the NI Local Government Code of Conduct for Councillors: Alternative Action

The closing date for responses is 15 January 2016

Responses should be sent to [email protected]

If you have any questions about this consultation please contact:

Name Email Telephone

Ken Jackson [email protected] 02890 897768 Jacqueline O’Brien jacqueline.o’[email protected] 02890 897785

The Northern Ireland Local Government Code of Conduct for Councillors – Alternative Action which may be taken by the Commissioner for Complaints

1. Introduction

1.1 Part 9 of the Local Government Act (Northern Ireland) 2014 (the 2014 Act) introduced a new ethical standards framework for local government in Northern Ireland. The 2014 Act requires councillors to observe the Northern Ireland Local Government Code of Conduct for Councillors (the Code) and it gives the Northern Ireland Commissioner for Complaints (the Commissioner), powers to investigate and adjudicate on complaints of alleged breaches of the Code.

2. The Objectives of Alternative Action

2.1 The objective of Alternative Action is to bring about a satisfactory resolution of the complaint without the cost and resource implications of an investigation and/or an adjudication. The Alternative Actions described in this document are also intended to encourage compliance with the Code of Conduct and to demonstrate the Commissioner’s commitment to promoting good ethical conduct as well to do deal with potential breaches of the Code in a proportionate and appropriate manner. For instance, alternative action may be appropriate where a complaint has arisen as a result of a breakdown in working relationships and such action may help in restoring working relationships at an early stage.

3. When Alternative Action may be appropriate

3.1 Alternative Action is most likely to be considered appropriate where one or more of the following applies:

a) It appears to the Deputy Commissioner to be the most efficient, effective and proportionate means of resolving a complaint;

b) There is a reasonable expectation that the councillor is likely to be found in breach of the Code;

c) Where the nature of the complaint is such that, even if it were found to be a failure to comply with the Code, it would in the Deputy Commissioner’s opinion be unlikely to result in a significant sanction being provided by the Commissioner i.e. suspension for more than 1 month or disqualification for any period;

d) The complaint has met the evidential test at assessment stage, but does not fully meet the Commissioner’s Public Interest Considerations (i.e. seriousness/cost) a copy of which is available on the Ombudsman’s website;

e) The complaint relates to issues of respect and consideration for others and the complainant is also a politician; and

f) The action proposed does not compromise the Deputy Commissioner or the Commissioner’s independence should the matter return to the Deputy Commissioner for investigation or to the Commissioner for adjudication at a future time.

3.2 The types of Alternative Action which may be taken by the Deputy Commissioner and the circumstances in which they may be applied are set out at Appendix A. The action to be taken in any particular case will be determined by the Deputy Commissioner, at her discretion, dependent on all the circumstances of the case.

Appendix A

NI Local Government Code of Conduct for Councillors – Alternative Action which may be taken by the Deputy Commissioner for Complaints

Method When Appropriate Roles, Procedures and Resources 1. Reminder of This action is likely to be taken where the complaint has a) The Deputy Commissioner will write to the Councillor concerned Obligations under the not been recommended for investigation, but there reminding him/her of the Code’s requirements in relation to the matter Code remains a concern that, should the conduct complained complained of and providing any additional advice or guidance of persist or escalate, it may give rise to a future breach considered appropriate. of the Code. A reminder will be appropriate where it is b) Resource Implications - minimal considered likely to reduce the risk of a similar complaint arising in future. 2. Apology to the This action is likely to be taken where the Councillor a) The nature of the apology should reflect the Ombudsman’s guidance on Complainant or the accepts there has been a breach of the Code, or where issuing apologies for public service providers. Public at large it is clear that the councillor acted or communicated in b) The form and content of the apology is to be approved by the Deputy the manner indicated in the complaint, but the nature Commissioner. of the breach is such that it is unlikely to result in a significant sanction. c) Where the Deputy Commissioner has approved the form of the apology, the complaint will not be reopened on the basis that the complainant is not content with the apology. d) The forum in which the apology is delivered i.e. whether in private, in the Council Chamber, in the media etc. will depend on the circumstances of the actions/communications giving rise to the complaint and will be determined by the Deputy Commissioner. e) Failure to provide a suitable apology will lead to the complaint reverting to the Deputy Commissioner for a decision on the next steps, including for example, a decision to begin or resume an investigation. f) Resource Implications - minimal

3. Rectification This action is likely to be taken where the Councillor a) The Councillor is required to comply with the Code. For example, by accepts he or she has failed to comply with the Code, registering an interest which had not been previously registered. but the failure is minor in nature and no adverse b) Rectification may be combined with another alternative action, such as a consequences for the Council or any other person have requirement to issue an apology (as at point 2 above). resulted from the breach. For instances, this is may arise, for example, where there has been a minor and c) Resource Implications – minimal. inadvertent failure to register an interest.

4. Disclosure to another The Deputy Commissioner is likely to make a disclosure a) The Deputy Commissioner will make a disclosure to another body in order body to another body where the other body has greater or for that body to take appropriate action. Her decision will be based on all equivalent powers to investigate the complaint and it the circumstances of the case. also has specialist skills or expertise on the issue of the b) The Deputy Commissioner is likely to suspend any investigation while the complaint. matter is considered by the body to which the disclosure has been made. Such disclosures will be made in accordance with the c) When the body to which the matter has been disclosed has evaluated the Commissioner’s powers under Articles 21 and 21A of information and taken the action it considers appropriate, the complaint the Commissioner for Complaints (NI) Order 1996. will revert to the Deputy Commissioner for a decision on the way forward. For example, the Commissioner may make a disclosure d) Resource Implications – the cost of any action taken by the body to which to the Information Commissioner where it appears the disclosure is made will fall to that body. there has been an offence under the Data Protection

Act 1998 or the Freedom of Information Act 2000.

5. Training on the Code This action is likely to be taken where it is clear that the a) The nature of the training required will be determined by the Deputy complaint has arisen due to a misinterpretation of the Commissioner based on all the circumstances of the case. Code or a failure to understand the requirements of the b) The LGES Directorate will first establish that the Councillor has not Code. received similar relevant training in the past.

c) The training will usually be arranged by the Council with the agreement of the Chief Executive. The Deputy Commissioner must agree that the training proposed addresses the specific issue which has been identified d) Failure to accept or attend training will lead to the complaint progressing to investigation stage or to referral for adjudication, whichever the Deputy Commissioner considers appropriate. e) Resource Implications - the cost of training is to be met by the Council.

6. Mediation This action is likely to be appropriate where the a) Mediation will be conducted by a confidential, independent, professional complaint has resulted from a breakdown in working mediation service, to be arranged by the Chief Executive at the relevant relationships, usually this will involve disputes between Council with the agreement of the Deputy Commissioner. councillors, or councillors and Chief Executives. On b) Both parties must first provide written confirmation to the Deputy occasion, it may involve disputes between councillors and members of the public. A breakdown in working Commissioner that they agree to participate fully in the mediation relationships between councillors and council officers process. will be dealt with by the Council Protocol for such c) Should the mediation fail, for any reason, the complaint will revert to the cases. Deputy Commissioner for her decision as to how to proceed with the complaint. The Deputy Commissioner may decide to take no further Where the Deputy Commissioner recommends action in relation to a complaint where she considers that the Councillor mediation but the Councillor declines to participate in complained of had not contributed to the failure of the mediation the mediation, the Deputy Commissioner will consider continuing the investigation. At adjudication, the process. Commissioner may take this refusal into account in d) The parties cannot rely on any information disclosed during the mediation determining the level of sanction, if any, applied where process in any subsequent investigation or adjudication proceeding from there is a finding of a failure to comply with the Code. the complaint. e) Resource Implications - cost of mediation is to be met by the Council.

Consultation Document

Use of Seat Belts by Child Passengers aged 3-13 years on Buses and Coaches

(final phase of DIRECTIVE 2003/20/EC)

30 November 2015

USE OF SEAT BELTS BY CHILD PASSENGERS AGED 3-13 YEARS ON BUSES AND COACHES (final phase of DIRECTIVE 2003/20/EC)

Background

EU Directive 2003/20/EC requires Member States to extend compulsory seat belt wearing laws to include the use of child restraints in cars and goods vehicles. It also requires that seat belts, where fitted, must be worn by all passengers aged three and over in buses and coaches.

The Directive has largely been implemented in Northern Ireland. All passengers aged 14 and over are required to wear a seat belt where one is available. The Directive has also been fully implemented in relation to:

• Child restraints (Child Car Seats) in cars and goods vehicles; • All passengers in ‘minibuses’ - with the driver of a minibus being responsible for ensuring that child passengers up to age 14 use the safety systems provided; and • Bus and coach passengers, with all bus and coach passengers aged 14 and over required to wear a seat belt (where one is fitted and subject to exemptions).

The Directive has not yet been implemented in relation to children between the ages of 3 and 13 travelling in buses and coaches. It has proved difficult to establish a way of ensuring, as far as possible, that such young passengers wear their seat belts. In particular, there are practical concerns about the extent to which responsibility can be placed on an accompanying adult, a driver or a bus or coach operator.

This consultation paper contains policy proposals designed to address this problem. We wish to ensure that Northern Ireland is fully compliant with the requirements of the Directive. More importantly, we want to improve travel safety for younger bus and coach passengers.

Progress to Date

In September 2007 the Department for Transport (DfT) consulted on how to extend the law on the use of seat belts on buses to younger passengers. DfT sought views on the practicalities of enforcing the requirement in the range of circumstances in which children travel on buses. The consultation was carried out on a UK-wide basis, but under arrangements that enabled separation of the views expressed in Northern Ireland from the overall analysis.

Concerns expressed at the time by stakeholders in Northern Ireland included issues such as who would be responsible for ensuring that children in this age group wear their seat belts, what sanctions there would be should a child fail to comply and who would enforce those sanctions.

A follow up consultation with the Confederation of Passenger Transport (CPT) issued from DfT in 2012. This consultation helped progress the development of A Code of Practice for Bus Operators. The Code detailed ‘Reasonable Steps’ Operators should take to ensure the safety of all passengers including children aged between 3 and 13 years.

DOE has prepared a corresponding draft Code to reflect processes, procedures and structures in Northern Ireland. That draft Code of Practice forms part of this consultation exercise and is included as an Annex to this document.

Key Challenges

In order to prepare legislation, it is first necessary to identify the person who bears liability for any offence that is created. Current UK law stipulates that criminal liability for the offence of failure to wear a seat belt falls on the individual passenger or driver, unless they are under 14 years of age. In this case, a car driver, for example, commits an offence by driving whilst a child is not wearing a seat belt.

However, a particular problem arises in identifying who should bear such responsibility for children travelling unaccompanied on buses or coaches. It would not be reasonable to make the driver personally responsible for ensuring that such children wear a seat belt at all times. Indeed, such a requirement might inadvertently lead to driver distraction, potentially creating a greater road safety risk.

Proposed Approach

As part of the pre-consultation phase, the Department met with various interested statutory stakeholders to develop what we believe is a workable policy proposal that will achieve full transposition of the Directive and ultimately reduce passenger casualties. Officials have also engaged with colleagues in DfT.

The Department has identified the following approach:

Group 1 - Children (3-13 years) travelling alone

We propose to extend the Operators’ current duty relating to passengers in rear seats in buses/coaches as reflected in the Road Traffic (Northern Ireland) Order 1995, to require the Operator of a bus/coach with fitted seat belts to take ‘reasonable steps’ to ensure that unaccompanied children aged 3-13 years wear their seat belts while the bus/coach is in motion.

A bus/coach is defined as a motor vehicle which is constructed or adapted for the carriage of passengers, has more than eight seats in addition to the driver’s seat, has four or more wheels, has a maximum design speed exceeding 25 kilometres per hours, and has a maximum laden weight exceeding 3.5 tonnes.

There is an exemption for vehicles with seat belts being used to provide a local bus service on ‘restricted’ roads (effectively 30mph roads only), or vehicles designed to carry standing passengers and in which standing passengers are specifically allowed.

Failure to comply with this requirement will be an offence by the Operator acting on behalf of its drivers.

It is important to note that where an Operator takes ‘reasonable steps’ but ultimately fails to ensure that the child wears a seat belt, no offence will have been committed. Where the Department believes that an Operator has failed or is failing to take ‘reasonable steps’, it may impose on that Operator a requirement to do so. Before imposing such a requirement, the Department must first give the Operator notice of its intention. The Operator will then have a period of 28 days to decide whether to comply, appeal to the Department against the requirement – or to take no further action.

If the Department ultimately decides to impose the requirement, failure to comply will attract a financial penalty up to the equivalent of level 2 on the standard scale, or a fixed penalty. A similar approach is proposed for Great Britain.

To assist Operators determine what is deemed ‘reasonable’ we have developed a draft Code of Practice about seat belt wearing in coaches and buses (including for Operators transporting accompanied children) (Annex A).

Question 1: Do you agree with the proposal to require Operators to take reasonable steps to ensure that children aged 3 to 13 travelling without an adult wear their seat belts? (If appropriate please provide details of any issues with which you disagree)

Question 2: If you do not agree, do you have any alternative proposals?

Question 3: Do you have any comments on the draft Operator Code of Practice?

Group 2 – Child/Children (3-13 years) travelling with an ‘accompanying adult’

Where an adult is accompanying a child or a group of children on a bus fitted with seat belts, the adult will be required to take ‘reasonable steps’ to ensure that the child/children wear their seat belts while the bus is in motion.

This will apply both in circumstances where an adult is accompanying one or more children, and where an adult is accompanying a group of children on an outing.

Again, a bus is defined as a motor vehicle which is constructed or adapted for the carriage of passengers, has more than eight seats in addition to the driver’s seat, has four or more wheels, has a maximum design speed exceeding 25 kilometres per hours, and has a maximum laden weight exceeding 3.5 tonnes.

An ‘accompanying adult’ should be at least 18 years of age.

Failure to take ‘reasonable steps’ will be an offence.

The new offence will be punishable by a financial penalty up to the equivalent of level 1 on the standard scale, or a fixed penalty. The responsibility for enforcing this penalty will lie with the PSNI. A similar approach is proposed for Great Britain.

In order to assist accompanying adults determine what is deemed ‘reasonable’ in these circumstances we have developed a draft Code of Practice about seat belt wearing in coaches and buses (Annex B).

Question 4: Do you agree with the proposal to require any adult accompanying a group of children aged 3-13 years, to take all reasonable steps to ensure that the children wear their seat belts? (If appropriate, please provide details of any issues with which you disagree).

Question 5: If you do not agree, do you have any alternative proposals?

Question 6: Do you have any comments on the draft Code of Practice for accompanying adults?

Responding to the Consultation

We want to ensure that you have the opportunity to comment as easily as possible on the way forward with this specific policy.

For your convenience we have developed a Word version of a Response Form which is available for you to download (Annex C) and return electronically to the e-mail addresses detailed below.

We would also be happy to meet with groups or individuals to discuss the issues detailed in the consultation document if this would be helpful.

Responses should be received no later than Friday 5 February 2016 and can be sent in any of the following ways:

Write to:

Maura Magee Road User Behaviours Policy & Legislation Branch Road Safety & Vehicle Regulation Division Department of the Environment Clarence Court 10-18 Adelaide Street TOWN PARKS Belfast BT2 8GB Or E-mail: [email protected]

If you would like a hard copy of the document, please contact us at the addresses provided above or by telephone on 028 9054 1141 or 028 9054 0988.

A copy of the Response Form will be enclosed with all hard copies of the document and we would be happy to provide additional copies of the document or Response Forms on request.

If the papers are not in a format that suits your needs, we can arrange for them to be provided in a suitable format.

When responding, please indicate whether you are responding on behalf of an organisation. Please make it clear who the organisation represents and, where applicable, how the views of members were assembled.

If you have any questions on this document, attached papers or any aspect of this consultation, or if you wish to request a meeting, please contact either Pauline Moore on 028 9054 1141 or Maura Magee on 028 9054 0988.

Annex A DRAFT Operator Code of Practice Seat Belt Wearing in Buses and Coaches

Seat Belt Law - Buses and Coaches

Passengers aged 14 or over are responsible for wearing a seat belt

Passengers aged 14 or over on buses and coaches commit an offence if they do not wear a seat belt when seated where one is fitted (with some limited exceptions detailed below). The offence is punishable by a fixed penalty notice or a significant court-imposed fine (level 2 on the standard scale).

Children

Seat belts need to be worn by both adults and children.

Drivers of minibuses, like drivers of cars, are responsible for ensuring children under the age of 14 years use the appropriate restraint. If not they are liable for prosecution.

The police enforce seat belt wearing laws for all occupants of vehicles. Passengers over 14 years are liable for not wearing seat belts in minibuses, but drivers face action over unsecured passengers, aged 3 to 13 years.

For buses and coaches, adults accompanying children will be liable for prosecution if they do not take reasonable steps to ensure children under the age of 14 years use seat belts where they are provided. Where there are no accompanying adults, drivers are required to take reasonable steps. Accompanying adults and (in their absence) Operators are liable to financial penalties if reasonable steps are not taken.

If you are an adult accompanying a child/children of 3-13 years, you have the prime responsibility for ensuring they wear a seat belt or child restraint, where they are fitted. This is the case whether you are accompanying, for example, one child or twenty.

Informing Passengers

In addition operators of buses and coaches are required to notify passengers of the need to use seat belts. This can be done by an official announcement, and/or an audio-visual presentation, made when passengers join the bus or within a reasonable time of doing so, or through a sign prominently displayed at each passenger seat equipped with a seat belt.

This Code recommends that coach operators make an announcement or audio- visual presentation when passengers initially join services with one or very few picking up points and do not exclusively rely on signs displayed at seats. The legal minimum is at least one of signing, announcements or presentations.

Not all buses and coaches are fitted with seat belts. In addition there are some exceptions to the legal requirement to notify passengers of the requirement use seat belts when they are fitted. These include:

• when the vehicle is built or adapted to carry standing passengers and the operator permits standing; • where the vehicle is being used to provide a local service (defined in the Road Traffic (Northern Ireland) Order 1995, but usually a scheduled service available to the general public) which operates wholly within a built-up area (defined as having a speed limit of 30 mph or less). Some local services may be partly outside built-up areas and there is no exemption on these services at any point in their journeys; and • children aged less than 3 years old, although a child seat must be used if they are travelling in a front seat.

If standing passengers are not allowed and seat belts are fitted, the exceptions to the rule of wearing a seat belt when it is fitted are limited. This Code recommends even where there are exceptions passengers wear the seat belts provided.

Seat Belt Wearing in Buses and Coaches – for those passengers aged 3–13 years

The primary duty to ensure that bus and coach passengers aged 3 – 13 years wear a belt, (where one is fitted), rests with the adults who are travelling with them.

When there are no accompanying adults present, Operators have a responsibility to take ‘reasonable steps’ to ensure that seat belts are worn by passengers aged from 3 to 13 years. For those aged below 3 years, there is no requirement for them to be belted (although good practice is to use child restraint systems that work safely with the equipment already fitted on the bus/coach), and for those above 13 years it is the responsibility of the individual passenger.

This document aims to set out some ‘best practices’ that Operators could implement to be able to demonstrate that they are taking those ‘reasonable steps’. It also suggests how operators can work with any accompanying adults present to help them fulfil their duties. This document is not intended to be a prescriptive list; it is possible that other solutions may fulfil the obligation to take ‘reasonable steps’.

The ‘reasonable steps’ that may be taken may vary depending on the type of service that is being operated.

Driver Responsibilities Action Reasonable Steps Notify passengers of There is a legal obligation to do this under Article 24A of the Road need to wear seat belt Traffic (NI) Order 1995. It may be done by way of: • Official announcement made by the driver, conductor or group leader in relation to any group of persons who are passengers on the vehicle; • Audio-visual presentation; or • A sign prominently displayed at each passenger seat equipped with a seat belt

Additional steps could also be taken e.g. driver verbally notifying passengers as they board, or by using a number of the above steps Check that passengers Before pulling away drivers should make a visual check to ensure that are seated all passengers appear to be seated. Best practice would be to ensure where possible, that mirrors are so arranged as to enable this check to be carried out, where not all seats are visible directly from the driver’s seat. If CCTV is fitted, this may be helpful. Check for seat belt For journeys with a single pick up (or low number) the driver should wearing walk down the aisle of the vehicle at least once to check that all the passengers between 3 and 13 are wearing a seat belt. Procedure for dealing There should be a documented procedure for what a driver should with non-wearing of seat do if it becomes clear that children are not wearing seat belts – for belts example, by observing standing children in their rear-view mirror. This procedure would include: • Stopping in safe location if the bus is in motion; and • Dealing with non-cooperative children, including making contact with responsible adults; DO NOT • Remove the child from the vehicle for failing to wear a seat belt; or • Intervene physically in any way. Discussion with In many cases there will be an ‘accompanying adult’ with groups of Accompanying children. They have a duty to take reasonable steps to ensure that Adult/Group Leader seat belts are worn. Drivers can help then to carry out this function, for example, by checking from time to time in mirrors and on CCTV.

The ‘accompanying adult’ should be made aware that they are responsible for ensuring that children in their care wear seat belts. It is good practice for drivers and Group Leaders to have a discussion and agree who will do what. Driver Training Drivers involved in the practical application of the reasonable steps should be trained on how to do this. Company Policy Company policy documents should detail the ‘Reasonable Steps’ that should be taken – including particular responsibilities that drivers have. There should be a link to disciplinary procedures within the company where procedures are not followed. The requirement to wear a seat belt should also be included in the company’s ‘Conditions of Carriage’

Company – Additional Steps

Type of Service Additional Steps Home to School Transport Ask the school or college to inform their pupils of the requirement to wear a seat belt.

Ask the school or college to provide a named contact who can be notified about persistent offenders

Report persistent offenders to the school or college

With the agreement of the school or college, withdraw transport for persistent offenders for a short period of time eg a week. Long distance bus/coach services, (1) Driver to walk down the aisle of the excursions or tours where: vehicle, to check at least once during the (1) unaccompanied (3-13 yr olds) are on journey that all passengers are wearing board; or seat belts provided

(2) accompanied (3-13 yr olds) are on (2) Operator to inform designated board. ‘accompanying adult’ (where relevant) of the requirement to wear seat belts, and of their responsibilities in this matter.

Driver and ‘accompanying adult’ should agree roles and responsibilities before setting off on the journey Other Services (unless one of the Check that passengers are seated before exemptions applies) departure.

Where possible, driver should notify passengers by way of a verbal announcement.

If vehicle has an on-board visual display unit, a notice should be included in this display.

Stickers with seat belt symbol, to be placed at each seat where a seat belt is fitted

Company Dos and Don’ts Do Don’ts • Make arrangements with schools and colleges to deal • Force a child to wear their with persistent offenders seat belt • Inform passengers of the requirement to wear seat • Ask the child to leave the belts vehicle • Ask passengers to wear their seat belt, should they fail to fasten it • Walk down the aisle of the vehicle to check that all passengers are wearing seat belts where it is feasible to do so • If a child refuses to fasten their seat belt, report the matter to the named school contact or ‘accompanying adult’ Enforcement

DVA will be responsible for much of the enforcement of operators’ responsibilities for seat belts. This will be done partly by the checking of an operator’s systems (alongside those for vehicle maintenance, punctuality etc). There may also be some intelligence-led vehicle spot checks.

The police also can enforce offences related to seat belt wearing, including in buses and coaches.

Offence

Operators who fail to take reasonable steps to ensure passengers are notified, as set out above, are guilty of an offence. Where the offence is committed by a body corporate with the consent or neglect of an officer of the body corporate, then both are guilty of the offence. Consequential amendments to the Road Traffic Offenders Order make the offence punishable on summary conviction with a maximum fine at level 2 on the standard scale.

Obligations Who may take action Possible actions Operator to take reasonable DVA – Enforcement Team Issue Compliance Notice steps to ensure that seat Issue Fixed Penalty belts are worn Court Appeal Driver to ensure, as far as DVA – Enforcement Team Follow-up with Operator possible, that passengers Police Follow-up with Operator are wearing their seat belts Operator Disciplinary action could be taken against employee Passengers must fasten seat Police Prosecution: belt − 14 + year olds − Accompanying adult Operator Persistent offenders barred from travelling on the vehicle for a short period of time

Annex B DRAFT Adult supervising a group of children (Accompanying Adult) Code of Practice Seat Belt Wearing in Buses and Coaches

Seat Belt Law - Buses and Coaches

Passengers aged 14 or over are responsible for wearing a seat belt

Children

Seat belts need to be worn by both adults and children.

Drivers of minibuses, like drivers of cars, are responsible for ensuring children under the age of 14 use the appropriate restraint. If not they are liable for prosecution.

The police enforce seat belt wearing laws for all occupants of vehicles. Passengers over 14 are liable for not wearing seat belts in minibuses, but drivers face action over unsecured passengers, aged 3 to 13 years.

For buses and coaches adults accompanying children will be liable for prosecution if they do not take reasonable steps to ensure children under the age of 14 use seat belts where they are provided. Where there are no accompanying adults, drivers are required to take reasonable steps. Accompanying adults are liable to prosecution if reasonable steps are not taken.

Reasonable Steps for an Accompanying Adult

Discussion with Operator It is good practice for an ‘accompanying adult’ and driver to have a discussion and agree who will do what.

Drivers can help, for example by checking from time to time in mirrors and on CCTV, and supporting the accompanying adult to take all reasonable before and during the ‘outing’. Check for seat belt wearing The ‘accompanying adult’ should walk down the aisle of the bus/coach at least once to check that all the passengers between 3 and 13 are wearing a seat belt. Notify passengers of need to wear a seat The ‘accompanying adult’ should be aware that belt they are responsible for ensuring that children in their care wear seat belts.

It is good practice for the ‘accompanying adult’ and driver to agree in advance, who will do what.

The ‘accompanying adult’ should make an announcement before departure reminding the group of the need to wear seat belts. Procedure for dealing with non-wearing of The organisation represented by the seat belts ‘accompanying adult’ should develop a documented procedure detailing what the ‘accompanying adult’ should do if it becomes clear that children are not wearing seat belts. This procedure might include: • Asking the driver to stop in safe location; and • Deal with non-cooperative children, including making contact with parent; DO NOT • Remove the child from the vehicle for failing to wear a seat belt; or • Intervene physically in any way.

Annex C Response Form

Use of Seat Belts by Child Passengers aged 3-13 years on Buses and Coaches (final phase of DIRECTIVE 2003/20/EC)

When responding, please indicate whether you are responding on behalf of an organisation. Please make it clear who the organisation represents, and where applicable, how the views of members were assembled.

Name ______Organisation______

If answering on behalf of an organisation how were the views of members assembled.

Proposal for Operators

Question 1: Do you agree with the proposal to require operators to take reasonable steps to ensure that children aged 3 to 13 travelling without an adult wear their seat belts? (If appropriate, please provide details of any issues with which you disagree).

Question 2. If you do not agree, do you have any alternative proposals?

Question 3 Do you have any comments on the draft Code of Practice?

Proposal for ‘Accompanying adults’

Question 5: If you do not agree, do you have any alternative proposals?

Question 6: Do you have any comments on the draft Code of Practice for accompanying adults?

Return completed form to: Pauline Moore or Maura Magee, Road User Behaviours Policy & Legislation Branch, Road Safety & Vehicle Regulation Division, Department of the Environment, Clarence Court, 10-18 Adelaide Street, TOWN PARKS, Belfast, BT2 8GB Annex D

List of Consultees

1. Action on Elder Abuse Northern Ireland

2. Action on Hearing Loss

3. Age NI

4. Alliance Party of Northern Ireland

5. An Munia Tober

6. Autism NI

7. Bahai Council for NI

8. Barnardos NI

9. Belfast Butterfly Club

10. Belfast Health Trust

11. Belfast Hebrew Congregation

12. Belfast Islamic Centre

13. Bishop of Down and Connor

14. Boys Brigade (NI)

15. British Deaf Association (NI)

16. Bryson Charitable Group

17. Bryson Inter-Cultural

18. Bus Forum

19. Bus Operators across NI

20. Carafriend

21. Carers Northern Ireland

22. Catholic Boys Brigade

23. Children’s Law Centre

24. Chinese Welfare Association

25. Chrysalis Women’s Centre

26. CO3 Chief Officers 3rd Sector

27. Coiste-na n-iarchimi

28. Commissioner for Older People

29. Committee on the Administration of Justice Ltd

30. Communication Access

31. Community Development and Health Network (NI)

32. Community Places

33. Community Relations Council

34. Community Transport Association for (NI)

35. Consumer Council

36. Cruse Bereavement Care (NI)

37. Democratic Unionist Party

38. Derry Well Woman

39. Disability Action

40. District Councils

41. Down & Connor Youth Commission

42. Down’s Syndrome Association

43. Education Authority – Belfast Region

44. Education Authority – North Eastern Region

45. Education Authority - Southern Region

46. Education Authority – Western Region

47. Employers for Disability NI

48. Equality Coalition c/o CAJ

49. Equality Commission for NI

50. Falls Community Council

51. Falls Women’s Centre

52. Family Planning Association NI

53. Federation of Passenger Transport NI

54. Focus: The Identity Trust

55. Foyle Women’s Information Network

56. Freight Transport Association

57. Gaelige Athletic Association

58. Gingerbread NI

59. Girls Brigade( NI)

60. Girl Guides Ulster

61. Government Departments

62. Grand Orange Lodge of Ireland

63. Green Party

64. Inclusive Mobility & Transport Advisory Committee (IMTAC)

65. Indian Community Centre

66. Institute of Directors

67. Irish Congress Of Trade Unions – NI Committee (ICTUNI)

68. Irish Football Association

69. Law Centre (NI)

70. Licensed NI Bus Operators

71. Local Government Staff Commission for NI (LGSC)

72. Magherafelt Women’s Group

73. MENCAP

74. Methodist Church in Ireland

75. MOD Police

76. National Autistic Society Northern Ireland

77. Northern Health Trust

78. National Society for Prevention of Cruelty to Children

79. Northern Ireland Commissioner for Children and Young People

80. NI Council for Voluntary Action (NICVA)

81. Northern Ireland Grammar Schools

82. NI Human Rights Commission

83. Northern Ireland Independent Schools

84. Northern Ireland Primary Schools

85. Northern Ireland Rural Development Council

86. Northern Ireland Rural Women’s Network

87. Northern Ireland Secondary Schools

88. NI Women’s Aid Federation

89. NIPSA

90. NI Association for Mental Health (Niamh)

91. Northern Ireland Association for the Care and Resettlement of Offenders (NIACRO)

92. Northern Ireland Council for Ethnic Minorities

93. Parents Education Autism Therapists - PEAT (NI)

94. Parenting NI

95. POBAL

96. Polish Association Northern Ireland

97. Presbyterian Church in Ireland

98. Progressive Unionist Party

99. PSNI

100. Royal National Institute of Blind People (NI)

101. Rural Community Network

102. Rural Support

103. Save the Children

104. Scouts NI

105. SDLP

106. SENSE NI

107. Sinn Fein

108. Southern Health Trust

109. South Tyrone Empowerment Programme (STEP)

110. The Cedar Foundation

111. The Guide Dogs for the Blind Association

112. The Rainbow Project

113. The Senior Citizens Consortium Sperrin Lakeland

114. The Trans Forum

115. The Women’s Centre

116. Training for Women Network Ltd

117. Translink

118. Ulster Unionist Party

119. ULTACH

120. UNISON Northern Ireland

121. Volunteer Now

122. Western Health Trust

123. Women’s Forum Northern Ireland

124. Women’s Resource and Development Agency

125. Women’s Support Network

126. Workers Party

127. Ulster Farmers Union

128. Youthnet

ANNEX E Statutory/Regulatory Assessments

Under Section 75 of the Northern Ireland Act 1988 the Department is required to have due regard to the need to promote equality of opportunity:

• Between persons of different religious belief, political opinion, racial group, age marital status or sexual orientation; • Between men and women generally; • Between persons with a disability and persons without; and • Between persons with dependants and persons without.

In addition, without prejudice to its obligations above, the Department is also required, in carrying out its functions relating to Northern Ireland, to have regard to the desirability of promoting good relations between persons of different religious beliefs, political opinions or racial group.

We have carried out an equality screening exercise for this proposed policy and found that it does not have significant equality impacts. A full Equality Impact Assessment, therefore, is not required.

A Regulatory Impact Assessment was also completed for this policy.

ITEM 9.4.

Ards and North Down Borough Council

Council/Committee Council

Date of Meeting 17 December 2015

Responsible Officer Director of Regeneration and Planning

Responsible Head of Head of Economic Development and Tourism Service

Date of Report 10 December 2015

File Reference 160082

Legislation

Section 75 Compliant Yes No Not Applicable X

Subject Response to Consultation on the Proposed Amendment to the Strangford Lough Ferry Service Timetable Attachments Appendix 1: Survey Comments

Background

TransportNI is considering an amendment to the Strangford Lough Ferry Service timetable to provide an additional early morning sailing from Portaferry on weekday mornings and has issued a public consultation which opened on 5 October with a closing date of 11 December 2015. While the public consultation period will end on 11 December 2015, a response from Ards and North Down Borough Council will be accepted if submitted on 18 December 2015.

Over recent years TransportNI has received several requests for a permanent early morning sailing from Portaferry. The first sailing from Portaferry on weekdays is at 07.45 and is generally at full vehicle capacity. Since 2011, an additional sailing at 07.15 from Portaferry has been provided during the annual refit of the MV Portaferry II. During the refit the smaller ferry, the MV Strangford, is in service and does not have the capacity to cope with the demand for the normal first sailing at 07.45. The early sailing is welcomed by many commuters from Portaferry who either have to travel by road to get to work on time or get to work later than they would prefer.

Passenger count records show that, on weekdays, the early morning demand exceeds the demand for the last sailings in the evening. In response to this demand and requests from the public and public representatives, TransportNI has decided to explore the possibility of making the early sailing permanent.

Constraints  An extension of the ferry operating hours would result in an increase in operating costs and would require significant changes to the terms and ITEM

conditions of employment of the ferry crews. It has therefore been decided that an additional early sailing would have to be offset by cutting back the timetable somewhere else.

 To comply with legislation on noise nuisance during specified hours at night, it will not be possible to provide an earlier sailing from Strangford.

Proposed Timetable Change The proposed change is to introduce a sailing from Portaferry at 07.20 on weekdays all year round. This would be offset by dropping the last two sailings in the evening (Sunday to Friday) from 1 October to 31 March. From 1 April to 30 September the existing evening sailings will be unchanged. Over the course of the year, the total number of sailings offered by the ferry service will be the same.

Proposed Response

The Ferry is a significant attractor for the area and any reduction in its service may be detrimental as to why a visitor would chose to visit or stay in the area, as it likely to play an integral part in their visit (either for the ferry experience itself or for the practical logistics of arriving/leaving the village).

Council welcomes the proposed addition of an earlier sailing and recognises that this would likely be very beneficial to the local community for daily commute purposes.

However, a reduction in the evening service has the potential to negatively impact any development of the local night time economy and it may put operational restrictions upon any planned events within the village/s and restrict tourism in the destination.

Tourism and visits to the area continue throughout the year and no longer cease in September, as activities and events expand. 2016 will see the reopening of Exploris and the newly Portico facility with an enhanced programme of activities some of which may occur in the evenings throughout the year. These destinations will offer a strong selling point for the area but need to be accessible at times that allow for visitors to enjoy an evening without having to cut short or leave prematurely.

The current last boat at 22.30 from Strangford and 22.45 from Portaferry already reduces options; a final departure of 22.00 will effectively curtail the evening offering in this area (on either side of the Lough) as most visitors would have to finish their meal or drink at 9.30 / 09.45pm to catch a ferry. This would be bound to influence decisions to visit and frequent establishments in the area and could therefore have a negative impact on the economy. To move the last crossing to 22:00 could be a deciding factor in not visiting and indeed staying on the peninsula at all.

To help inform a response Newry Mourne and Down District Council conducted a survey of ferry passengers on 25 November 2015, which was supported by Ards and North Down Borough Council.

The Survey Results which can be summarised below: ITEM

Survey Results

Q1. Type of User

Q1. Do you usually use the ferry for: Work Business Leisure Educational / Schooling Purposes 57 34 55 19

There were 127 respondents to the survey carried out over one weekday and one weekend morning.

Of the 127 surveys received the greatest number indicated that work was the main purpose for using the ferry with 57.

55 respondents used the ferry for leisure purposes, 34 for business purposes and 19 for educational / schooling purposes.

(Many of the respondents ticked more than one purpose for using the ferry.)

Q2. Do you agree with the additional early sailing ie 0720 on week days all year round?

Of the 127 respondents to the survey, 120 answered Q2 .

Yes No 106 14

Of the 120 respondents 106 agreed with the additional early sailing accounting for 88.3% of the total.

The remaining 14 respondents did not agree with it.

Q3. Do you agree that this extra sailing is resulting in the dropping of the last 2 sailings in the evening (Sunday – Friday) from 1st October to 31st March each year?

Yes No 49 66

ITEM

More people (66) 57.4%, disagreed with the statement than agreed with it (49) 42.6%.

Q4. Does the proposal to cut the last two evening sailings affect you?

Of the 127 surveys received, 125 responded to Question 4

Yes No 62 63

63 (50.4%) of the respondents stated they were not affected by the cuts while 62 (49.6%) respondents said they were directly affected by the cuts.

Of the 62 affected many stated that the cutting of the last 2 sailings would adversely affect their social activities while many more said that it would limit their time spent with families.

Many respondents did not make additional comments.

Any comments made during the survey have been recorded in Appendix 1.

ITEM

Council would agree also with the comments that other groups in the area, such as Strangford Lough and Lecale Partnership, have raised and which are reflected below:

‘There is also an issue for people on the peninsula who already have limited access to facilities due to their geographic location and will find that it is impossible to participate in community and social events scheduled throughout the week through the area e.g. evening classes or events in Downpatrick will be out of the question for people from the peninsula unless they end before 09.30pm. This would increase rural isolation and reduces people’s opportunity and quality of life and there may also be an issue relevant to emergency services.

It is understandable that to accommodate the early morning sailings there is a need to offset the costs in another area.

We are aware that the collective recommendation from the community in Portaferry has been to consider cutting services during the daytime in the winter instead dropping the last two sailings. This could be achieved possibly between the shifts of workers for example – service from 7.20 am – 2 pm, shift dropped between 2-3 pm, and starting again at 3 pm – 10.45 pm Sunday to Thursday with Friday and Saturday to 11.15 pm’.

While the need for efficiencies and savings is understood, Ards and North Down Borough Council requests that the above points are fully considered so that the early morning sailing is retained and that no decision to reduce last sailings is taken but instead other options on cost savings, such as suggested above, are considered.

RECOMMENDATION

It is recommended that Council approves the proposed response to the Consultation for submission on 18 December 2015.

ITEM

APPENDIX 1

Comments on how the changes to the Ferry timetable will affect users:

COMMENTS FROM FERRY QUESTIONNAIRE Distributed November 2015

It affects every facet of my day to day life, from work, leisure, family etc. There should be no reason that those who wish to travel between Portaferry and Strangford should receive a substandard service in terms of operating hours. The service as it is currently is below par, so by reducing the evening sailings is absurd. To have the early morning sailing is plain common sense, so to add it to the proposal as if it a new initiative is particularly humorous as this is what many travelling to Strangford have needed for some time. During the current early sailing that is in use during the refit of the larger vessel, this service is particularly busy, i.e. there is a need! By reducing the later sailings in the evening, this does a disservice to those who potentially wish to avail of the beautiful setting which Portaferry is located and to add to the economy within the ‘Destination Strangford Lough’ which NMDDC and ANDBC have promoted so prominently.

I am part of a sports team. Dropping of the last sailings could leave return journeys extremely rushed with increased chances of missing the ferry.

Every Autumn the ferry goes for service for at least 6 weeks. This year ferry has been docked for three weeks and to date no work has commenced. The smaller ferry takes less cars and unless you are queuing 15 minutes earlier than usual time you don’t get on that sailing, this results in arriving late for work. It is unacceptable that the public should be inconvenienced every autumn for 6-8 weeks when you consider how expensive it is to travel on the ferry.

Unable to continue attending traditional music sessions each week.

10 o’clock is much too early for last ferry. If visiting friends or out for a meal you much leave early to get last ferry.

A toll bridge would be good.

Socially. We like to go to the Cuan and the Lobster Pot at least 5 times per year.

As a resident of Portaferry, being ‘cut off’ from access to Downpatrick and further afield. Also work events will be restricted as I need the ferry for work.

Sometimes I would travel to Strangford for a meal on a Saturday and if the weekend sailings are cancelled this would make it very inconvenient.

Does not suit our finish time in evening.

I socialise on the Portaferry side and play traditional music sessions. I use the last ferry regularly. Public transport is not for profit it is a hub of social interaction. ITEM

Unhelpful for my business. Cancel ferry from 1.45 – 3.00 thus shortening shift and saving hours.

Family ill and palliative care for them – this limits my ability to travel and limits time with family as I live in Downpatrick and family live in Kircubbin. It would be advantageous to not solely to top up smart card by £50/time but to have £10, £20 top ups also.

Can’t get home from work ..... my shift ends at 10.30 on Sunday & Friday.

Usually get one of last boats to Portaferry 5 nights a week. I work in Drogheda.

We are frequently attending school evening fundraisers and sailing club events which would mean we would have to take a 80 minute car journey to get home to Portaferry if the early evening sailings were cancelled.

Sometimes I have matches and might be home late.

I have elderly parents on the other side and i need to be over as quick as possible when they need me. Last thing I need is less boat journeys. In my opinion there should be more boat journeys – the boat is meant to be a service which should be available – many passengers or none!!!

Would be back at time it would be off.

Socialising with work colleagues. My partner attends a regular traditional music session every Tuesday night, and this would make it not worth his while to go (and spend money in Portaferry). My partner’s father also uses the boat to play table tennis in the Lecale League and would miss matches to be forced to drive around to Portaferry as a consequence. There is no gain for Strangford residents – only the loss of a ferry which I would regularly use.

Socially when I am visiting Portaferry, I have to leave earlier in evening.

Inconvenience, would have to travel around road after spending leisure time in Portaferry or if business was late. A bridge producing hydroelectric power would solve all these problems.

Portaferry is currently undergoing extensive regeneration – inc the reopening of Exploris, new tenants at Portaferry Hotel, new arts centre PORTICO, the Narrows Social etc curtailing ferry options in evening will not help regeneration! (nor allow me to travel back from work in evenings!)

Some evenings work late.

I am not a regular user of the ferry and therefore any changes will not affect me.

ITEM

Have to go around the road – work.

Don’t always know when I finish work.

Build a bridge.

Car tickets are very expensive - £50 for 20 journeys is extreme. A drop in price is needed.

Any compromise on the cost of tickets? Think the cost of car tickets is excessive to say the least!

Visiting family on christmas day is a hard one as have to do the over 1 hr journey around the road. Doesn’t affect me really as Strangford side. I need the 8 am boat. I recently go married and family live in Ballygalget it custs of the time in which you can leave when you have to get to boat. I also work 3 days a week in Ballygalget PS so for example christmas concerts are on – the last sailing at 10.15 may mean a trip around the road. I think that a bridge being would solve all the problems; it would open a lot of opportunity for Portaferry and the surrounding areas – also the boat is way to expensive!!! – maybe a loyalty card offer so many journeys. Please listen to the PEOPLE!!! No boat xmas day – has this ever been given a trial run?? Even a morning sailing and evening – think of the people.

Needs to be even earlier. Terrible idea! Very much! Returning for my work and leisure activities The Ferry needs to operate earlier and later, essential to the area for work/business/leisure

I will be unable to use the ferry to return home after a night out, training for my sport, journeys from the south. Cinema outings. Portaferry is a dying town and needs to be supported not cut off further from facilities.

Removal of last sailing will probably affect many people in Portaferry who use the crossing for accessing entertainment eg cinema & bingo in Downpatrick & also youth sports teams.

Work and social engagements.

School events and visiting friends, relatives at night. I feel Portaferry has suffered enough and to cut ferry sailings at all, just enforces lack of investment in the area.

As it stands it is difficult enough to attend/organise events outside Portaferry. This will only increase the inconvenience. ITEM

I have friends in Portaferry and would use the last boat home.

Need to get home after work from the Strangford side. I often need the last sailing to get home from work at the Strangford side. Any decrease in the service would add significatnt cost to my business due to the forty mile trip home if I miss the last boat.

Late journeys home from Dublin.

Delivery driver. Only use service occasionally. This doesn’t affect my use of service so no comment.

I am involved with Portico concert venue in Portaferry and we plan to have cinema showings on Thursday nights & concerts on Friday evenings over the period 1st October to 31st March. So people would have to leave early to catch ferry.

Like to socialise in Strangford and Downpatrick.

We like to socialise in Strangford so its making us miss out. Strangford does well with customers from Portaferry. Strangford and Portaferry suffer.

Getting stuck with no way back home.

I attend meetings where I need use of ferry late evenings.

I get stuck and have no way home. This is how it affects me.

Service is adequate and reliable – the proposed changes will streamline the system and earlier sailing is a good idea.

Will have to rush to finish meal.

Not regularly. From time to time we would travel down to dine at the Cuan in Strangford and travel back on the last ferry to Portaferry.

Not regularly.

All family live in Portaferry so it will cut down the time I may spend with them.

Can’t stay late visiting elderly parents.

Family and work across the water.

Evening travels affect me as i will have to add extra hour journey home. ITEM

Travelling to essential meetings. Because I need this ferry to get home from meetings in Portaferry. This will effect myself and others going to and getting home from essential Addiction Recovery Meetings.

Getting home reason.

Family living on other side.

No way of getting home.

Unable to continue attending traditional music sessions each week.

Family commitments. Attendance to school events/meetings. Attendance at family commitments.

Attendance at school events/meetings. Attendance at leisure & sporting events.

Missing last sailing from Strangford means driving from Downpatrick – Newtownards – Portaferry.

I will now have to drive 75km taking me 1.5 hours, when in Strangford after 10pm.

Because it means an earlier start of the ferry engines in the morning meaning more disturbing of the peace early morning. WHAT TIME will the engines now start at. Due to environmental noise regs it cannot be before 7.00a.m. This needs to be confirmed by council BEFORE any meaningful decision can be made The information provided for consultation omits any details on what time the ferry noise will start in the mornings. As this would be a year round change (EVERY DAY 365 days a year) there has to be some detail given on this.

Unclassified

ITEM 12

Ards and North Down Borough Council

Report Classification Unclassified

Council/Committee Council Meeting

Date of Meeting 17 December 2015

Responsible Director Director of Organisational Development and Administration

Responsible Head of Head of Administration Service

Date of Report 03 December 2015

File Reference CEV 3

Legislation

Section 75 Compliant Yes ☒ No ☐ Not Applicable ☐

Subject United Nations Association NI - Event to Mark 70th Anniversary of Formation of United Nations

Attachments

Members may recall that, on the request of the United Nations Association (UNA) NI, the Council, at its meeting in September 2015, agreed to host an event to mark the 70th Anniversary of the formation of the United Nations. UNA NI aimed to encourage all 11 new Councils to host events which would reflect on the work of the United Nations and also enable networking between local schools and civic representatives on UN related themes.

Discussions have since taken place with the Chairperson of the UNA NI about the most effective format of such an event which would best meet UNA’s aims. UNA has identified local schools which are UN ambassadors or have taken part in international initiatives and it is proposed that two pupils and a teacher from each school will present an overview of their work to the Council, its officers and other community stakeholders. These presentations will form the core of a programme which will commence with welcome remarks by the Mayor of Ards and North Down and a short talk from UNA NI representatives. UNA NI will finish by presenting a copy of the United Nations Charter to the Mayor, after which a light lunch will be provided.

Page 1 of 2

Unclassified

The event is scheduled to take place on Thursday, 4 February 2016 from 11am until 1pm and members will receive an invitation in due course.

RECOMMENDATION

It is recommended that members note this date in their diary.

Page 2 of 2

Unclassified

ITEM 13

Ards and North Down Borough Council

Report Classification Unclassified

Council/Committee Council Meeting

Date of Meeting 17 December 2015

Responsible Director Director of Organisational Development and Administration

Responsible Head of Head of Administration Service

Date of Report 07 December 2015

File Reference CEV 2

Legislation N/A

Section 75 Compliant Yes ☐ No ☐ Not Applicable ☐

Subject Her Majesty The Queen's 90th Birthday Celebrations - Lighting of a Beacon

Attachments

Members will recall two motions recently passed by the Council asking that officers consider suitable ways of marking the 90th birthday of Her Majesty The Queen on 21 April 2016.

While officers are not yet in a position to present detailed proposals, the Council’s approval, in principle, is sought at this early stage to light beacons at two locations in the Borough to be confirmed. (The legacy Councils lit beacons in the past to mark landmark dates in the royal calendar, the most recent being to mark the Queen’s Diamond Jubilee in 2012).

An Official “Guide to Taking Part” is to be published by the Pageantmaster’s office at the beginning of January 2016. 220 locations have been confirmed across the United Kingdom as host sites for beacons, including 5 in Northern Ireland. Should the Council wish to be acknowledged in this guide as a participant in the beacon lighting events it must confirm that it intends to do so by 18 December 2015.

As mentioned, consideration will be given to other ways of marking this occasion and a further report will be brought to the relevant Committee in due course.

Page 1 of 2

Unclassified

RECOMMENDATION

It is recommended that the Council agrees, in principle, to light two beacons in the Borough on 21 April 2016 as part of its programme of events to mark Her Majesty The Queen’s 90th Birthday.

Page 2 of 2

ITEM 14

Ards and North Down Borough Council

Council/Committee Council

Date of Meeting 17 December 2015

Responsible Director Director of Community and Wellbeing

Responsible Head of Head of Community and Culture Service

Date of Report 10 December 2015

File Reference 140231

Legislation Click here to enter text.

Section 75 Compliant Yes ☒ No ☐ Not Applicable ☐

Subject Community Suppport Programme : Letter of Variance 2015-2016

Attachments Letter from DSD dated 4th December 2015

The Council was notified in writing on 4th December that the Voluntary and Community Unit (VCU) of the Department of Social Development had secured an additional £0.8m for the Council’s Community Support Programme in 2015/16. The funding would be allocated to each Council on the same basis as the original 2015/16 award. For Ards and North Down Borough Council this would mean an additional award of £36,240.00, which, if accepted must be spent by the 31 March 2016. There is no requirement for Council to match fund the VCU’s additional contribution. This additional award would bring VCU’s contribution to the Council’s total Community Development budget to up from £184,788 to £221,028.65.

The Council has recently engaged with the three Community Networks and a range of communities to complete a comprehensive engagement exercise, to establish how its Community Development Services will be delivered across the Council. Through this exercise a number of work areas have been identified, to include support for volunteering, training, advice and support for the community and voluntary sector.

It is therefore recommended that the Council accepts the additional funding offered by VCU. Given the very tight timescales it would be difficult to advertise a call for and assess, approve and award grants in time for a 31st March spend deadline achieved.

It is recommended that the additional award of £36,240.00 is allocated to provide ongoing advice and support from Council officers (£20,240) and a programme for capacity building and training for community volunteers (£16,000), all of which is deliverable before 31st March 2015. The table below indicates the new recommended spending profile with the additional monies now offered highlighted in red:

Revised CSP 2015-16 Expenditure Profile for: Ards & North Down Borough Council

Area of expenditure Council DSD Total Contribution Contribution Community Support Staff £ £ £ 114,328.00 55,941.90 170,269.90 (includes additional £20,240 now offered) Resource Centres - Council £ Run - Resource Centres - Voluntary £ Run - Community Centres - Council £ £ £ Run 489,800.00 19,906.03 509,706.03 Community Centres - £ Voluntary run - Grants to other voluntary £ £ £ groups 74,400.00 21,034.30 95,434.30 Capacity building and training £ £ with voluntary groups 16,000.00 16,000.00 (Additional resource now offered) Advice organisations - CAB £ £ £ 193,048.00 100,952.00 294,000.00 Advice organisations - Other £ £ £ 21,072.95 7,194.42 28,267.37 Other £ - Total £ £ £ 892,648.95 221,028.65 1,113,677.60

RECOMMENDATION

It is recommended that the Council accepts the additional funding offered by VCU and this funding is allocated to provide on-going advice, support from Council officers and training for community volunteers which can be delivered before 31 March 2016.

Mr. Stephen Reid Voluntary and Community Unit Chief Executive Level 3, The Lighthouse Building Ards and North Down Borough Council Gasworks Business Park Town Hall Ormeau road Belfast BT7 2JB The Castle Telephone: (028) 9082 9416 Bangor Facsimile: (028) 9082 9422 BT20 4BT Email: [email protected]

4th December 2015

Dear Mr. Reid,

Community Support Programme: Letter of Variance - Additional Community Support General 2015-16.

I am pleased to advise you that the Voluntary and Community Unit (VCU) has secured an additional £0.8m for the Community Support Programme in 2015/16, to be allocated on the same basis as the original 2015/16 award.

The funding is in year and must be spent by the 31 March 2016. Councils are not required to match this additional funding which can be used to support areas of expenditure within your overall Community Support Programme taking account of priorities in your area. Additional funding will not be extended into the next financial year.

If you are unable to make use of this additional funding for the purposes outlined, and within the financial year, please alert me by no later than 4th January 2016. This may allow the Department to re-allocate funds to community support provision in other council areas. .

If you have any queries about the purpose of these additional funds or any other query in relation to the Letter of Variance, which is attached, please contact your Programme Manager.

Yours sincerely

Michael Donnelly Head of Voluntary and Community Unit

Voluntary and Community Unit Level 3, The Lighthouse Building Mr. Stephen Reid Gasworks Business Park Chief Executive Ormeau road Belfast BT7 2JB Ards and North Down Borough Council Telephone: (028) 9082 9416 Town Hall Facsimile: (028) 9082 9422 The Castle Email: [email protected]

Bangor BT20 4BT 4th December 2015

Dear Mr. Reid,

Community Support Programme: Letter of Variance for 2015-2016

Revised Approval

The purpose of this letter is to amend the Ards & North Down Borough Council’s Community Support Programme (CSP) Letter of Offer dated 15 April 2015, following the Department’s decision to revise the financial offer by allocating further funding towards general expenditure. This funding is allocated on the same basis as the original 2015-16 awards, using the combined index of population and deprivation. The figure “Additional Community Support General” shows your Councils additional allocation. Accordingly upon your Council’s acceptance of this offer as hereinafter provided, the said Letter of Offer shall be amended and have effect as if:- for third paragraph beginning “The award is as follows “for the words

“Community Support General £83,836.65 Advice Grant £100,952.00 Total CSP Award £184,788.65”

There was substituted the words

“Community Support General £83,836.65 Advice Grant £100,952.00 Additional Community Support General* £36,240.00 Total CSP Award £221,028.65”

*Note: Council is not required to match fund the Additional Community Support General Grant.

Acceptance

This letter is issued in duplicate and accordingly if your council is prepared to accept the variance to the original Letter of Offer and Memorandum of Understanding please return one complete copy of this letter duly signed and dated on behalf of the council.

Failure to return the signed documentation within 28 days from the date of this letter shall result in the revised offer being deemed as withdrawn.

Yours sincerely

Michael Donnelly Head of Voluntary and Community Unit 1. OFFICIAL GRANT ACCEPTANCE

I ______have authority on behalf of (Name of Chief Executive in Block Capitals)

______(Name of Council in Block Capitals)

accept the revised offer of Grant set out in the Letter of Variance dated 4th December 2015 and agree to deliver the above programme on the terms and conditions contained in the Letter of Offer and the Memorandum of Understanding dated 15th April 2015.

______Date______

Signed Chief Executive

Supported by

Organised by

oc governent

Strong • Efficient Cost effective rs t err refor gn e sn isrn Strong • Efficient • Cost effective

Earlier this year, Northern Ireland councils went through the greatest shakeup to their organisation since 1973 and the 11 new ‘super-councils’ have taken on responsibility for a wider range of powers since 1 April 2015. While much of the focus has been in relation to planning, other significant powers have also been transferred across a wide range of policy and delivery functions. The transfer of urban regeneration and community development powers has now been further delayed in line with the overall reform of government departments. Councils are keen to ensure this does go ahead and are pressing for commitment on a date. It remains to be seen what will happen to Councils’ investment, development and regeneration plans in the interim.

Important conference This half day conference will look at the transition process to date and will assess how Councils have performed, individually and collectively. The speaker panel will include those working directly in local government in Northern Ireland, in a variety of roles, as well as external advisors, commentators and visiting experts. Topics under discussion will include:

• A progress report on the implementation of reform • Future opportunities for local government to take on additional powers • Technology as a driver for change • How are new systems and processes operating in practice? • Delivering community planning • Looking towards the preparation of local development plans • Enhancing tourism and local economic development • Regeneration and community development: what next? • Improving citizen services – moving to digital • Upskilling staff / councillors’ code of conduct

This conference will provide an opportunity for all those with a role or interest in local government to come together for discussion and debate. The event will examine in-depth many of the key issues around the transfer of a range of powers to local government, and the associated challenges and opportunities that lie ahead. Now is the time to take a step back and assess how the New powers for local government include: transition to local government has worked in practice – what Local development planning 4 have been the success stories Development control 4 and which areas still require 4 Enforcement work? Certainly in the 4 Nominating buildings for spot-listing planning sphere, 4 Listing buildings of architectural and/or historic interest performance has best been 4 Community development programmes described as ‘mixed’ with 4 Environmental improvement schemes many councils reporting 4 Registration of houses in multiple occupation significant backlogs of 4 Housing unfitness (including repair and demolition notices) 4 Local economic development applications. In addition 4 Enterprise shows to taking on new 4 Youth and female entrepreneurship powers, councils are 4 Social entrepreneurship having to face a 4 Supporting women in business difficult financial 4 Business start-up advice future, in light of the 4 Small scale tourism accommodation development ongoing pressures on 4 Advice to developers on tourism policy public finances – 4 Water recreational facilities whilst this presents a 4 Sports policy (More input for local government in decision-making) challenge in terms 4 Armagh County Museum (to Armagh, Banbridge & Craigavon Council) of service 4 Deliver of rural development programme delivery, it also 4 Donaghadee Harbour (to North Down & Ards) opens up new 4 Off-street parking (excluding park-and-ride facilities) opportunities in terms of finding more efficient ways of working, particularly in relation to the move towards digital services. Thursday 4th February • Lagan Valley Island, Lisburn

09.30 Chairman’s welcome and introduction: Developing and implementing local tourism plans Derek McCallan, Chief Executive, Kieran McCrory, Tourism & Economic NILGA TOURISM Development Manager Implementing local government reform: Fermanagh & Omagh District Council A progress report and looking to the PROGRESS future Local development planning: A key planning OF REFORM Nichola Creagh, Director of Local DEVELOPMENT function PLANS Government Policy Division Lois Jackson, Planning Manager Department of the Environment Lisburn & Castlereagh City Council

Looking ahead to the next phase of Transfer of urban regeneration & community development powers: What’s next? FUTURE OF reform URBAN LOCAL Liam Hannaway, Chief Executive, Newry, REGENERATION Chris Hughes, Director of Urban & Community GOVERNMENT Mourne & Down District Council & Policy, Department for Social Development Chair, Solace (Society of Local Authority Chief Executives) Developing a community plan for Derry & Strabane COMMUNITY PLANNING Oonagh McGillion, Director of Legacy Transforming local services: Improving Derry City & Strabane District Council connectivity with citizens BUSINESS Andrew Grant, Chief Executive TRANSFORMATION Growing an enterprise economy: The role of local Aylesbury Vale District Council ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT government (iESE ‘Council of the Year’) Speaker tbc

Questions & answers / Panel discussion Questions & answers / Panel discussion

11.00 Morning coffee / networking break 13.15 Conference lunch / networking break

Councils now have a much broader range of powers at their disposal for delivering change on the ground where it matters most. They have an enhanced ability to shape local places, meet local needs and priorities, and promote sustainable development.

Mark H.Durkan, MLA, Minister for the Environment, September 2015 See booking form for details of how to register for code of conduct workshop.

14.00 Additional workshop

Exploring the Councillors’ code of conduct

Importance of openness, accountability and good governance in government Tim Gilling, Deputy Executive Director Centre for Public Scrutiny

Good governance in practice: Application of the new Councillors’ Code of Conduct Marie Anderson, Deputy, Northern Ireland Ombudsman & Commissioner for Complaints

Enforcing the Councillors’ code of conduct: Issues arising in Scotland Lorna Johnston, Executive Director Standards Commission for Scotland

Examining the impact of the new code for Councillors Cllr Charlie Casey, Chair, National Association of Councillors, Northern Ireland

Questions & answers / Panel discussion

16.00 Chairman’s summary / conference close

Sponsorship opportunities

• Interesting in profiling goods or services to the local government sector? • Got a project you would like to showcase? Who should attend? • Want to highlight your organisation’s The conference will be of interest to a range of stakeholders capabilities? involved in and impacted by the reform of local There are a limited number of sponsorship opportunities government, across all sectors. These will include: available in association with this important conference which provides an excellent platform to showcase goods • Central government policy-makers and services to a key local government audience. For • Government agencies and NDPBs further information on how your organisation can benefit • Local government officials through association with this conference, contact Sandra Bolan on 028 9261 9933 or email • Elected representatives / local councillors [email protected] • Legal and financial advisors • Telecoms / IT providers • Community representative groups • Voluntary sector service providers Exhibition • Tourism operators There are a small number • Local economic development agencies of high quality exhibition opportunities available in Benefits of attending association with agendaNi’s annual local Delegates attending the conference will: government conference. 3 Hear directly from key individuals at the centre of The exhibition stands will local government reform be located in the networking / refreshment 3 Gain insight into how the reform process has area and offer a great platform for an enhanced presence worked in practice at the conference. Each exhibition will receive a space 3 Discuss opportunities for transfer of additional 3m x 2m (suitable for either a pop up display stand or 2- powers 3 banner stands) and will be provided with a table to 3 Understand the importance of delivering digital display marketing and promotional materials, along with services a power supply. Contact Laura O’Neill on 028 9261 9933 or email [email protected] for further 3 Take an in-depth look at the Councillors’ code of conduct information. Don’t miss this important business development 3 Consider issues including tourism, development plans, community planning, economic development Conference Speakers 1 2 3

4 5

678

1. Derek McCallan is 3. Andrew Grant is Chief 5. Lorna Johnston is 6. Cllr Charlie Casey is 7. Tim Gilling is Deputy Chief Executive of Executive of Aylesbury Executive Director of Chair of the National Executive Director and NILGA, the Northern Vale District Council, the Standards Association of Head of Programmes Ireland Local iESE’s current ‘Council Commission for Councillors Northern (Health and Social Government of the Year’. Scotland, responsible Ireland, which is run by Care) at the Centre for Association, which aims for ensuring the councillors and lobbies Public Scrutiny, a to promote and 4. Lois Jackson has been organisation on their behalf with Westminster based strengthen the local Principal Planner in successfully achieves its local authorities, public policy charity government sector. Lisburn & Castlereagh statutory ministers, government that promotes City Council since April responsibilities and departments and other transparency and 2. Marie Anderson was 2015 and is responsible objectives in respect of relevant bodies. accountability in public appointed Deputy for overseeing the promoting the Codes services. Ombudsman / preparation of the of Conduct and Commissioner for Council’s new Local adjudicating on alleged 8. Liam Hannaway is Complaints in May Development Plan. breaches. Chief Executive of 2009, having previously Newry, Mourne & Down been Assistant District Council and is Information the current chair of Commissioner. Solace, the Society of Local Authority Chief Executives in Northern Ireland. I wish to: How to register Attend the conference only Delegate fee: £175 + VAT @20% = £210 By email [email protected] Discounted local government delegate fee: £150 + VAT @ 20% = £180 Online Attend the conference plus Councillors’ Code of Conduct workshop www.agendaNi.com/events Delegate fee: £210 + VAT @ 20% = £252 By fax +44 (0) 28 9261 9951 Receive details of sponsorship/exhibition opportunities at the conference

Receive details of future agendaNi events By post agendaNi, Davidson House Glenavy Road Business Park, Moira Co.Down, BT67 0LT Personal details (please complete in block capitals) Name (Mr/Mrs/Miss/Ms/Dr): ______By telephone ______+44 (0) 28 9261 9933 Job title: ______Organisation: ______Scan QR code Address: ______Postcode: ______Contact telephone: ______Acknowledgement of Email: ______registration Payment options Confirmation of registration will be emailed to all delegates, following receipt of registration details. If £ I enclose a cheque for ______you have not received your acknowledgement within Payable to ‘bmf Business Services’. 48 hours of registering, please contact Please invoice me Michelle Davidson at agendaNi to confirm your registration. Please debit my Visa / Mastercard / AMEX Email: [email protected] Card number Cancellations / substitutions For those unable to attend, a substitute delegate may be sent at any time for no additional charge. Name of card holder ______Alternatively ______a _refund _ _ will be given for cancellations received in writing, by fax or email, up to 14 Signature ______days_ _ _ _ _ prior_ _ _ _ _ to_ _ _ the_ _ _ _ conference, less an administration charge of 25%. Regrettably no Expiry date ______refunds/cancellations can be made after that date.

CONFERENCE REGISTRATION FORM REGISTRATION CONFERENCE Security code ______

Northern Ireland Water Westland House Old Westland Road Belfast BT14 6TE

Tel: 0345 3006461

10 December 2015 Dear Elected Representative,

Holywood/Kinnegar Sewer Network Improvements Project Important Notice – Work affecting Strathearn Court

I wish to update you regarding the ongoing work on the £4.5 million project to improve the sewerage infrastructure in the Holywood / Kinnegar area, and within Strathearn Court, Holywood.

Work is now complete on laying the new sewer in the grass area parallel to the hard shoulder of the A2. This area has been temporarily soiled over in advance of final preparation and grass seeding in 2016.

There were three sections of tunnelled sewer to be carried out under this contract; two have now been completed. Commencement on the third tunnelled sewer under the A2 has been delayed due to difficulties encountered with crossing the existing high pressure gas main which is located in the hard shoulder of the A2 road, adjacent to the tunnel entry point. NI Water is working with the gas company to resolve these difficulties and allow completion of this tunnel crossing. It is anticipated that work on this third tunnel will commence between January and March 2016 and a further update will be provided when timescales have been agreed.

We have commenced reinstatement work on the turning circle at the bottom of Strathearn Court, which we aim to re-open by Friday 11 December. On completion of the tunnel crossing, we will have to close the turning circle again for approximately 2/3 weeks to allow the removal of the tunnelling machine and also the finishing of the manhole and reinstatement of its surroundings.

We will issue a further update early in the New Year when we are clearer on the timescales for carrying out the tunnelling below the A2.

The delays encountered with the final tunnelled sewer affecting Strathearn Court are not, presently, causing a delay to the planned completion of the overall project, which is still planned for completion in Summer 2016.

NI Water, along with our contractor, Geda Construction, apologises for the ongoing disruption caused and would like to thank the local community for their continued patience and cooperation while we complete this essential improvement work. We will continue to do everything we can to minimise disruption in the area and complete the work as soon as practicably possible.

Northern Ireland Water is a trademark of Northern Ireland Water Limited, incorporated in Northern Ireland, Registered Number NI054463, Registered Office Westland House, Old Westland Road, Belfast BT14 6TE.

I hope you will find this information useful. Should you require additional information, please do not hesitate to contact our Elected Representatives Line on 0345 300 6461, quoting ‘KR480 Holywood/Kinnegar Sewer Improvement Project’. Please bear in mind, however, that this telephone number is intended for use by you and those authorised to contact us on your behalf only. Members of the public should contact us via Waterline by dialling 03457 44 00 88.

Senior Project Sponsor northern ireland water