ARDS AND NORTH DOWN BOROUGH COUNCIL

20 August 2020

Dear Sir/Madam

You are hereby invited to attend a meeting of the Ards and North Down Borough Council which will be held remotely via Zoom on Wednesday, 26 August 2020 commencing at 6.00pm.

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 (Copy to follow)

6. Minutes of Council Meeting held on 22 July 2020 (Copy attached)

7. Minutes of Committees

7.1 Planning Committee dated 4 August 2020 (Copy attached) 7.2 Environment Committee dated 5 August 2020 (Copy attached) 7.3 Regeneration and Development Committee dated 6 August 2020 (Copy attached) 7.4 Corporate Committee dated 11 August 2020 (Copy attached) 7.5 Community and Wellbeing Committee dated 12 August 2020 (Copy to follow) 7.6 Audit Committee dated 17 August 2020 (Copy attached)

8. Updated Standing Orders (Deferred from previous Council Meeting – Report attached)

9. Partnership Panel (Report attached)

10. Arrangements for Council and Committee Meetings (Report attached)

11. PEACE Plus (Report attached)

12. Funding Proposals for the Affordable Warmth Scheme 2020/21 (Report attached)

13. Resolution

13.1. Information Regarding Localised Outbreaks of Covid-19 – Newry, Mourne and Down District Council (Copy correspondence attached)

14. Sealing Documents

15. Transfer of Rights of Burial

16. Notice of Motion Status Report (Report attached)

17. Notices of Motion

17.1 Notice of Motion submitted by Councillor P Smith

That Council notes the negative impact of coronavirus on our education system and in particular the preparation of primary 6 pupils for post primary transfer tests. In this difficult context and to better support pupils and reduce the anxiety associated with the transfer test process, that Council writes to the Minister of Education calling on him to recommend test organisers, AQE Ltd and PPTC engage with primary school principals so that P7 children can take the tests in the safe and familiar environment of their own primary school.

17.2 Notice of Motion submitted by Councillor Cathcart

That this Council supports the reopening of Kingsland Pitch and Putt and requests an Officers report into why the decision was taken not to reopen Kingsland Pitch and Putt in line with the reopening of indoor facilities as outlined in the June Full Council meeting. The report will also outline plans to raise revenue at the facility, to attract visitors and reduce costs to Council. Furthermore, the report will also examine opening the Pitch and Putt beyond July and August as revenue increases.

17.3 Notice of Motion submitted by Councillor Brooks

Following the tremendous success this summer in Donaghadee where local groups volunteered and organised to take responsibility of planters and flowerbeds in the town I would ask officers to put together a co-ordinated programme to support, offer assistance for local communities across the Borough to work with council and invest in their local council maintained green areas where appropriate.

The possibilities to utilise the space and council infrastructure will bring local community groups together, this has been highlighted particularly during lockdown when the social interaction and the ability to enjoy outside spaces became even more precious .

17.4. Notice of Motion submitted by Councillor Gilmour

This council supports the need for greater localised information from the Department of Health regarding localised outbreaks of COVID positive cases in the area. In the wake of the recent clusters in other council areas, had local representatives’ access to more specific information, a downturn in footfall and containment of anxiety in non-affected regions may have been prevented. Therefore, this council calls on the Department of Health to provide DEA specific information or to provide a helpline for Councillors to reduce this from happening 17.5. Notice of Motion submitted by Councillors McRandal and Greer

That this Council take action to establish allotments at Redburn, Holywood by Spring of 2021. The site has been under consideration of Council Officers for some time and action is now required.

This will include engagement with Northern Ireland Environment Agency, with the aim of assuming responsibility for the site on an appropriate licence.

This will also include engagement with Holywood Shared Town and other key stakeholders.

Circulated for Information:

a) Housing Council Bulletin and Minutes (Copy attached)

***IN CONFIDENCE***

18. Minutes of the Strategic Covid19 Recovery Group dated 13 August 2020 (Copy to follow)

19. NCLT/SERCO - Ex Gratia Payment (Report attached) 20. Village Renewal Schemes Update: Portaferry Ropewalk Improvement Scheme, appointment of contract (Report attached) 21. Request from Romas for an outdoor seating area at Mill Street carpark (Report attached)

MEMBERSHIP OF ARDS AND NORTH DOWN BOROUGH COUNCIL

Alderman Carson Councillor S Dunlop Alderman Gibson Councillor Dunne Alderman Girvan Councillor Edmund (DEPUTY MAYOR) Alderman Irvine Councillor Egan Alderman Keery Councillor Gilmour Alderman McDowell Councillor Greer Alderman McIlveen Councillor Kennedy Alderman Menagh Councillor MacArthur Alderman Smith Councillor Mathison Alderman Wilson Councillor McAlpine Councillor Adair Councillor McClean Councillor Armstrong-Cotter Councillor McKee Councillor Blaney Councillor McKimm Councillor Boyle Councillor McNickle Councillor Brooks Councillor McRandal Councillor Cathcart Councillor Smart Councillor Chambers Councillor P Smith Councillor Cooper Councillor T Smith Councillor Cummings (MAYOR) Councillor Thompson Councillor Douglas Councillor Walker

ITEM 6

ARDS AND NORTH DOWN BOROUGH COUNCIL

A meeting of the Ards and North Down Borough Council was held remotely using Zoom on Wednesday, 22 July 2020 commencing at 6.00pm.

PRESENT:

In the Chair: The Mayor (Councillor Cummings)

Aldermen: Carson McDowell Gibson McIlveen Girvan Menagh Irvine Smith Keery Wilson

Councillors: Adair Greer Armstrong-Cotter Kennedy Blaney MacArthur Boyle Mathison Brooks McAlpine Cathcart McClean Councillor McKee Chambers McKimm Douglas McNickle S Dunlop McRandal Dunne Smart Edmund P Smith Egan T Smith Gilmour Thompson

Officers: Chief Executive (S Reid), Director of Organisational Development and Administration (W Swanston), Director of Community and Wellbeing (G Bannister), Director of Finance and Performance (S Christie), Director of Regeneration, Development and Planning (S McCullough), Director of Environment (D Lindsay), Corporate Communications Manager (C Jackson), Democratic Services Manager (J Wilson) and Democratic Services Officers (M McElveen and P Foster)

1. PRAYER

The Mayor (Councillor Cummings) welcomed everyone to the meeting by commencing with a bible reading and then invited the Chief Executive to read the Council prayer.

NOTED.

C.22.07.2020 PM

2. APOLOGIES

An apology was received from Councillor Cooper.

NOTED.

3. DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST

The Mayor asked for any Declarations of Interest and the following were made.

Councillor Greer declared an interest in Item 8.2 – NIHE Draft Older People’s Housing Strategy 2020/21 – 2025/26.

Alderman Irvine declared an interest in Item 18.1 – Matters arising from Strategic Covid-19 Recovery Group meeting on 9 July 2020.

NOTED.

4. MAYOR’S BUSINESS & 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 July 2020.

The Mayor advised Members that Councillor Cooper was unable to attend the Council meeting as he had taken ill and spent some time in hospital. However, he was happy to report that he had since been discharged and he thanked Alderman Menagh for keeping him informed of his progress. On behalf of Members, he would be extending good wishes to Councillor Cooper for his speedy recovery and looked forward to seeing him back to good health in the near future.

Turning to his engagements, the Mayor remarked that it had been a pleasantly busy month comprising Ministerial visits to the Borough and he had been supporting the retail sector which he judged important with shops now reopening. He had also been celebrating with a number of residents who had helped others throughout the lockdown period. He commented that the Secretary of State, Brandon Lewis MP, had an informative day during his visit to Holywood talking to retailers and representatives from the Chamber of Commerce. Minister of State, Robin Walker MP, had visited the Comber Farmers’ Market on its 6th birthday and likewise earlier this day he had had the opportunity to welcome him to the Borough again at Bangor Seafront, as he was interested in learning more about the proposed town centre development projects including the Belfast Region City Deal and the Queens Parade Development .

The Mayor reiterated that many retailers had reopened their stores to the public last month and he had since had the opportunity to meet with the five Chambers of Commerce. He was pleased to observe the vibrancy returning to many of the town centres with both retailers and shoppers adhering to social distancing measures. As

2 C.22.07.2020 PM referred to previously, he had been celebrating with persons who had continued to work during the lockdown and subsequently paid a visit to Clandeboye Care Home to thank them for their hard work. He also deemed it essential to acknowledge the business sector, some of whom had been particularly active undertaking deliveries. One such retailer in Newtownards had taken the initiative to launch a drive in cinema in conjunction with Translink and St John Ambulance with proceeds going to St John Ambulance. He had also called on the food banks in Bangor and Newtownards, which had been providing a crucial service during lockdown.

Lastly, the Mayor drew attention to a specific highlight for the month which was Mrs Maureen Lightbody’s 95th birthday, notwithstanding that she had completed 95 laps for her 95 years in aid of Macmillan Cancer. It had been a very enjoyable day of celebration and he recalled that she was also a poppy recipient last year. He believed members of the public such as Mrs Lightbody were the inspiration of our Borough. It had been a busy and enjoyable month and he was looking forward to the next few weeks visiting other towns throughout the Borough.

RESOLVED, on the proposal of Councillor Douglas, seconded by Councillor Smart that the information be noted.

6. MINUTES OF COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON 24 JUNE 2020

PREVIOUSLY CIRCULATED: - Copy of the above minutes.

Item 12 Page 9 – Recommencement of Waste and Cleansing Services: On a point of accuracy, Councillor MacArthur asked that the wording 'She had discussed the matter with Age NI...too far to travel', be amended to read: ‘She had discussed the anxiety and concern caused by Covid-19 with Age NI and also pointed out that a journey of even 8 miles was too far to travel for many elderly persons and those with health needs'.

On that same item, Councillor Adair made reference to the proposal made by Councillor MacArthur and seconded by Councillor Smart as follows: ‘that this Council proceeds with the reopening of Household Recycling Centres in the Borough as outlined in the report, with the exception of Holywood HRC remaining open to 5pm Thursday – Saturday as per previous reopening arrangements and Newtownards opening at 1pm Monday to Friday. Further that there was a monthly review report of capability for extended opening hours, ensuring the Council met all health and safety and staffing obligations, until normal full opening hours had resumed as soon as possible across the Borough’. He wished to place on record his discontent that there was no such update available that evening. It could be said that no meetings of the Environmental Services Committee had been held but similarly there had been no meetings of the Regeneration and Development Committee and yet urgent reports associated with that Committee were on the agenda for discussion. He emphasised that the HRCs were a huge issue across the Borough and Members had been inundated by constituents desiring an extension in opening hours. It had been unanimously agreed in June that a monthly report would be provided.. The public had accused the Council of dithering in the past over this dilemma and it appeared we were still dithering further. ..

3 C.22.07.2020 PM

Councillor Dunne added that it was now one month since the previous meeting when discussion had centred on some of the restrictions to be lifted in terms of opening the HRCs. Despite that, he was continuing to be contacted by ratepayers from across the Borough regarding the opening hours which in some cases had been reduced by 50%. Therefore, there should be an opportunity to seek an update on the operational aspects of the service. A predominant query was that many people had now returned to work and given that Holywood as an example was only open one day, a Saturday from 9.00am to 5.00pm, that allowed the public limited availability. The facility was obviously utilised more widely during the summer months and would normally be open for longer hours. Considering that people could safely visit shops, hairdressers, coffee shops, restaurants, dentists and gyms which were all indoor resources, in his opinion the Council must start delivering the level of service expected from ratepayers for HRCs which were after all outdoor facilities. .

At this point, the Mayor invited the Director of Environmental Services to furnish Members with a verbal update on the situation.

The Director apologised to Members accepting that he had detailed at the July Council meeting that a monthly report on the HRCs would be brought to the appropriate Committee. However, it had been agreed by the Council that all decisions with regard to services and their financial impact were to be considered by the newly formed Strategic COVID-19 Recovery Group (SCRG) rather than the Standing Committee, in this case Environment. Officers were working on a report about the HRCs and this would be brought to the August meeting of the SCRG as agreed by the Council, he apologised once again for any misunderstanding in this regard.

Alderman Gibson referred to the state of affairs in Ballygowan whereby the local HRC was currently open Monday to Wednesday from 9.00am – 3.00pm each week causing difficulties for the public to utilise. They also had to give two days’ notice of their plans to visit that HRC through a booking. It was causing an element of confusion in that locale and he wondered if that decision could be reversed and could they all be open Monday to Saturday.

Councillor Boyle spoke of the process outlined last month for the centres that were now open in the Borough. He concurred with the comments made by Councillor Adair about the awaited report and evaluation. In that regard, he hoped that the Director was finalising that evaluation report and both usage and time slots would be referred to therein. He maintained that usage may not be accurate in so far as which centre people wanted to use because he had constituents who had travelled to Newtownards with items when they discovered they could not dispose of their waste at their nearest HRC. Hence, attendances would be higher if users could make better use of their local HRC rather than heading to the larger centres.

RESOLVED, on the proposal of Councillor Douglas, seconded by Alderman Gibson, that the minutes as amended be agreed.

7. MINUTES OF COMMITTEES

4 C.22.07.2020 PM

7.1. Planning Committee dated 23 June 2020

PREVIOUSLY CIRCULATED:- Copy of the above minutes.

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

7.2. Planning Committee dated 7 July 2020

PREVIOUSLY CIRCULATED:- Copy of the above minutes.

RESOLVED, on the proposal of Councillor McClean, seconded by Councillor McRandal, that the minutes be adopted.

8. CONSULTATION DOCUMENTS

8.1. ADULT RESTORATIVE JUSTICE STRATEGY (Appendix II)

PREVIOUSLY CIRCULATED:- Correspondence from the Department of Justice detailing its consultation on the Adult Restorative Justice Strategy. It was noted comments were to be submitted by 11 September 2020.

RECOMMENDED that the correspondence be noted.

RESOLVED on the proposal of Councillor Douglas, seconded by Councillor Adair, that the recommendation be adopted.

8.2. NIHE DRAFT OLDER PEOPLE’S HOUSING STRATEGY 202/21 TO 2025/26 (Appendix III)

PREVIOUSLY CIRCULATED:- Correspondence from Northern Ireland Housing Executive detailing its consultation on its Draft Older People’s Housing Strategy for 2020/21 to 2025/26. It was noted comments were to be submitted by 25 September 2020.

RECOMMENDED that the correspondence be noted.

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

8.3. PROPOSAL TO AMEND THE LEGISLATION GOVERNING THE RETENTION OF DNA AND FINGERPRINTS IN NORTHERN IRELAND (Appendix IV)

PREVIOUSLY CIRCULATED:- Correspondence from Department of Justice detailing its consultation on its proposals to amend the Legislation Governing the Retention of DNA and Fingerprints in Northern Ireland. It was noted comments were to be submitted by 28 August 2020.

5 C.22.07.2020 PM

RECOMMENDED that the correspondence be noted.

RESOLVED on the proposal of Alderman Irvine, seconded by Councillor Douglas, that the recommendation be adopted.

9. RESOLUTIONS

9.1. NOTICE OF MOTION FROM DERRY CITY AND STRABANE DISTRICT COUNCIL (Appendix V)

PREVIOUSLY CIRCULATED:- Correspondence dated 10 July 2020 from Derry City & Strabane District Council detailing a motion which had been passed seeking support for an all-Ireland Public Health Strategy.

RECOMMENDED that Members consider the correspondence.

Proposed by Councillor Mathison that the recommendation be adopted, no seconder received.

Proposed by Alderman M Smith, seconded by Councillor P Smith that this Council responds to Derry City and Strabane District Council stating that this Council agrees that coronavirus has been an unprecedented threat to public health and the benefits of a public funded and protected health service has been proven.

The Council would ask that they recognise that our National Health Service is, uniquely on this island, a free at the point of delivery from cradle to grave health service which also benefits immensely from the funding capability of the large UK- wide tax base.

The Council would also ask that they join us in celebrating the success of the NHS and the high regard in which it is held by all communities across Northern Ireland which was exemplified by the Thursday night claps and the ongoing support evidenced by health service murals, banners and window signs and in commending all staff in the Health and Care sectors including the Minister Robin Swann on their efforts throughout this pandemic.

As seconder, Councillor P Smith was of the opinion that the resolution amounted to a publicity seeking action which would normally be noted. However, in this instance he reasoned it necessitated a rebuttal to Derry City and Strabane District Council as it was attempting to generate a political point. He had no wish to compare and contrast with other jurisdictions but as outlined by Alderman M Smith, we were uniquely placed on this island to avail of ‘a free at the point of delivery from cradle to grave health service’. That crucial point should be recognised and submitted back to them. In essence this proposal celebrated our NHS, recognised the staff in the health and care sectors and also exhibited how we in Northern Ireland benefitted from the UK tax base to help fund our health service. The initial letter from Derry and Strabane Council suggested that we should work with our neighbours south of the border. He insisted that we were content to work in partnership when it was mutually beneficial as occurred during the Covid-19 pandemic and we would

6 C.22.07.2020 PM continue to do so. He concluded that we should make our point to them as they had tried to make their point to us.

Councillor Walker mentioned that the recommendation had firstly been proposed by Councillor Mathison and he thought it had been seconded by Alderman Wilson. As such, it should have been discussed before Alderman M Smith’s proposal.

The Mayor underlined that Councillor Mathison’s proposal had not received a seconder, as he did not see Alderman Wilson raising his hand.

RESOLVED on the proposal of Alderman M Smith, seconded by Councillor P Smith that this Council responds to Derry City and Strabane District Council stating that this Council agrees that coronavirus has been an unprecedented threat to public health and the benefits of a public funded and protected health service has been proven.

The Council ask that they recognise that our National Health Service is, uniquely on this island, a free at the point of delivery from cradle to grave health service which also benefits immensely from the funding capability of the large UK-wide tax base.

The Council would also ask that they join us in celebrating the success of the NHS and the high regard in which it is held by all communities across Northern Ireland which was exemplified by the Thursday night claps and the ongoing support evidenced by health service murals, banners and window signs and in commending all staff in the Health and Care sectors including the Minister Robin Swann on their efforts throughout this pandemic.

10. UPDATED STANDING ORDERS REPORT – DEFERRED FROM PREVIOUS COUNCIL MEETING (FILE CX210) (Appendix VI)

PREVIOUSLY CIRCULATED:- Report dated 2 July 2020 from the Chief Executive stating that it had been agreed at the Special Council meeting on 19 March 2020 to revise the Council’s Standing Orders to include a power of delegation that the Chief Executive may exercise in emergency situations to act on behalf of the Council.

The Standing Orders were further amended, under Chief Executive delegated authority on 28 May 2020, to enable the remote attendance of Elected Members, the press and the public at Council and Committee meetings in line with the Local Government (Coronavirus) (Flexibility of District Council Meetings) Regulations.

The full list of amendments made was attached to the report as Appendix 1, and the revised Standing Orders had also been attached at Appendix 2. Note - This report was brought to Council on 24 June 2020 but it was agreed to defer the item for one month on account of technology issues meaning that attachment 2 to the report did not uploaded to Decision Time until the day before the meeting.

RECOMMENDED that Council notes this report.

7 C.22.07.2020 PM

RESOLVED, on the proposal of Councillor Adair as an amendment, seconded by Councillor Gilmour that the recommendation be agreed with the exception of Standing Order 29 and he sought its removal.

The Chief Executive responded by explaining that a request received to remove or amend a Standing Order, if it received a proposer and seconder, would be stood down without discussion until the next meeting of the full Council.

AGREED.

11. BOWLS SEASON TICKET (FILE CW17)

PREVIOUSLY CIRCULATED:- Report dated 26 June 2020 from the Director of Community and Wellbeing outlining on 24 June 2020, Council approved the reopening of outdoor sports facilities from 29 June. Included in the proposal was a return to normal operating hours and fees for sports such as bowls.

In order to facilitate a return to bowls earlier in May (phase 1), users were initially only asked to pay the approved hourly rate which was £3 per rink per hour. Following the announcement that bowls was returning to normal, a number of requests had been received to reintroduce the ‘season ticket’ which allowed holders to play as often as they wished.

However, with around only 50% of the season remaining, officers considered it reasonable to reduce the full season ticket price to 50% as outlined in the table below.

Full 2020 Proposed Price Season Ticket Type Price from 29 June Season Ticket Adult £47.00 £23.00 Season Ticket Concession £40.00 £20.00 Season Ticket Synthetic Adult £52.50 £26.00 Season Ticket Synthetic £46.00 £23.00 Junior/Concession

That new price was implemented from 29 June 2020 and officers now sought retrospective approval for that change.

Those charges applied across all relevant facilities in the Borough, such as those both operated by Council and those operated by the Northern Community Leisure Trust.

RECOMMENDED that Council approves retrospectively the reduced season ticket charges as outlined in this report.

In welcoming the report, Alderman Smith indicated that she had received numerous emails and telephone calls from bowlers. They had remained incredibly patient understanding the requirement for closure but all wanted to know when bowling could recommence. She was gratified that that was permitted from 29 June and the

8 C.22.07.2020 PM cost of the full season ticket price would be reduced by 50%. Moreover, she acknowledged that the bowlers themselves would be wholly appreciative of that fact.

As seconder, Councillor Brooks advised that it was a very fair report.

Councillor Boyle expressed his satisfaction with what he classed as a good report from Officers and he was certain all participants would welcome the fee reduction for the remaining part of the season.

Councillor MacArthur thanked Officers for the work carried out and conveyed that Donaghadee Bowling Club would be enormously happy with the outcome.

Alderman Gibson trusted the reduction was applicable to all bowling greens within the Council’s authority which he wholeheartedly welcomed given the shorter season this year to play bowls.

RESOLVED on the proposal of Alderman M Smith, seconded by Councillor Brooks, that the recommendation be adopted.

12. BALLYWALTER LIME KILN SCHEME – COASTAL COMMUNITES FUNDING UDPATE (FILE 141858) (Appendix VII)

PREVIOULSY CIRCULATED:- Report dated 2 July 2020 from the Director of Regeneration, Development and Planning stating that as previously reported, the Council successfully secured £100,000 of funding from the Coastal Communities Fund (CCF) towards the Ballywalter Lime Kiln Scheme. The fund was managed by Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs (DAERA).

A requirement of the CCF Letter of Offer was that a spend of £40,000 was to be achieved prior to the end of the 2019/20 financial year. The work was contracted to commence in March and the spend would have been achieved. However, due to Covid 19 this had not been possible, and officers had asked the budget to be rolled over to 20/21 financial year. HM Treasury informed the Council that it was not allowing the rollover of unspent funds from 2019/20 to 2020/21. This lack of flexibility left a shortfall of £40,000 towards scheme costs.

A letter was issued on behalf of the Council to express disappointment at the loss of this valuable funding from Coastal Communities due to the pandemic situation and the lack of flexibility that had been afforded.

A reply letter (attached) had now been received which stated that discussions were still ongoing with HM Treasury, however, DAERA had considered the circumstances of the case and potential impact on the project. In order to avoid further delay and risk to completion of the Project, DAERA had agreed to fund the £40,000 potential loss should HM Treasury not provide funding in 2020/21. Therefore, the Ballywalter Lime Kiln Project could now proceed.

The total cost of the Ballywalter Lime Kiln Scheme, including project management and contingency, was circa £248,824. In addition to the £100,000 of funding

9 C.22.07.2020 PM accepted from the CCF, the Rural Development Programme’s (RDP) Village Renewal Scheme was providing funding of up to £116,185, and the Council’s contribution was circa £32,639.

The scheme involved the following works:

▪ The development of a seaside area to include new seating, paving and a picnic area, tree and shrub planting and, for the Lime Kiln: a new glass balustrade, seating and a boardwalk ▪ Interpretation of the Lime Kiln ▪ Restoration work to the Lime Kiln

RECOMMENDED that the Council notes the above funding update and that the Ballywalter Lime Kiln Scheme is now progressing.

Councillor Adair articulated that the above mentioned was an extremely worthwhile scheme which had been on the Council’s agenda for a long time. He had felt disheartened at the withdrawal of community funding but relieved that the Council had received a letter of offer from the Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs. He took the opportunity to thank Michelle McIlveen MLA for raising that key issue with the Department adding that he was now looking forward to the Ballywalter Lime Kiln Scheme being delivered for the benefit of that entire locale.

Alderman Carson stated that he too was thrilled at the news and enquired what works would actually be included within the total of £100,000.

The Director of Regeneration, Development and Planning referred Members to the report and the securing of funding from the Coastal Communities Fund. She was delighted that DAERA had agreed to fund the £40,000 potential loss should HM Treasury not provide funding in 2020/21. She reiterated that the scheme would encompass the development of a seaside area with new seating, paving and a picnic area, planting of trees and shrubs and for the Lime Kiln: a new glass balustrade, seating and a boardwalk. There would also be an interpretation of the Lime Kiln as well as restoration work.

Echoing the sentiments of previous speakers, Councillor Thompson applauded the proposed restoration works. He extended his gratitude to DAERA representatives for agreeing to cover the shortfall. Without doubt it would be a fantastic addition to tourism for the Ards Peninsula and indeed the Borough as a whole.

Councillor Boyle also appreciated the funding which he said would assist in creating a tremendous facility for tourism in the Ards Peninsula. He noted how fortunate the Council was in securing the £100,000 given the precarious financial position of the economy at this present time and he paid tribute to the Director and staff for their endeavours to date. He concurred that it would provide another much needed facility for visitors along the Ards Peninsula and would surely be a wonderful contribution to Ballywalter and further afield.

10 C.22.07.2020 PM

RESOLVED on the proposal of Councillor Adair, seconded by Councillor Edmund, that the recommendation be adopted.

13. PROPOSED NHS FLORAL TRIBUTE (FILE PCA5) (Appendix VIII)

PREVIOUSLY CIRCULATED:- Report dated 9 July 2020 from the Director of Community and Wellbeing stating that on the 27 March 2019 Council agreed a policy for the use of Display Beds in the Borough. This policy required officers to report to Council any applications received by external organisations

The Council had received requests to use its display beds as a floral tribute and thankyou to the NHS. Officers had judged that this met the criteria in the policy and recommend approval by Council.

The proposed design of the displays had been included in the attached appendix. The Parks team would endeavour to replicate the designs as far as possible, however detail design may alter in order to facilitate installation.

RECOMMENDED that Council approves the above NHS display beds in Bangor, Holywood and Newtownards for the summer period.

The recommendation was Proposed by Councillor Douglas , seconded by Councillor Dunne with the additional words ‘and all key workers’ be included under the design presented in the paper.

Speaking to her proposal, Councillor Douglas commented that the design proposed looked lovely and rightly recognised the sterling and critical work of our Health & Social Care staff, which was quite proper given their commitment to caring for those impacted by Covid19 so far. To broaden the display to include ‘and all key workers was to acknowledge all those individuals who had kept society operational, as well as NHS staff, Police Officers, educationalists, sales assistants, fire-fighters, waste disposal operatives, indeed all Council staff who kept services running, postmen and women, and so many others. She believed that would act as a symbolic gesture of our appreciation as a Borough.

In seconding the proposalt, Councillor Dunne considered it a thoroughly reasonable request to simply add in the words ‘key workers’. He highlighted that it was a positive and well deserved act and offering a ‘big thanks’ was the very least we could do. He acknowledged that the three display beds in question were prominent sites within the Borough, much sought after and even entailed waiting lists. He looked forward to work commencing on those displays and coming to fruition.

Councillor Egan was pleased to observe cross party support for the amendment. There was no doubt that the floral arrangements looked wonderful and would be a lovely addition to our Borough. It was important to show our support for the NHS and health care workers for their fantastic work and of course all the key workers who had kept numerous services operating during that difficult time. She was encouraged by what she described as a small Council gesture to demonstrate how thankful we were for their hard work during the pandemic.

11 C.22.07.2020 PM

It was the viewpoint of Councillor Boyle that it was a worthy recommendation as it stood but the proposal improved it immensely. He congratulated the proposer and seconder on putting it forward as we all knew so many people who had undertaken so much during the lockdown period and naming key workers was an endless list. Therefore, he concurred that it was all encompassing and everyone who should be named would be included.

Referring to the proposal, Alderman M Smith supposed that it was to add some form of recognition to other services and thus, she had no desire to take anything away from that. However, her original idea was to mark the special 72nd birthday of our health service as the NHS doctors and nurses had saved so many lives during the pandemic. She had no problem with the inclusion of other key workers as those could be positioned underneath the NHS logo. She further explained that she had approached Officers asking that the 72nd birthday on 5 July of our National Health Service be recognised by the Council. Unfortunately, there was insufficient time to bring this forward to Council as a Notice of Motion so she had no option but to ask how and what Council could do through the Officer team, as well as suggesting that floral beds were part of that tribute. She was of the understanding that within our Borough there were over 12,500 health care staff. They had contributed so much over the past months and their efforts must never be forgotten. Subsequently, as a small gesture of thanks to a service she and many others had had need of, she was delighted that the NHS flower beds would be on display across our towns during the summer period.

Councillor P Smith brought attention to the display bed sited in the square in Comber and wondered why it had not been included with the other three previously cited. He was of the belief that that would be an excellent locale and was hopeful that Officers might deem it feasible.

In a similar vein, Councillor Thompson raised the hope for the Ards Peninsula to be incorporated as there were many persons working for the NHS who lived in that location and residents would wish to support the great service they provided in the form of a floral display.

Offering his full support to the proposal, Alderman Menagh referred to his personal treatment recently received from the NHS staff as being fantastic and he realised how privileged he was that that vital service had been able to continue despite the lockdown.

At this point in the discussion, the Mayor asked the Director of Community and Wellbeing to respond to Members’ queries.

The Director elucidated that the choice of the three sites were primarily due to the location of existing feature display flowerbeds in the three largest population regions within the Borough, rather than excluding Comber. He was mindful that the cost was £500 per bed but Officers would certainly investigate the possibility of including Comber. In terms of the Ards Peninsula, he was unsure if that would be achievable, as he did not know the whereabouts of an established flower bed similar to the others.

12 C.22.07.2020 PM

In response, Councillor Thompson alluded to the community garden sited in Millisle which would lend itself to this occasion and it was well tended by the local residents.

Nonetheless, the Director clarified that it was the intention to utilise established display beds which existed and normally entailed a waiting list as there was only a certain number of sites, as well as a high level of work involved with such a scheme.

Councillor Edmund pointed out that there was a prominent flower bed at the bottom of the Moat Road along the coast road at Ballyhalbert utilised by the Council.

Replying to the earlier remarks of Councillor Thompson, Alderman Carson highlighted that he had visited the community garden only the day before and it was now in a neglected and disgraceful state. He further noticed that the public toilets at the lagoon had also been kicked over.

In raising the dialogue that had been exchanged, Councillor Greer assumed that Councillor Douglas’s proposal had changed the recommendation and the vote would be on that amendment. She now questioned if there was a second amendment and was concerned about the potential additional costs pertaining to the additional beds as that was not in the original proposal.

At the request of the Mayor, Councillor P Smith advised Members that he had only asked that Comber be considered by Officers and it was a hopeful request but not definitive.

Having listened to the debate, Alderman Keery observed that the remarks made thus far were somewhat random and had veered from the recommendation. In May, Alderman M Smith had requested that the birthday of the NHS be recognised by the Council. Now the Covid-19 pandemic was to be included but he contended that that remained an ongoing situation. As a suggestion, that aspect could be further examined later in the year and emphasis should be afforded to the celebration of the NHS’s 72nd birthday on those three sites of Bangor, Holywood and Newtownards.

Councillor Adair concurred with that statement bearing in mind that throughout the Covid-19 lockdown, the Council had been unable to deliver the usual standard of flower beds in villages along the Ards Peninsula and some plants never blossomed. In fact, some members of the community were out planting in those particular areas where they could and Councillors MacArthur and Brooks helped out in Donaghadee. He agreed that Alderman M Smith’s initiative was to mark the occasion of the 72nd birthday of the health service and it was a good idea to do so in the areas outlined in the report A sensible approach for next year post Covid-19 would be to incorporate that in floral displays across the Borough when the Council was fully operational.

Continuing, Councillor McClean stressed that the general consensus amongst Members was to acknowledge the 72nd anniversary of the NHS and their efforts. Alderman M Smith had indicated that she would be content with the mention of key workers. To that end, he perceived that there was no official amendment on the floor if she were to subsume that extra wording into her proposal.

13 C.22.07.2020 PM

Councillor T Smith sought clarification on what Members would be voting for. He was of the opinion that Councillor Douglas wished to retain the 72nd birthday celebration in the displays and merely add in the wording ‘and key workers’.

For the purposes of voting, the Mayor asked Councillor Douglas to clarify the content of her amendment.

Councillor Douglas informed Members that she had contacted the Director of Community and Wellbeing earlier this month, not about the 72nd birthday of the NHS as that had passed but with regard to key workers. Her rationale was that a symbolic gesture of some kind was needed as a means of extending gratitude to all key workers including health and social care workers who had worked tirelessly through the early stages of the pandemic. At this stage, her proposal was to insert ‘and all key workers’ underneath the NHS logo.

The Mayor then sought further clarity from the Chief Executive as to whether or not there was an amendment on the floor.

In response, the Chief Executive said that there was only one proposal on the floor and no amendments. Councillor Douglas had used the language of referring to an amendment but it was actually an Officer’s recommendation to approve the display beds in Bangor, Holywood and Newtownards. Councillor Douglas had proposed the recommendation plus her additional wording ‘and key workers’. He restated that there was only one proposal on the table and underlined that the suggestions of Comber and the Ards Peninsula locations to be included were not amendments but rather comments from Members

Councillor Thompson wished to counter the remarks of Alderman Carson regarding Millisle’s community garden. He asserted that this amenity area was normally well maintained but regretfully, Millisle was suffering bouts of anti-social behaviour. He was aware that the portaloos had been knocked over by persons who were not local to the area and those toilets had since been replaced. The Council’s own anti-social behaviour team was attempting to control those individuals.

On being put to the meeting with 36 voting FOR, 2 voting AGAINST, 1 ABSTAINING and 1 ABSENT, the proposal was declared CARRIED. A recorded vote resulted as follows:

FOR (36) AGAINST (2) ABSTAINING (1) ABSENT (1) Aldermen Aldermen Alderman Councillor Girvan Carson Gibson Cooper Irvine Keery McDowell McIlveen Menagh Smith Wilson Councillors Adair Armstrong-Cotter

14 C.22.07.2020 PM

Blaney Boyle Brooks Cathcart Chambers Cummings Douglas Dunlop Dunne Edmund Egan Gilmour Greer Kennedy MacArthur Mathison McAlpine McClean McKee McKimm McNickle McRandal Smart P Smith T Smith Thompson Walker

RESOLVED on the proposal of Councillor Douglas, seconded by Councillor Dunne, that the recommendation be adopted with the additional words ‘and all key workers’ to be inserted under the NHS logo.

14. SEALING DOCUMENTS

RESOLVED: - (On the proposal of Alderman Irvine, seconded by Councillor Douglas)

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

a) Grant of Right of Burials Nos 13437 – 13477.

15. TRANSFERS OF RIGHTS OF BURIAL

The Chief Executive advised that no transfer applications had been received.

NOTED.

15 C.22.07.2020 PM

16. NOTICE OF MOTION STATUS REPORT (FILE REF CG12172) (Appendix IX)

PREVIOUSLY CIRCULATED:- Report dated 1 July 2020 from the Director of Organisational Development and Administration attaching a Status Report in respect of Notices of Motion.

This was a standing item on the Council agenda each month and its aim was to keep members updated on the outcome of motions. Please note that as each motion was dealt with it would be removed from the report.

RECOMMENDED that the Council notes the report.

RESOLVED on the proposal of Councillor Douglas, seconded by Councillor Greer, that the recommendation be adopted.

17. NOTICES OF MOTION

17.1. Notice of Motion submitted by Councillor McClean

Councillor McClean proposed, seconded by Councillor P Smith, that this Council writes at the earliest opportunity to the Minister for Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs (DAERA), to request the maximum amount payable under a Fixed Penalty Notice in respect of littering and dog fouling offences be increased from the current limit of £80 to £250.And that officers report to Members on the annual cost of Borough cleansing and enforcement in relation to littering and dog fouling offences, with a view to further proposals which may assist in achieving a ‘polluter pays’ principle for the Borough, including but not limited to the possibility of requesting devolving powers for setting Fixed Penalty rates to Councils.

RESOLVED, on the proposal of Councillor McClean, seconded by Councillor P Smith, that notice of motion be referred to the Environment Committee.

17.2. Notice of Motion submitted by Councillor Douglas and Councillor McRandal

Councillor Douglas proposed, seconded by Councillor McRandal that this Council agrees to write to the Department of Agriculture, Environment & Rural Affairs to request a Litter Strategy is drawn up which should include a regional multi-media campaign to tackle litter, including dog fouling, in a bid to deal with the ever increasing public and environmental health issues which littering presents to our society.

RESOLVED, on the proposal of Councillor Douglas, seconded by Councillor McRandal, that notice of motion be referred to the Environment Committee.

Circulated for Information

PREVIOUSLY CIRCULATED:- Undernoted items of correspondence.

16 C.22.07.2020 PM

a) Correspondence from the Moderator of the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church in Ireland b) NILGA Bulletin – July 2020 c) NIAS – Strategy to Transform 2020-2026 d) Elected Representatives Covid-19 Briefing 10 July 2020 e) BHSCT Public Service Plan July – September 2020

RESOLVED on the proposal of Councillor Adair, seconded by Councillor Douglas, that the items Circulated for Information be noted.

ORDER OF BUSINESS

At this stage the Mayor, noted the Agenda recommended that Items 18, 18.1 and 19 should be heard ‘In Committee’, however, the need for as much transparency as possible with regard to the Council’s work on the recovery from Covid-19 had been discussed with the Chair of the Strategic Covid-19 Recovery Group, Councillor Gilmour. Subsequently it had been agreed that as much as possible from those minutes should be discussed in open Council. He added that the Chief Executive agreed with this approach.

At this stage, the Chief Executive explained the elements of the minutes which needed to be taken ‘In Committee, those being Item in 18, 6.1 the last three paragraphs and 6.2.

Councillor Gilmour proposed, seconded by Councillor Douglas, that Items 18 and 18.1, with the exception of the report marked 6.2 and the last three paragraphs of 6.1 in the minutes be heard by the Council before going into ‘Committee’ for 6.2 and the last three paragraphs of 6.1 of Item 18 and Item 19.

RESOLVED, on the proposal of Councillor Gilmour, seconded by Councillor Douglas, that that Items 18 and 18.1, with the exception of the report marked 6.2 and the last three paragraphs of 6.1 in the minutes be heard by the Council before going into ‘Committee’ for 6.2 and the last three paragraphs of 6.1 of Item 18 and Item 19.

18. MINUTES OF MEETING OF COVID RECOVERY GROUP DATED 9 JULY 2020

PREVIOUSLY CIRCULATED:- Copy of the above minutes.

Members were advised that at this stage they would be asked to consider the minutes with the exception of the report marked 6.2 and the last three paragraphs of 6.1 in the minutes

Councillor Gilmour proposed, seconded by Councillor Douglas, that the minutes be adopted.

Councillor Gilmour raised an issue of accuracy stating that Item 6.1 on page 9 stated that she had proposed, and Councillor Douglas seconded and then again on page

17 C.22.07.2020 PM

10 in bold it stated the same. She indicated that she did not believe that she had proposed and instead at that point had asked Councillor P Smith who had just spoken if he was wishing to propose the item. Councillor Douglas was then asked who the next person was who had indicated and whether or not she was seconding which she did. Therefore, the proposal was proposed by Councillor P Smith and seconded by Councillor Douglas.

AGREED.

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

18.1. MATTERS ARISING FROM STRATEGIC COVID-19 RECOVERY GROUP MEETING ON 9 JULY 2020 – REOPENING OF LEISURE FACILITIES (FILE CW133)

PREVIOUSLY CIRCULATED:- Report dated 20 July 2020 from the Director of Community and Wellbeing stating that the Strategic Covid-19 Recovery Group met on 9 July 2020 and considered a report regarding the reopening of the Borough’s Leisure Centres. There was unanimous support for the use of previously granted delegated authority by the Chief Executive to authorise the reopening of the gym and fitness facilities / classes at Ards Blair Mayne Wellbeing and Leisure Complex (ABMWLC) to the public on 22 July 2020 and the remainder of the facilities as would be possible, including the swimming pools, subject to NI Executive approval, on 7 August 2020. The SCRG deferred making a recommendation about reopening of the gyms and other facilities at Comber Leisure Centre (CLC) and Portaferry Sports Centre (PSC) as it believed that those matters should be considered by Council at its next meeting on 22 July 2020.

2. Income/Expenditure Analysis

The figures shown in the tables below reflected the current best estimates of additional projected income and expenditure above remaining closed. This was based on the ABMWLC gym and classes reopening on 22 July and some of the remainder of facilities, including the pools, as permitted on 7 August. Those figures were higher than those reported to the SCRG as they contained a reassessment and recalculation of the staff and management costs required to operate the Centre safely and effectively. The revised figures for CLC and PSC, however, were now based on the gyms reopening on the earliest date of 3 August and some of the remainder of the other facilities on 10 August.

ABMWLC July August September Total Income £0 £42,500 £73,200 £115,700 Expenditure Salaries £24,500 £74,500 £90,000 £189,000 Leisure Goods £5,000 £2,000 £2,000 £9,000 Non-Leisure Goods £2,950 £5,900 £5,900 £14,750

18 C.22.07.2020 PM

Utility costs £1,900 £9,600 £14,000 £25,500 Total Goods £9,850 £17,500 £21,900 £49,250 Loss -£34,350 -£49,500 -£38,700 -£122,550

CLC July August September Total Income £0 £4,500 £13,400 £17,900 Expenditure Salaries £2.500 £12,000 £16,200 £30,700 Leisure Goods £2,000 £1,000 £1,000 £4,000 Non-Leisure Goods £1,300 £2,600 £1,400 £5,300 Utility costs £300 £2,500 £3,400 £6,500 Total Goods £3,600 £6,100 £5,800 £15,500 Loss -£6,100 -£13,600 -£8,600 -£28,300

PSC July August September Total Income £0 £700 £2,750 £3,450 Expenditure Salaries £8,200 £12,200 £12,300 £32,700 Leisure Goods £1,000 £500 £500 £2,000 Non-Leisure Goods £700 £1,400 £1,400 £3,500 Utility costs £200 £800 £1,000 £2,000 Total Goods £1,900 £2,700 £2,900 £7,500 Loss -£10,100 -£14,200 -£12,450 -£36,750

Grand Total -£50,550 -£77,300 -£59,750 -£187,600

3. Comber LC and Portaferry SC

There had been an inspection of the three Centres completed in the past few days by the Council’s health and safety team in line with Government Guidance for the reopening of the leisure facilities. This contained the requirement that for any gym facilities to be approved to reopen, an exchange of ‘fresh air’ rather than a recirculation system must be in place. Unfortunately, PSC did not have this system installed and therefore would not be currently permitted to reopen its gym. It was understood that this may apply to the gym in the Queens Leisure Complex in Holywood too. Whilst the reports were being prepared it was understood that the ABMWLC and CLC gyms did comply with this requirement and could therefore be considered to reopen.

4. Conclusion

Unfortunately, the PSC could not reopen at present due to the air exchange system non-compliance and whilst classes could be held in the Centre this would not generate sufficient member benefit or the income to sustain its viability. This situation could remain under review, with regard to changes in Regulations and to guidance.

19 C.22.07.2020 PM

CLC could reopen its gym and classes on 3 August and the remainder of suitable facilities on 10 August. It should be noted that gym members at CLC could not use those at ABMWLC without further induction.

RECOMMENDED that the Council notes that the Portaferry Sports Centre remains closed at present in compliance with Government Guidance. This situation would remain under review.

And it is further recommended that the Council considers the reopening of Comber Leisure Centre gyms and classes and if so the earliest date would be 3 August 2020 and the other suitable facilities on 10 August, subject to NI Executive Regulations.

Councillor P Smith proposed, seconded by Councillor Adair, that the recommendations be adopted.

The proposer, Councillor P Smith noted the report covered all of the required detail and welcomed the proposed re-opening date for Comber Leisure Centre in early August 2020.

Concurring with those comments, the seconder Councillor Adair, expressed some disappointment that Portaferry Sports Centre would remain closed however he acknowledged the need for it reopen when it was safe and practical to do so.

At this stage Councillor Boyle made reference to the struggling ferry service in Portaferry and the battle which had been undertaken to reopen the HRC in the village. In light of that he expressed the view that Portaferry could be described as being geographically isolated from the rest of the Borough. He asked if there were any steps the Council could take to make preparations for the reopening of the Portaferry Sports Centre.

The Director of Community and Wellbeing referred to the technical issues at the Centre in respect of air handling processes. He confirmed that engineers had been tasked to visit the site in an attempt to ascertain whether or not the existing systems could be adapted to meet the necessary requirements. He added that that would impact any potential re-opening date for the Centre.

Councillor McNickle noted similar issues with the Queens Leisure Complex in Holywood and asked whether members there could use their membership at Aurora, Bangor in the meantime.

The Director confirmed the same issues had arisen at the Queens Leisure Complex in respect of its air handling system. He advised members that an engineer was due to inspect the Centre the following week and added that depending on the type of membership held, members may be able to use the facilities at Aurora, Bangor.

Concurring with Councillor McNickle’s comments, Councillor Dunne commented that he hoped the matter could be resolved as soon as was practically possible.

Councillor McAlpine noted the intention for the matter to remain ‘under review’ and sought reassurance that a report would be brought back as a matter of urgency.

20 C.22.07.2020 PM

Continuing she added that she agreed with Councillor Boyle’s concerns about Portaferry adding that accessible exercise facilities were important for the physical and mental wellbeing of all of residents. In light of that she asked that a report on this matter was brought forward, as a matter of urgency, to the appropriate Committee. She suggested that the report should provide detailed information about the air exchange equipment shortfalls in the Portaferry Sports Centre and the costs of rectifying them.

Councillor P Smith acknowledged that Councillor McAlpine’s suggestion was for the matter to be kept under review and a report brought back in due course, something which he understood would be happening anyway.

Councillor McAlpine indicated she was content with that course of action which she hoped would provide some clarity about the windows which were in the gym which may help alleviate the current issue at the Sports Centre.

Councillor T Smith stated that he did not agree with the minutes of the meeting of the Covid-19 Recovery Group held on 9 July 2020 as they appeared to suggest that Council services would be cut while rates would increase. Instead he indicated that he would be keen to cut the cost of Council through cutting mileage claims and referred to the 20% cost to Council associated with pension contributions. He also expressed his support for a review of staff terms and conditions.

At this stage Councillor Cathcart made reference to Kingsland Pitch and Putt, noting that it had previously been suggested that it would open once indoor leisure facilities had reopened. He noted that useful discussions had taken place about this leading to a possible re-opening date of 1 August 2020.

The Director reported that he had sought an update on the matter but as yet had not received a response. Continuing he advised there would be a small cost associated with re-opening the facility.

Councillor Cathcart expressed some concern that if the matter was to be reported to Committee it would not be able to open in time for the summer season and suggested that the month of September could be added as some form of compromise for the 2020 season.

In response the Director commented that once he had received all of the figures, he would be in a better position to make a decision, adding that offering the month of September would be a matter for the NCLT who operated that site..

Councillor Greer noted the comments made by both Councillors Dunne and McNickle and asked if Council would be in danger of being penalised in any way

The Director of Community and Wellbeing advised that would be a contractual matter and confirmed further details on this could be brought back to the Community and Wellbeing Committee or the Strategic COVID-19 Recovery Working Group.

At this stage Alderman Irvine indicated that he wished to declare an interest in any matters related to the Northern Community Leisure Trust (NCLT).

21 C.22.07.2020 PM

Alderman Menagh sought clarification on whether or not members of Comber Leisure Centre could use the facilities at Ards Blair Mayne Leisure Wellbeing and Leisure Complex in the meantime.

The Director confirmed that they could as long as they undertook an induction session on the use of the facilities at Ards.

Councillor Walker asked if it would be feasible to move gym equipment to those rooms which could be used in both Portaferry Sports Centre and the Queens Leisure Complex.

While he was unsure whether or not that would be possible, the Director undertook to investigate the suggestion further and report back to members in due course.

In response to a query from Councillor Walker, the Director indicated there were cost benefit questions to consider with those facilities as well as the technical and health and safety issues prior to any re-opening.

Councillor Walker commented that the Portaferry Sports Centre was of significant value to many local residents and as such the Council needed to ensure good service was being provided. Continuing he noted that as a result of the Covid-19 pandemic many people had taken the decision to relocate from cities to rural communities to avail of the many health and wellbeing benefits associated with rural living. He suggested the Council considered a greater marketing campaign of the facility in order to incorporate it more widely into the local community.

Alderman McIlveen referred to the nearby GAC facilities in Portaferry and suggested that consideration was given to some form of partnership arrangement if it was established that their facilities were open.

The Director indicated that he was unsure whether or not the GAC had its facility open however he agreed that some form of partnership arrangement would be of interest and potentially a good way to proceed going forward.

Councillor Kennedy commented that the GAC would need to be willing to have its facilities open to members of the public.

At this stage Councillor Boyle advised that currently the GAA could only operate outside with only one person being allowed to travel to its grounds by car. Their facility had similar issues with air extraction and therefore they were currently only able to play/train outdoors in small numbers.

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

EXCLUSION OF PUBLIC AND PRESS

22 C.22.07.2020 PM

RESOLVED, on the proposal of Councillor Greer, seconded by Councillor Gilmour , that the public/press be excluded from the undernoted items of confidential business.

18. MINUTES OF MEETING OF COVID RECOVERY GROUP DATED 9 JULY 2020

***IN CONFIDENCE***

***NOT FOR PUBLICATION***

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

19. ARTEMIS TECHNOLOGIES – CONSORTIUM FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF A WATER FERRY (FILE RDP123) (Appendix X)

***IN CONFIDENCE***

***NOT FOR PUBLICATION***

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

READMITTANCE OF PUBLIC AND PRESS

AGREED, that the public/press be readmitted to the meeting.

TERMINATION OF MEETING

The meeting terminated at 8.13pm.

23 ITEM 7.1.

ARDS AND NORTH DOWN BOROUGH COUNCIL

A virtual meeting of the Planning Committee was held on Tuesday, 4 August 2020 at 6.00pm.

PRESENT:

In the Chair: Councillor McClean

Aldermen: Gibson Keery McDowell McIlveen

Councillors: Adair McKee Brooks McRandal Cathcart P Smith Kennedy Thompson McAlpine Walker

Officers: Director of Regeneration, Development and Planning (S McCullough), Head of Planning (A McCullough), Principal Professional and Technical Officers (G Kerr and L Maginn), Senior Professional and Technical Officers (A Todd, C Rodgers and L MacQuarrie) and Democratic Services Officers (M McElveen and R King)

1. APOLOGIES

An apology was received from Councillor Cooper.

NOTED.

2. DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST

The Chairman sought Declarations of Interest at this stage.

Councillor Brooks declared an interest in Item 4.3 – 9 Millisle Road, Donaghadee and Item 4.4 – 9 Millisle Road, Donaghadee.

NOTED.

3. MATTERS ARISING FROM MINUTES OF PLANNING COMMITTEE MEETING OF 7 JULY 2020

PREVIOUSLY CIRCULATED:- Minutes from the meeting of 7 July 2020.

AGREED TO RECOMMEND, on the proposal of Councillor Smith, seconded by Councillor Thompson that the minutes be adopted.

PC.04.08.20PM

4. PLANNING APPLICATIONS 4.1. LA06/2019/0782/F – Residential development comprising 72 no. dwellings at lands fronting Killinchy Road, Comber

PREVIOUSLY CIRCULATED:- Case Officer’s Report.

DEA: Comber Committee Interest: Major Application Proposal: Residential development comprising 72 no. dwellings and garages, parking, open space, landscaping buffer, right hand turn lane, pumping station and all associated site and access works. Site Location: Lands fronting Killinchy Road, Comber, to the North West of No,37 Killinchy Road, to the South of Nos. 15, 15a, 17a and 17 Killinchy Road and West of Nos. 12 to 28 Killinchy Road. Recommendation: Approval

The Head of Planning began by explaining that the application was in respect of a residential development for 72 dwellings and garages, parking, open space, landscaping, landscaped buffer, right hand turn lane, pumping station and associated site and access works. The site was located at lands on Killinchy Road, Comber between the residential properties of nos. 31 and 15 Killinchy Road and was currently part of a larger agricultural field. The site had undulating topography with mature vegetation along the roadside boundary. There were laneways either side of the site with mature vegetation along the side boundaries and the rear of the site was undefined as it was part of a larger field.

A range of slides were displayed with pictures of the site and general area to provide some context for Members. The site was located within the settlement limit of Comber as designated in the Ards and Down Area Plan 2015 and zoned (CR09, 5.17 Hectares at Land to the west of Killinchy Road). The immediate area was residential with agricultural land beyond the settlement limit and there were a variety of house types and plot sizes in the area. As the site lay within a development limit, there was a presumption in favour of development unless there was demonstrable harm. In addition to that, as the site was zoned for housing, the proposal was residential, set amongst residential surroundings and deemed acceptable providing certain criteria in relevant policies were satisfied.

Continuing, the Head of Planning indicated that the Development Plan set out certain key site considerations for the site – those related to density, access arrangements to be provided from the A22 Killinchy Road, a right turn turning lane required at the access to the site, a footway to be provided across the site frontage to link into the existing footway network, dwelling layout to be designed to ensure houses front onto Killinchy Road and proposed internal access roads with adequate junction stagger required with adjacent private accesses, provision of buffer planting along the western boundary to assist integration. The area plan also stated that foul pumping stations may be required to serve that site and the existing pumping station in Carnesure Park may require upgrading.

2

PC.04.08.20PM

The proposal complied with the zoning and all the key design considerations set out in the plan except in relation to the minimum/maximum density of the site with the density being lower than stipulated in the plan. Determining factors outlined the reason for the reduced density and it was felt that was acceptable for this site and area. It was therefore considered that the proposal was in conformity with the plan and the principle of development was acceptable.

Turning to the proposal itself, she highlighted that the area was predominantly characterised by detached dwellings with front and rear gardens and in-curtilage car parking which fronted onto the public road. The proposed layout would consist of 2 storey detached dwellings and would follow the surrounding pattern of development. All dwellings front either onto the Killinchy Road or the new roads. Garden areas were provided at the front and rear along with in-curtilage parking. There was a range of designs and materials to be finished in a mix of select facing brick, select facing stonework and smooth self-coloured render with blue black concrete tiled roofs. The dwellings would have a mix of pitched and hipped roofs and traditional materials and detailing would respect the character of the surrounding area.

A detailed landscaping plan and landscape management plan had been included which detailed the location and species of trees and hedging to be planted and how the future maintenance of the open space/green areas would be implemented and managed. An 8-10m planted buffer would be added along the boundaries of the site adjacent to the countryside to provide with a grass buffer with hedging and trees at the front of the development along Killinchy Road to soften the visual impact. Two areas of communal open space would be provided within the development. The layout of both areas of open space had been designed so dwellings would overlook the green space for security and to provide a quality residential environment

The Head of Planning mentioned that a Transport Assessment and Transport Statement were submitted as supporting information as to how the proposed development site was well served by sustainable modes of transport. There were pedestrian facilities currently on Killinchy Road and as part of this proposal a footway was to be provided along the site frontage providing connectivity to Comber town centre. The site was located nearby the Comber Greenway for cycling/ walking and the proposed development site was well served by existing public transport provision with bus stops located on Killinchy Road in the vicinity of the site.

The layout and design of the dwellings within the site had been considered to ensure there was no unacceptable adverse overlooking or overshadowing within the site to protect the residential amenity of future residents. She highlighted that there would be at least 20m separation distance where dwellings were located back to back and there would be at least 10m separation distance between the dwellings and the rear boundaries of the site. Between dwellings there would be 1.8m high close board timber fencing to protect residential amenity.

She then referred to a slide displaying the design of the dwellings whereby there was a range of designs and materials to be finished in a mix of select facing brick,

3

PC.04.08.20PM

select facing stonework and smooth self-coloured render with blue black concrete tiled roofs. The dwellings would have a mix of pitched and hipped roofs. Traditional materials and detailing would respect the character of the surrounding area.

During the processing of the application relevant assessments were submitted by the applicant and consultation was carried out with a range of consultees including DfI Roads, Water Management Unit, Natural Environment Division, NI Water and the Council’s Tree Officer. All consultees expressed no objection to the proposal with some requesting conditions to be added to any permission granted.

It was acknowledged that this proposal had generated a high level of interest. All material concerns raised for example covered areas such as traffic impact and safety, visual amenity, water and drainage, residential amenity, noise and pressure on additional services. All material objections raised had been assessed and were detailed in the Case Officer’s Report.

In summary, the Head of Planning commented that all the material considerations such as the development plan, policies and comments from consultees and third parties had been assessed with regard to the proposal. The Case Officer had set out a detailed assessment of the proposal in the case officer report. There was a presumption in favour of development within development limits providing relevant policies were satisfied and a key consideration was the site being zoned for housing in the local area plan. The supporting information submitted with the application demonstrated that there was a high demand for detached high quality residential properties in Comber and the recommendation was to grant planning permission

The Chairman (Councillor McClean) thanked the Officer for her report and queried the black outline shown on the plan slide.

Having now resolved her technical problems, the Principal Planning and Technical Officer (Gail Kerr) explained that it denoted the development limit for Comber meaning that the housing site lay within that limit and subsequently there was a presumption in favour of development.

The Chairman observed that the quality of houses presented were of a higher standard in comparison to 4-5 years ago. He wondered if that was to the credit of Planning Officers, improved legislation or current market practice.

The Planning Officer revealed that over the past 5½ years planning powers having been transferred to Council, Planning Officers had indeed established good working relationships with a number of architects, Mr Stokes being one of them, as well as getting to know developers and agents. Regarding this application, she said that Mr Stokes understood what constituted a good design. The Pre Application Discussion meeting had been overseen by another Senior Officer and she had advised that it had been a high quality proposal from the outset necessitating no amendments.

The Chairman thanked the Officer for her helpful and candid account and he was hopeful that would encourage that same working when developing the Council’s own local plan.

4

PC.04.08.20PM

Councillor Smith concurred that it was a quality development noting that the volume of dwellings was substantially lower than the maximum permitted. However, the predominant concern for the town was the increase in traffic generated by this development. He was aware that each application was assessed on its own merits and in this instance, circa 70 new houses had received no commentary from the DfI. He enquired how the effect upon the overall traffic density throughout the wider town environment was taken into consideration, particularly with cumulative development. How was that problem assessed as he was mindful that a number of extensive builds were underway in that area adding to escalated traffic volumes.

The Planning Officer fully acknowledged the widespread frustration in Comber about the issue but maintained that it was not isolated to that locale. With regard to this application, when the plan was being drafted it was clear that a single access onto the Killinchy Road was necessary to cut down on the proliferation of traffic coming out from various accesses, together with the provision of a right hand turning lane. A Transport Assessment and a Transport Statement were submitted with the application but even with possession of those, it was difficult to say that a certain housing development would contribute to further traffic problems in the future. In actuality, those statements found that this development would not pose a significant impact on the existing transport infrastructure. Instead it was deemed to be positioned in a good sustainable location for housing and she noted that a pavement would now be provided along the front of the development. It was sited on the main approach road to Comber and residents would only have a short distance to walk to the town centre with bus stops along that route. Furthermore, it was in close proximity to the Comber Greenway which would also encourage more sustainable forms of transport.

Drawing attention to the Regional Development Strategy 2025, the Planning Officer cited that Comber had been earmarked for additional housing without road upgrades, as it was perceived that the road from Belfast to Comber was capable of attracting more development. In addition, it was her understanding that the DfI had discussed plans for a potential park and ride in Comber and a Comber bypass was being planned. It was a potential growth area as defined in the RDS and the opinion was that more housing in Comber would be manageable. Given the circumstances of the pandemic, there had been a change in traffic movements and mindsets with people moving away from owning two cars and they had staggered working hours. Many were walking and cycling more frequently and inhabitants of this development could avail of school bus routes rather than driving their children to school. It was hard to pin down that 72 new dwellings would intensify traffic in the wider area but bearing in mind the cumulative development in Comber, she insisted that the existing infrastructure could cope.

Councillor Smith highlighted the bus stop sign at that vicinity, questioning if there were plans to construct a proper bus stop.

The Planning Officer was unsure but suggested that the transport expert could provide clarity later in the meeting.

5

PC.04.08.20PM

Councillor Smith accepted that the right hand turn lane would protect traffic flow but he questioned if the 40 mph zone would pose any policy or safety implications. The Planning Officer verified that it was a protected route and there were certain policies to take account of such as AMP3 of PPS3, along with the stipulations in the plan. Whenever that plan was being drawn up, speed restrictions would have been adhered to. Also, within their consultation response, DfI Roads would have been cognisant of the speed limits. Having offered no objections, they felt that the submitted drawings had fulfilled safety requirements.

On a different point, Councillor Smith challenged if the wastewater treatment works had capacity to manage the new development.

Having spoken to Northern Ireland Water, the Principal Planning and Technical Officer outlined that there was extra capacity at Ballyrickard but moreover, an advantage of this application was that it included a new pumping station within the site to facilitate those proposed houses.

In terms of drainage, Councillor Smith highlighted that the area in question was prone to flooding and sought confirmation that a drainage report had been presented.

The Planning Officer clarified that in relation to any large application, Officers would automatically consult with NIW and on this occasion, due to the fact that there was a small river course to the south of the site, they had also contacted the Rivers Agency. For developments of this size, a drainage assessment was a requisite and that had been received as part of the application and supporting statements. If flooding was raised as an issue and it had been alluded to in some objection letters, she would ask the individual Case Officer to reconsult and make that known to NIW and the Rivers Agency. That had been undertaken and they had stressed that there were no records of flooding on maps for that location. They were happy with the drainage assessment and those requirements were conditioned. Schedule 6 consent was applied for in relation to discharge water and that was in place. She concluded that Officers were satisfied that it had been thoroughly investigated and consultees were content with the situation on the site.

Sharing similar unease, Alderman Gibson mentioned the lack of sewerage infrastructure in Comber and emphasised that the provision at Ballyrickard was operating at full capacity. He speculated if it was the intention to solely utilise the private pumping station of the developer or use it jointly with Ballyrickard as that facility could not cope. Furthermore, he was aware that 1,000 properties were planned but not yet built off the carriageway. As there was already daily traffic congestion in that region, 72 new houses would have an adverse consequence. Although supportive of the right hand turning lane, he was of the belief that to a larger extent it would not resolve that issue. People living nearby had objected and he queried how many were received.

The Planning Officer conveyed to the member that officers trusted the interpretations of statutory consultees who held the professional expertise in those matters. NIW had foreseen no drawbacks to this development as the pumping station was included as part of the application. As the architect, Mr Stokes could certainly

6

PC.04.08.20PM

confirm those actual arrangements. Unfortunately, nowadays traffic tailbacks were not exclusive to the Killinchy Road and were a common occurrence. She repeated that full traffic studies of the area had been completed and DfI Roads had put forward no objections. Referring to the number of objections, she detailed that 26 were received from 20 properties and for a major development of 72 units that was classed as an acceptable level. The Case Officer had examined the main observations obtained and fully rebutted them in their report. Officers were cognisant of nearby houses on the opposite side of Killinchy Road to the north and south but being a well designed development, there were only three proposed at the north of the site adjacent to existing dwellings and they were the gable ends. A key factor was that existing laneways north and south provided greater separation distance between properties.

Alderman Gibson expressed the view that Planning Officers had fully considered this application and Members had garnered plentiful information. He appreciated her response albeit that it remained a controversial application for that location.

In a similar vein, Councillor McAlpine commented that she was aware that at Ballydrain Road towards the town side, inhabitants had to queue each morning and wait to be let out and egress onto that main road by other motorists. She supposed that the new development under discussion would worsen that current state of affairs and keep vehicles queued for longer. She asked if there was any way the traffic situation could be kept under review by the Council or DfI to prevent a bad situation becoming more problematic and avoiding accidents.

The Planning Officer had noticed the queues herself and the resultant impact on adjoining roads but it was good that motorists appeared to be well mannered in Comber and assisted other drivers to join the main road. She recalled from the Transport Statement and Transport Assessment that the average waiting time would be 10 seconds which was not judged to be excessive. Discussions with colleagues from DFI Roads had gleaned that due to increasing levels of cars on all roads, there was constant monitoring with cameras in that area and Northern Ireland as a whole and any such development entailed assessments on traffic, services and infrastructure.

The Chairman thanked the Planning Officer and then welcomed Mr Tom Stokes (Architect), Mr Ciaran Murdock (Applicant) and Mr Conor O’Hara (Transport Consultant) to the meeting, inviting them to speak for five minutes in support of the application.

Mr Stokes thanked the Committee for affording them the opportunity to address the meeting. He thought it would be helpful to summarise the proposal and address the key planning considerations and they would all be happy to answer questions. By way of brief background, he informed members that Lotus Homes were a major NI House Building firm with extensive housing schemes being built across Northern Ireland, locally they were building out CR04 on the Ballygowan Road, which was an extremely high quality and popular development. Lotus had won residential house builder of the year for three years running.

7

PC.04.08.20PM

Turning to the application, he detailed that it proposed a scheme of 72 new detached family homes. The proposal was on residential zoning CR09 which measured c 5.17ha (12.77 acres) and included nine key site requirements. This proposal satisfied and met all but one of these key site requirements. The only key site requirement which they did not meet was that of density. The Area Plan stated that the site should be a minimum of 20 dwellings per hectare and maximum density of 25 dwellings per hectare. That would result in the development of between 104 and 130 no. dwellings on this site – they had 72. In conjunction with Simon Brien residential and the applicant, they had undertaken a detailed review of the housing market within Comber regarding both sites with planning, sites under construction and market knowledge of sites coming forward. It was identified that there was a sizable lack of new large 4/5 bedroom family homes coming forward and the market was dominated by first time buyer semi-detached and smaller detached homes. Whilst there was an absolute market for those, it was felt that given the findings of the research undertaken by TSA Planning and the character of the Killinchy Road and surrounding environs, Lotus Homes made a conscious decision to come forward with a much lower density housing scheme compared that suggested in the Area Plan.

Members were advised by Mr Stokes that the density of the scheme proposed was 14 dph (6dpa), much less than the 20-25 dph suggested in the Area Plan. The development would deliver a mix of 4 and 5 bed detached quality family homes ranging from 1,655sqft to 2,361sqft, with sunrooms, single and double garages, set within an attractive landscape setting, with public open space. In terms of the process, they had carried out extensive consultation through our Proposal of Application Notice (PAN) process, and had listened to and responded to as many of the queries as they could. For example, comments were raised concerning the proximity of dwellings to the Killinchy Road and they had endeavoured to push those back into the site and create an attractive tree lined landscaped buffer to the Killinchy Road edge.

Mr Stokes brought attention to how they had noted concerns of some local residents on the impact of the proposal on the surrounding road network. The proposal included a new right hand turn lane on Killinchy Road, a new footway running the full length of their site frontage which tied into the existing footpath network, and a refuge island to ensure safe crossing for pedestrians. The application was accompanied by a Transport Statement which included a robust assessment informed by traffic surveys and queue observations in order to determine the existing volumes of traffic in the vicinity. Whilst they admitted there was slow moving traffic on Killinchy Road in the AM peak hour, existing vehicles entering and exiting a residential development did not experience undue delay, with the majority waiting no longer than 10 seconds. DfI Roads had no objections to the proposal.

To summarise, Mr Stokes believed there were a number of key factors which they respectfully asked Members to favourably consider in their decision making process that evening which included:

▪ the principle of housing on the subject site was established by virtue of the site zoning and the proposed development was in accordance with the majority of the KSRs associated with that zoning

8

PC.04.08.20PM

▪ the proposal represented a significant reduction in density when compared to that suggested in the Key Site Requirement which could yield up to 130 dwellings. Their proposal of 72 units, nearly half of that which the area plan indicated would be acceptable, based on extensive market research for much needed 4 and 5 bedroom family detached dwellings ▪ a high standard of open space and landscaping was proposed throughout the site to soften the proposal into its surroundings. That included two central areas of public open space and an eight to ten metre landscape buffer along the western boundary. That would be maintained by a management company of which each resident would be a shareholder ▪ generous gardens were provided for each house, with an average size of 233sqm, well in excess of the recommended average of 70sqm as per Creating Places ▪ there were no objections from any statutory consultees, with all offering conditions ▪ the application brought forward a high-quality residential development and in the midst of this health care crisis and Covid 19 pandemic, represented positive news for Comber with an investment of c.£20m into the local area; creating around 60 much needed construction jobs. Subject to approval being granted this evening, they would anticipate works commencing on site later this year

The Planning Officer had recommended the application for approval, and Mr Stokes and his colleagues respectfully requested the Committee to endorse that recommendation. He thanked Members for their time and said they would be happy to answer any questions they may have.

(Councillor Adair left the meeting at 6.35 pm)

Councillor Smith conceded that it was undoubtedly a low density development that tied into that immediate area but he reiterated the primary worries in respect of traffic. He recognised that the perspective of Mr Stokes and his colleagues was to focus on their development of 72 houses but pointed out wider strategic aspects in that locality relating to congestion. He firstly questioned how many cars would be accommodated in the right hand turning lane and secondly, he probed if conversations had been held with DfI Roads about the 40 mph zone that the lane would be exiting into and if so, were any points raised.

In response, Mr Stokes clarified that speed dictated certain design standards and accordingly, the right hand turning lane was designed in accordance with the correct 40 mph signage standards. Moreover, the taper length, queuing distance etc would be longer than at Carnesure in a 30 mph zone. Six vehicles at a time could sit and await entry to the site and would be queuing during the peak hour period when the majority of traffic would be leaving Comber. It was unlikely that they would experience any delay attempting to turn right across traffic at that time. Detailed junction modelling using computer software had been undertaken pertaining to the development access. He was pleased to report that no issues had been identified in respect of the right hand turn lane or traffic progression associated with the site access.

9

PC.04.08.20PM

Councillor Smith remarked on the management of open space and the plans to dedicate 11% to shared open space within the development. He referred to the formation of a management company and the obvious potential for problems to be encountered down the line as other similar amenity spaces often ended up in a neglected state. He wondered if Mr Stokes could provide an assurance that that level of management would continue in the future.

Mr Stokes commented that on all Lotus Homes sites a management company would be set up from day one. During the entire construction phase of the development that would be governed by Lotus Homes. However, at completion stage, each houseowner would become a shareholder of that company to hold a vested interest in upholding the landscaping to a high level of maintenance. That stratagem had proven to be very successful at their other sites and hence he did not expect any difficulties in Comber. There would be an annual fee based on a global figure of between £150 - £200.

At this point, Mr Stokes, Mr Murdock and Mr O’Hara left the meeting to re-sit in the virtual public gallery.

The Chairman again raised the matter of traffic and expressed the viewpoint that there was a discrepancy between reports issuing a confident rebuttal of concerns around traffic and the statement that it was difficult to pinpoint any particular development contributing in a negative way to the overall volume of traffic in an area. To that end, he wished to check if we were incapable of ensuring that the cumulative effect of developments did not harm traffic levels. A single development may not engender any issues but several together or indeed a large one would due to the incremental creep of traffic heading to those various sites. He sought clarity as to whether there were guidelines or legislation to mitigate against that dilemma.

The Head of Planning responded by verifying that that site was recommended for inclusion within the development plan by the Planning Appeals Commission. During the development planning process, the housing allocation to distinct tiers of development was analysed. The PAC accepted that despite dealing with objections to the draft plan as it was at that time in respect of housing allocation and widespread trepidation that more strain was being placed on inadequate infrastructure, they believed the provision of additional housing would give impetus to the rectification of existing deficiencies and release necessary resources for the creation of new services. It was looked at holistically for the plan area at that time which was Ards and Down and through the new plan there would be studies for each of the five main towns from the DfI relating to roads and local transport studies. They would inform the implications not just for our Borough but our location as part of the Belfast metropolitan area too. Moving forward through the planning process, it was considered by Roads Section and PAC at that time that there was adequate provision and the infrastructure would follow as part of that. That was the rationale behind the key design features for the eastern distributor road included in Newtownards.

She underlined that Officers were more than cognisant of the fact that the Borough sat cheek and jowl with Dundonald and the implications of Millmount coming onto that road. DfI were currently looking at a park and ride site opposite Coach Road

10

PC.04.08.20PM

just outside Comber beside the greenway. Planners were being tasked to integrate planning and transportation because there was a big drive by Central Government to move people away from relying on private cars and there were good links with the public transport system. Having said that, it was difficult for Officers to look at individual proposals like this one. The development in question had been put forward as housing zoned in a plan supported by the DfI for the overall allocation to Comber and the wider Borough. It would be a case of Planning Officers looking at that alongside the forthcoming development plan in tandem with studies from the DfI to assist them.

The Chairman thought the Officer’s explanation was extremely useful but felt that he had initially broached a general question as to whether legislation or DfI Roads could inform us about an imminent issue with traffic resulting from a specific development. He deliberated if we would ever be able to place the blame on just one development for such problems. He spoke of the momentum from central government for us to use public transport and part of that would be people building and living in different types of houses. Conversely, this development with adjacent houses on both sides was fundamentally a cul-de-sac design which expected people to continue using their cars.

Having listened to the numerous points put forward, Councillor Smith continued to voice considerable unease about the impediments associated with cumulative development in Comber affecting infrastructure. He reminded Members that this Council had voted to have a public meeting as a vehicle for local residents to raise apprehensions but alas that had been pushed into the lockdown period and not progressed. He appreciated that some wider issues might not be restricted to this particular development and it would be unfair to thrust those onto this application. In spite of that, there were other construction sites in and around the town of differing sizes and when added together they did create a major cause of congestion. The proposed park and ride was situated on the wrong side of the town centre for this development and thus would not alleviate congestion. He sympathised as it was a high quality development but his standpoint was that there remained a strategic impact on the town which had not been addressed by the statutory agencies to resolve those issues.

Proposed by Councillor Thompson, seconded by Councillor Cathcart that the recommendation be adopted.

Councillor Cathcart agreed that the application comprised high quality, well designed proposals and he welcomed the lower density therein which would help to aid traffic flow. Although acknowledging some of the matters raised by Councillor Smith, he thought this application worked well with local roads and was acceptable.

Alderman Gibson endorsed Councillor Smith’s remarks in connection to traffic volume and regretted that there was no alternative route to escape it. He realised that the right hand lane would be of some assistance but a high level of vehicles would still be utilising that road.

He observed that all the statutory bodies were agreeable to this application but he remained fearful about the escalation in traffic which would require a detour of six to

11

PC.04.08.20PM

nine miles to avoid that area. Many older residents who had lived on that road for 60 years or more would be adversely affected.

On being put to the meeting with 6 voting FOR, 1 voting AGAINST, 7 ABSTAINING and 2 ABSENT, the proposal was declared CARRIED. A recorded vote resulted as follows:

FOR (6) AGAINST (1) ABSTAINING (7) ABSENT (2) Aldermen Councillor Aldermen Councillors Keery Smith, P Gibson Adair McDowell McIlveen Cooper Councillors Councillors Cathcart Brooks McRandal Kennedy Thompson McAlpine Walker McClean McKee

It was noted that Councillor Adair had not been present for the full discussion and was unable to vote.

RESOLVED, on the proposal of Councillor Thompson, seconded by Councillor Cathcart, that the recommendation be adopted, and planning permission be granted.

4.2 LA06/2019/0451/F – Erection of two 2.5 storey split-level detached dwellings at lands SE of Knocknatten Avenue and NW of The Cottages, Whinney Hill, Holywood

PREVIOUSLY CIRCULATED:- Case Officer’s Report.

DEA: Holywood Committee Interest: Committee approved LA06/2016/0551/O at its meeting of 04/09/2018 on basis that subsequent Reserved Matters be brought to Committee. This application was originally submitted as Reserved Matters but subsequently changed to a full application, and it is therefore appropriate to bring to Committee for consideration Proposal: Erection of two 2.5 storey split-level detached dwellings, including vehicular access to Whinney Hill only, and associated works Site Location: Lands SE of Knockatten Avenue and NW of The Cottages, Whinney Hill, Holywood Recommendation: Approval

The Senior Professional and Technical Officer (A Todd) confirmed that this application was seeking full planning permission for two x 2½ storey detached dwellings at lands SE of Knocknatten Avenue and NW of The Cottages, Whinney Hill, Holywood. The application had been brought before Planning Committee as Committee approved an associated outline planning permission at its meeting of 4 September 2018 on the basis that any subsequent Reserved Matters be brought to

12

PC.04.08.20PM

Committee. This application was originally submitted as Reserved Matters but subsequently changed to a full application, and it was therefore appropriate to bring to Committee for consideration.

(Councillor Adair re-entered the meeting – 6.59 pm)

The site was located on a piece of land between Knocknatten Avenue and Whinney Hill Cottages off Whinney Hill in a well-established low-density residential area. Access to the site was via an existing lane from Whinney Hill. The topography of the site sloped downwards relatively steeply from Whinney Hill Cottages towards Knocknatten Avenue to the rear. She then made reference to two photographs of the site; the first one was looking towards Knocknatten Avenue and Belfast Lough in the distance and the second one showed the view towards Whinney Hill Cottages. Due to the lower ground level of the site, being set back from the road and the amount of mature trees and vegetation, views of the proposed dwellings from the public road would be very restricted. The next slide displayed the view towards the site from Whinney Hill on the approach into Holywood and the site was located just behind the Whinney Hill cottages. Another slide showed that on the approach along Whinney Hill heading out of Holywood, views of the site were screened by existing dense trees and vegetation.

In terms of the development plan context, the Planning Officer notified Members that the site was located immediately outside the settlement limit of Holywood according to the extant North Down and Ards Area Plan. She also demonstrated that it was outside the settlement limit in the draft Belfast Metropolitan Area Plan however, following the public inquiry into draft BMAP and at the recommendation of the Planning Appeals Commission, the site along with adjacent land was brought within the settlement limit in what was now the unlawfully adopted BMAP. The PAC considered that The Cottages and Woodlands Avenue (along with the Carlston and Invergourie developments opposite) already represented an urban character with the natural break in the development being the laneway serving No. 5 Woodlands Avenue. Determining weight was given to that consideration in the assessment of the original outline planning permission for this site which was approved by Planning Committee in September 2018 and established the principle of residential development on the site. This permission remained extant until September 2021.

The outline planning permission for the site allowed for the erection of a total of 4 dwellings. The current application was for the first two of these dwellings in the positions shown on the first site layout plan. The second image showed the site layout plan approved at outline stage. She pointed out that the two dwellings were in the same position as that approved under the outline application, the footprints of the dwellings were also similar and the access lane is in the same position.

With regard to the proposed landscaping scheme for the site, the Planning Officer referred to the existing trees as shown in dark green on the slide and the new trees shown in light green. The Council’s Tree Officer was consulted and was content that no adverse impacts would be caused to the existing trees which were subject to a Tree Preservation Order. As outlined in the planning report, condition 4 required protective fencing to be erected around existing trees prior to any works taking place on the site. Condition 2 also required that all utility apparatus should be positioned

13

PC.04.08.20PM

and installed in accordance with the approved details as a further measure to ensure continued protection of the trees. A Landscape Management and Maintenance Plan had also been submitted setting out a detailed plan for the long term management and maintenance of landscaping within the site. Whilst a total of 19 trees were to be removed, 17 of those had been surveyed as being either dead or in poor condition and had been recommended for felling. The remaining two trees shown to be removed to facilitate the access into the site, fell outside the area protected by the TPO. The removal of the existing trees would be compensated through the planting of 31 new trees within the site.

She informed Members that the proposed houses themselves would be split level in design being 1 ½ storey to the front and 2 ½ storey to the rear. The split level design was considered to be a suitable design approach for the sloping topography of this site. Finishes would include painted render and larch panelling to the walls and blue/black slate to the roof. The proposal complied with all of the conditions of the original outline planning permission for the site with the exception of condition 4 relating to the depth of underbuilding and condition 5 relating to the overall ridge height of the dwellings. Condition 5 of the original outline permission was based on the approved drawing showing proposed sections through the site and specified that the height of the dwellings should not exceed that indicated on drawing. The current application proposed an increase in the height of the dwellings of 1.1m. That was not considered to be significant or unacceptable at that location given the very limited views of the site and the generous separation distances between the development and existing dwellings in excess of 30m.

The site was also located within the Local Landscape Policy Area HD15 as proposed in Draft BMAP and the proposed LLPA covered a large area. The site was located in the western corner of the designation as depicted on the slide and was clustered with existing built development at the edge of the settlement. As a result, the proposed development would not harm any of the key features of the LLPA which were listed in Draft BMAP.

The Planning Officer verified that the potential impact of the development on protected species and the ecology of the site had also been carefully considered. As required by condition 12 of the original outline permission, a Habitat Management Plan had been submitted with the current application. As also required by condition of the outline permission, a Bat Mitigation Plan had been submitted and condition 8 in the Officer’s report also required a bat ecologist to be appointed to oversee all works and the implementation of the required mitigation measures. DAERA Natural Environment Division had carefully considered all of the submitted information and the submitted objections raising concerns about the impact on ecology and was content that the proposal would have no adverse impact on any protected species or other natural heritage interests. In its consultation response, NED had indicated that it was content that the ecological integrity of the existing woodland would be maintained provided the applicant implemented and adhered to the procedures set out within the submitted Ecological Management Plan. NED had also advised that if the proposed planting plan was implemented, there would actually be the potential to promote and enhance the existing biodiversity levels of the woodland habitat currently in place.

14

PC.04.08.20PM

With respect to objections, she explained that during the processing of the application, five separate objections were received. The main issues raised included:

- the cumulative impact of the proposed development with other approved and proposed development - prevention of vehicular and pedestrian access onto Woodlands Avenue leading to Belfast to Bangor carriageway - the impact on protected woodland, ecology and protected species

All of those concerns had been carefully considered in the planning report and the letters of objection raising concerns in relation to the ecology of the site were also forwarded to NED for consideration. Following the Planning Department’s recommendation to approve the application, three further letters of objection were received from Councillor McNickle, Rachel Woods MLA and Jennifer Mawhinney of MBA Planning. An addendum to the Case Officer’s report was prepared in response to the specific issues raised by Ms Mawhinney regarding cumulative impact and the stopping up of the access onto Woodlands Avenue. That was circulated to members for information earlier that day.

To summarise, the Planning Officer detailed that the development of the proposed dwellings was considered to comply with prevailing planning policy and would not compromise the key objectives of the Development Plan. The extant outline planning permission for four dwellings on this site has established the principle of residential development and was therefore an important material consideration to which determining weight should be afforded. All of the statutory consultees were also content with the proposal and on that basis, it was recommended that FULL planning permission should be granted subject to the conditions outlined in the planning report.

The Chairman thanked the Officer for her report and invited questions from Members.

On the subject of Japanese Knotweed as an invasive species, Councillor McKee wanted further information pertaining to its removal from the site. He understood that DAERA had been consulted and recommended a plan in place before the granting of planning permission. He asked if there was any reason why Officers did not expect that to be undertaken.

The Senior Professional and Technical Officer (A Todd) emphasised that Officers had noticed that discrepancy as in the main body of the response it had stated preceding permission being granted, whereas the condition had stipulated that the Knotweed be removed before any commencement of construction works on the site. Hence, the Case Officer required further clarification on that matter and NED had confirmed that they were satisfied that the necessary report be submitted ahead of those site works starting.

Councillor McKee pondered the justification for not applying the same weight to that matter and wondered if perhaps it could be a technical reason.

15

PC.04.08.20PM

The Planning Officer responded by ensuring the Member that the developer would be conditioned to removing the Knotweed before building works were instigated. She recognised that there were a number of different methods that could be employed to eradicate it as defined within the Ecological Management Plan. The developer would ascertain the best method once on the site which would be agreed with Planning Officers at that time.

On that same issue, Councillor McRandal made reference to the respective condition whereby it had specified ‘no development should commence on site until a finalised Invasive Species Management Plan is submitted and approved in writing by the Council. This will be included as a condition on any planning approval granted’. Thus, he sought an insight into what that entailed in practice with regard to adjacent properties. He argued that if he inhabited one of those dwellings, he would be feeling very uneasy about the ground being turned prior to that eradication process.

The Planning Officer insisted that in reality it meant that no works could be carried out by the applicant on site until a report had been approved by the Council, which in turn would be forwarded to NED for their consideration and agreement. She reiterated that the chosen method of removal would be decided upon closer to the time. She added that although not an expert, there was a possibility that the ground would be turned to eradicate the Knotweed as it could be excavated out or alternatively, the stems injected to kill them.

The Head of Planning alerted Members to the fact that should works commence before that action was discharged appropriately it would result in a breach of condition notice.

The Chairman regretted that in some cases it could take years to get rid of Japanese Knotweed unless excavation of the land occurred. On the topic of trees, he wished for an assurance that there would be a greater number of trees on the site than before.

The Planning Officer remarked that quite a few were to be felled either because they were already dead or in a deteriorating state of health. As per the landscaping plan, she verified that a total of 31 new trees would be planted, all substantial in size and be comprised of heavy standards and extra heavy standards, as well as being native species. The NED had intimated that once established that supplementary planting would maintain and even enhance the biodiversity value of the site.

In response to a further query from the Chairman, the Planning Officer confirmed that a few years ago, there was the removal of seven trees which were subject to an ongoing enforcement case demanding their replacement. The 31 trees proposed in this application would be in line with that enforcement decision.

At this point in the meeting, the Chairman invited Mr Ryan McBirney (Agent) and Mr Jeremy Jackson (Architect) to speak in support of the application.

Mr McBirney extended his gratitude to the Committee for the opportunity to participate in the meeting on behalf of the applicant Groening Developments Ltd. Initially he had requested speaking rights and intended to explain to Members how

16

PC.04.08.20PM

the proposed development was acceptable against planning policy and guidance, whilst taking into account third party representations. However, since then he had viewed the Planning Officer’s report which comprehensively sets out how the scheme was acceptable and how the various areas of objection had been addressed through the planning application enclosures. Rather than repeat those, Mr Jackson and himself would be happy to answer questions.

Councillor McRandal took the opportunity to gain confirmation as to whether or not there was any prospect of the ground being turned in order to clear the site of Knotweed.

Mr McBirney recapped on previous comments from the Officer that the condition was specifically designed to ensure that did not happen. In advance of any development on site, the Knotweed would require to be satisfactorily addressed. To that end, a Habitat Management Plan was formulated to accompany the planning application as the developer was willing to tackle this problem head on. Ultimately, a report was prepared and submitted to identify the location of the Knotweed but he stressed the appropriateness of taking relevant action nearer the commencement of construction. The rationale being that whenever the ground was disturbed to deal with the Knotweed you did not have to go back on site again to effectively carry out the development thereafter. The treatment of Knotweed engendered several means ie remove entirely, inject and kill, or excavate the soil and treat it to remove all micro- organisms; that dead soil could be utilised as backfill. Highlighting the efficiency in dealing with it closer to development stage, once again he asserted that the implementation method would be finalised then and fully reported to the Council before proceeding. Likewise, the implementation of building works would also require Council’s approval.

Following on from that update, Councillor McRandal desired further details about how that method was determined and if it was dictated by the Management Plan or consultation.

Mr McBirney outlined that an expert from the applicant’s side would advise on the best possible method of treatment for that site. That professional opinion would be put forward and consulted with by the Natural Environment Division of DAERA via the Council to agree or disagree. That expert would obviously have the experience and a preferred approach for treatment of the Knotweed and hopefully DAERA would agree with that selected methodology.

The Chairman thanked Mr McBirney for his input and he left the meeting with Mr Jackson to re-enter the virtual public gallery.

Proposed by Alderman Keery, seconded by Councillor Thompson that the recommendation be adopted.

Councillor Thompson added that it was good to see the problem identified and that the Knotweed would be taken care of in due course. He was of the belief that the overall proposals offered an excellent enhancement for that location.

17

PC.04.08.20PM

On being put to the meeting with 10 voting FOR, 1 voting AGAINST, 3 ABSTAINING and 2 ABSENT, the recommendation was declared CARRIED. A recorded vote resulted as follows:

FOR (10) AGAINST (1) ABSTAINING (3) ABSENT (2) Aldermen Councillor Alderman Councillors Keery McKee Gibson Adair McDowell Councillors Cooper McIlveen McClean Brooks McRandal Cathcart Kennedy McAlpine Smith, P Thompson Walker

It was noted that Councillor Adair had not been present for the full discussion and was unable to vote.

RESOLVED, on the proposal of Alderman Keery, seconded by Councillor Thompson, that the recommendation be adopted and planning permission be granted.

(Councillor Brooks left the meeting for Items 4.3 and 4.4 having declared an interest in both items)

4.3. LA06/2017/1099/DCA – Demolition of former Parochial House and associated external buildings

PREVIOUSLY CIRCULATED:- Case Officer’s Report.

DEA: Donaghadee Committee Interest: Call in from delegated list of 7 July 2020 Proposal: Demolition of former Parochial House and associated external buildings Site Location: 9 Millisle Road, Donaghadee Recommendation: Refuse Demolition Consent

The Planning Officer (G Kerr) began by explaining that this was an outline application for the demolition of former Parochial House and associated external buildings. This application was associated with an outline application for a new build 2-storey Children’s day nursery. Given that members were required to vote on each individual application, the applications would be presented separately.

The applications for 4.3 and 4.4 were called in from the delegated list by Councillor Brooks to be presented before Committee.

No letters of objection were received in relation to the application for conservation area consent to demolish. The recommendation was to refuse consent to demolish.

18

PC.04.08.20PM

The site was located at 9 Millisle Road, Donaghadee along the southern boundary of the Conservation Area which was designated in 1994. The site was occupied by a large 2 storey detached villa and a number of outbuildings to the west of the main dwelling. The Parochial House had been vacant for some time; however, the building appeared structurally sound.

There was an extant planning approval for one detached dwelling immediately south of the application site, as part of the larger St. Anne’s Wood housing development for 47 houses approved in 2008. Members were shown a satellite image the surrounding area which was primarily characterized by mixed density housing.

With regard to the planning history of the site, the application site had been subject to a previous application for conservation area consent to demolish and an associated application for full planning permission for 2 dwellings under Ref: X/2009/0947/DCA and X/2009/0946/F.

Members were advised that both of those applications were withdrawn following recommendations to refuse permission/consent. The applicant and a local housebuilder also had a Pre Application Discussion in May 2017 with regard to the current proposal when it was advised at the time that by the conservation officer that the building made a material contribution to the conservation area and that it was considered that circumstances had not changed since the previous application on the site and therefore the proposal would likely be recommended as a refusal.

Members were advised that the bar was set high in relation to retention of buildings in Conservation Areas and is embedded not only in policy but also in legislation.

Section 104 (11) of the Planning Act stated that in designated Conservation Areas special regard must be had to the desirability of –

(a) Preserving the character or appearance of that area where an opportunity for enhancing its character or appearance did not arise (b) Enhancing the character and appearance of that area where the opportunity to do so did arise.

The provisions of SPPS and PPS6 were also applicable. The SPPS stated that there was a general presumption against conservation area consent for demolition of unlisted buildings where proposals would conflict with this principle and that this should only be relaxed in exceptional circumstances where it is considered to be outweighed by other material considerations grounded in the public interest. The SPPS went on to state that demolition of an unlisted building should only be considered where the planning authority deemed that the building made no material contribution to the character or appearance of the area and subject to appropriate arrangements for the redevelopment of the site.

The officer displayed slides showing the Parochial House. The Council’s Conservation Officer was consulted on the application and recommended that Conservation Area Consent was refused in the consultation response.

19

PC.04.08.20PM

The Donaghadee Conservation Area Design Guide recognised the subject building as a ‘fine villa’. The house was also referred to in the Ulster Architectural Heritage Society (UAHS) Publication ‘Historic Buildings, Groups of Buildings and Areas of Architectural Importance in Donaghadee and Portpatrick.’ The house was built in 1902-1903 to designs by architect William John Fennell, a notable Belfast architect whose works included Cooke Centenary Presbyterian Church on Ormeau Road, All Saints Church of Ireland Church on University Street and the Mater Hospital.

Most recently the building had served as a parochial house for the adjacent chapel. The building was of traditional form and contributed to the rich historic fabric of Donaghadee. The building also occupied a prominent location. It was the first building within the Conservation Area boundary, elevated above lands to the south. The building was therefore of historical, cultural and visual significance to the town.

A dwelling had been approved in the overgrown area to the south of the Parochial House. Members were asked to note that this approval lay outside the Conservation Area boundary and was therefore considered under different policy.

It was considered that even if this dwelling were to be constructed, it would not harm the setting of No. 9 to such an extent that that was no longer worthy of retention. No. 9 (the Parochial House) was elevated above the new dwelling site and was also closer to Millisle Road, meaning that it would still be a highly visible component of the street scene when approaching the Conservation Area from Millisle direction.

A photomontage demonstrated a static view from one spot; the passer by would see more of the house when they passed the approved dwelling thereby giving a sequential awareness of various buildings including the Parochial House on approach to Donaghadee town centre.

The situation on site in terms of approved and extant developments remained as per the previous application for demolition of the parochial house X/2009/0947/DCA. The dwelling immediately to the south of No. 9 had not yet been constructed despite forming part of a larger residential development of 47 houses approved in 2008 under reference X/2006/0154/F.

The Council had received letters of support for the proposed new day care facility which was the proposed use to replace the building if demolished. Members were advised that the Planning Department was in no way against the provision of a day care facility in Donaghadee,

However, a new day care facility could be provided through re-use of the existing building or any other building in the settlement and did not outweigh the loss resulting from demolition of the building in a Conservation Area on this gateway site. There were numerous examples of day care facilities being provided in converted buildings throughout the Borough such as Bluebell Lodge and the Red Balloon in Bangor and Happy Days nurseries in Conlig and Newtownards.

The existing building could be converted and extended to achieve that and the result would be of a high quality development more in keeping with the character of Donaghadee.

20

PC.04.08.20PM

The dwelling appeared to be structurally sound and would therefore lend itself to sympathetic repair and renovation. The comparative development cost report submitted on behalf of the applicant showed that there were clear cost benefits for demolition rather than refurbishment, however this alone was not an adequate justification for demolition. PPS6 stated that ‘consent for demolition would not be given simply because redevelopment was economically more attractive to the developer than repair and re-use of the building, or because the developer acquired the building at a price that reflected the potential for redevelopment rather than the condition and constraints of the existing historic building.’ The Planning Appeals Commission highlighted this paragraph in a recent decision, 2017/A0161 in May 2018.

It was acknowledged that buildings in Conservation Areas can impose additional restrictions and sometimes financial burdens upon their owners, however this was balanced against the wider value of the building and to the Conservation Area as a whole.

The site had not been subject to any planning proposals for sympathetic conversion during the period of vacancy. There was a previous planning application for demolition and erection of 2 dwellings (X/2009/0947/DCA and X/2009/0946/F) and this was recommended for refusal on the basis of non-compliance with Policies BH12 and BH14 of PPS 6. The circumstances on site had not changed.

It could not be denied that Donaghadee had recently seen a renaissance and was now a popular, vibrant town within the Borough receiving positive press in relation to regeneration initiatives including the Town Heritage schemes at the Town Hall, shopfront replacements and the public realm works. Previously run- down buildings within the Conservation Area had been restored and were now viable businesses such as Bridewell Coffee shop and a new boutique guesthouse along the seafront.

Regeneration projects were known to have a ripple effect in towns and villages and instilled a sense of pride by its residents. The historic fabric of any town was important and the legislation and policy was there to protect those buildings. The former Parochial House was the first building on approach to the Conservation Area from the south and was an important gateway site - following consideration of this, proposal for consent to demolish refusal was recommended.

(Alderman Gibson left the meeting – 7.45pm)

The Chair pointed to previous planning permission granted for a building across the road which was outside of the designated Conservation Area boundary but if built would have changed the outlook of the area, restricting the view of the Parochial House. He asked if this hypothetical building had been a consideration in the Officer’s assessment.

The Officer confirmed that planning approval was granted back in 2008 and that the building was part of an overall approval for a housing development scheme. It was unclear why the building had not been constructed but planning officers had a duty to balance what was already on the ground with planning history in the area. While any

21

PC.04.08.20PM

building opposite would have been a material consideration, conservation legislation was very stringent, and it would have been followed regardless of the size and appearance of any building located opposite the Parochial House. Significantly, it fell within an area of architectural or historical interest and planning legislation was very clear on the protection of buildings in those areas. That had formed the basis of the decision taken by the Planning Service to recommend refusal of demolition consent.

Councillor Cathcart asked for clarity on why there were two separate applications in relation to the site - one for demolition and a second application for the construction of a children’s day nursery. He felt that it was important to consider what the site was going to be used for and its benefit to the community, and therefore a single application would have given members more context in making a decision.

The Officer advised that while both applications were intertwined, legislation required both to be submitted and dealt with as separate applications. There were however limited details provided in the second application for the day care nursery as it was an outline application. That was unusual for an application for a day care nursery as normally the application would include letters of support and projected figures. The Planning Service was not against a day care nursery in the area but felt it did not justify the demolition of a protected building to facilitate it. The building could have been refurbished – the officer pointed to other locations where this had been the case.

Councillor Cathcart acknowledged good examples of refurbishments of old buildings, in particular, Bangor Library. However, he felt that refurbishment was not always a viable option for many old buildings and queried if there was a point where Planning Officers felt the needs of regeneration and community benefit took priority over old buildings.

The Head of Planning stressed that the Planning Service was not obliged to change the status quo but was however obliged to follow the legislation and policy that was already in place to protect any historical or architectural qualities. She pointed to a previous case where the judge had ruled in favour of this. It was also advised that community support for the demolition of a protected building was not a valid reason to grant consent. Regeneration was not always about demolition and rebuilding; it was also about sympathetic refurbishment which protected built heritage.

In response to two further queries from Members, the Officer confirmed that there was no time limit, threshold or test for how long a building was left unused and in a state of disrepair in a Conservation Area that would allow it to be demolished. It was only in exceptional circumstances where a building was structurally unsafe and a danger to the public, for example, that it could be demolished, and financial burden was not a valid reason. There were previous cases where the Planning Service has had to instruct structural reviews where similar applications for demolition had been made, however those inspections found that many buildings were structurally safe and worthy of refurbishment.

Alderman Keery pointed that the building had not been occupied for over 20 years and as a Parochial House it no longer served the Parish. It was also the subject of vandalism and this had escalated since the closure of Donaghadee Police Station.

22

PC.04.08.20PM

The Chair advised Alderman Keery that this was an opportunity for questions of clarification only but he would have an opportunity to raise those points in the debate.

RECESS

The meeting adjourned at 8 pm and resumed at 8.10 pm.

Mr Noel Orr, representing the applicant, was invited to speak for the allocated five minutes.

Mr Orr thanked the Committee for the opportunity to discuss the proposal and to be able to briefly summarise the reasons why he disagreed with the Officer’s recommendation and would be outlining what he felt were sufficient grounds for the Committee to consider approving the scheme before them. He outlined the following points:

• There were no objections to the proposal and letters of support were received from a local councillor, two local MLAs, the Donaghadee Community Development Association and a neighbour.

• The reasons for refusal for consideration by the Committee were that the scheme was contrary to para 6.18 of the Strategic Planning Policy Statement and Policy BH14 of PPS 6. The basis of that was that the Officers believed that the former Parochial House makes a ‘material contribution’ to the appearance of the Donaghadee Conservation Area within which the dwelling falls.

• Mr Orr would have agreed with that conclusion had there not been an extant approval for an imposing two storey detached dwelling to the south of the building located only 8.4m away from the main entrance.

• The approval of this dwelling established a precedent for significant development adjacent to the vacant dwelling which would impact on the original setting and re-orientate development towards addressing the Millisle Road and not as currently evident on site.

• Although yet to be constructed, Mr Orr proposed to the committee that when it was built, the clear views of the building currently available on site would be so adversely affected that the former Parochial House will fail the ‘material contribution’ test.

• The dominant and commanding location enjoyed by the dwelling in its current arrangement would be reduced significantly with large section of the southerly elevation obscured by the new dwelling. The clear views of the symmetrical elevation addressing the open space would be lost.

23

PC.04.08.20PM

• As part of the submission a photomontage was provided to illustrate that impact, which clearly demonstrated the damage to the existing setting of the building.

• The Case Officer had stated that the setting of the building was not harmed sufficiently to the point that it was no longer worthy of retention, however Mr Orr believed that his photomontage illustrated significant damage to the setting envisaged by the original architect in 1902 and therefore it was his conclusion that it would no longer contribute positively to the conservation area.

• A picture could ‘paint a thousand words’ and Mr Orr encouraged the members of the committee to review the image prior to drawing any conclusion on the matter.

Members were invited to ask questions to Mr Orr.

In response to a query from the Chair, Mr Orr clarified that the original architect’s vision of the setting in 1902 had changed following the approval of planning permission for the housing development in 2008, and the setting would be impacted further when the dwelling opposite was finally constructed.

Councillor P Smith asked how the applicant could justify demolition having heard the information from the Officer in relation to the conservation legislation and how the building’s condition did not exceed any threshold that would permit destruction over refurbishment.

Mr Orr felt that there were two sides to the argument pointing out that the building had been the subject of ongoing vandalism and arson due to its current condition. He also believed that the building no longer satisfied the material contribution threshold and that the demolition was being applied for in the context of the extant approval for the land opposite.

Financial viability, Mr Orr continued, was also very important, and that was highlighted by the fact that the property had been on the market since 2009 and had not provided any viable opportunities for interested purchasers to refurbish rather than demolish. This was also the case for a day care nursery.

Councillor Cathcart asked what supporting evidence there was to show how the demolition and resulting day care nursery would benefit the community. Mr Orr advised that as this was an outline application there was little information. The priority was to get demolition consent at this stage.

Councillor Walker felt that the argument to demolish because a building might be built in the future was weak, and queried what Mr Orr thought about the successful refurbishment of Donaghadee Town Hall.

Mr Orr felt that the building had not yet been built due to market forces but would be constructed once market conditions had changed. He felt that also applied to another nearby development where planning approval had been granted. 24

PC.04.08.20PM

Mr Orr felt the Parochial House was different to the Town Hall as it was only 8.4 metres from a plot that was the subject of planning approval for a two-storey building. The impact would damage the current setting of the Parochial House.

That completed the questioning from the Committee and Mr Orr was returned to the virtual public gallery.

In response to the Chair, the Officer clarified that the financial aspect of the proposal was not a material consideration and retention was the key in the legislation.

Councillor Cathcart asked if a full application for a day nursery came in with huge supporting evidence that it would be of benefit to the community, would it change anything. The Officer confirmed that it would have no impact on the recommendation to refuse consent to demolish. It was added that the Planning Service was obliged under the legislation to consider retention of the building.

Councillor Walker proposed, seconded by Alderman McIlveen that the recommendation be adopted.

Proposing Councillor Walker felt that the building was in a dominant position in a Conservation Area and the fact that a building may or may not be built in the future was irrelevant. Furthermore, Council had spent a lot of resource creating an historic sense to the area and he felt strongly that Council should be looking after the Borough’s built heritage.

Alderman McIlveen voiced his support for the proposal in favour of retaining the building. The Chair added his support agreeing with the entirety of the proposer and seconder’s comments.

On the proposal being put to the meeting with 11 voting FOR the officers’ recommendation, 2 voting AGAINST, 0 ABSTAINING and 3 ABSENT, it was declared CARRIED.

FOR (11) AGAINST (2) ABSTAINED (0) ABSENT (3) Aldermen Alderman Alderman McDowell Keery Gibson McIlveen Councillor Councillor Councillors Adair Brooks Cathcart Cooper Kennedy McAlpine McClean McKee McRandal P Smith Thompson Walker

25

PC.04.08.20PM

RESOLVED, on the proposal of Councillor Walker, seconded by Alderman McIlveen, that the recommendation be adopted, and consent to demolish be refused.

4.4. LA06/2017/1100/O – Outline application for the demolition of existing unoccupied detached Parochial House and outbuildings to facilitate construction of new build 2-storey Children's Day Nursery

PREVIOUSLY CIRCULATED:- Case Officer’s Report.

DEA: Donaghadee Committee Interest: Call in from delegated list of 7 July 2020 Proposal: Outline application for the demolition of existing unoccupied detached Parochial House and outbuildings to facilitate construction of new build 2-storey Children's Day Nursery. Site Location: 9 Millisle Road, Donaghadee Recommendation: Refusal

The Planning Officer began by explaining that this was an outline application for the demolition of an existing unoccupied detached Parochial House and outbuildings to facilitate construction of new build 2-storey Children’s Day Nursery. No letters of objection were received and the recommendation was to refuse planning permission. The location of the site at 9 Millisle Road, Donaghadee could be seen on the site location plan and ortho photograph. The application site occupied a prominent position and was the first building within the Donaghadee Conservation Area boundary. The surrounding area was primarily characterised by mixed density housing. A school and church were also located close to the site. Section 104(11) of the Planning Act stated that proposals should preserve the character or appearance of the Conservation Area where the opportunity to enhance it did not arise and to enhance it where the opportunity did arise. As stated in the previous presentation it was considered that the Parochial House did make a material contribution to the Conservation Area and that renovation of that existing building to put it back into use would represent an opportunity to enhance the Conservation Area rather than demolition of an historic building. The SPPS and PPS6 provided the relevant policy context for new development in the Conservation Area. Demolition of an unlisted building should be subject to appropriate arrangements for redevelopment of the site. The application was for outline planning permission and limited details had been provided in relation to the design of the proposed new building. The indicative street elevation suggested a 2-storey building. A high-quality design would be expected given the building would occupy a gateway site to the conservation area. Given the lack of detailed plans, it could not be considered that the contribution of the new building would outweigh the loss of the existing building at the gateway site in the Conservation Area.

26

PC.04.08.20PM

PPS2 Natural Heritage Policy NH2 stated that Planning Permission would only be granted for a development proposal that was not likely to harm a species protected by law. A bat survey or bat roost potential survey had not been provided by the applicant. NIEA Natural Environment Division agreed that the building did have bat roost potential and had recommended refusal on the basis that it had not been demonstrated that the development, if permitted, would not cause harm to bats, a European Protected Species. The Council’s Environmental Health Department had highlighted that activities associated with the day nursery could impact upon the amenity enjoyed by the occupiers of nearby residential premises, due to elevated noise from children playing outside and consequently it would be necessary to restrict hours of opening and to ensure provision of acoustic barriers. Adequate parking spaces could be provided within the curtilage of the building and DFI Roads had provided no objection to the proposal. To conclude, it was the view of the Planning Department that the subject building made a material contribution to the character and appearance of Donaghadee’s Conservation Area and therefore the new proposal failed to preserve or enhance the character and appearance of Donaghadee Conservation Area. It was considered that conversion of the existing building would represent an opportunity to enhance the conservation area. The contribution of the new building did not outweigh the loss of the existing building. In addition, it had not been demonstrated that the development, if permitted would not cause harm to bats, a European Protected Species. Having weighed all material planning considerations it was recommended that planning permission be refused. Councillor Adair advised that he had been unable to get the Chair’s attention previously and wished to declare an interest in Item 4.5. In response to the Officer’s presentation of Item 4.4, Councillor Cathcart asked if the Committee was being asked to make a decision on the principal of a day nursery on the site if the applicant was to return with an alternative to demolishing the Parochial House. It was advised that the Planning Officers were not against a day care nursery but refurbishment was the key. The application before members though was intertwined with demolition but it had to be treated as a separate application than the previous one, but the demolition aspect was still part of the current application.

Mr Orr was returned to the meeting to speak for the application but advised that out of respect to the Planning Committee, considering the previous decision to refuse demolition consent, he no longer wished to exercise speaking rights. Councillor Walker proposed, seconded by Alderman McIlveen, that the recommendation be adopted. Councillor Cathcart commented that while he agreed with the proposal, he had great sympathy for the applicant and hoped they would not be discouraged from making an alternative proposal for a day care nursery at the site. On the proposal being put to the meeting with 11 voting FOR the officers’ recommendation, 2 voting AGAINST, 0 ABSTAINING and 3 ABSENT, it was declared CARRIED.

27

PC.04.08.20PM

FOR (11) AGAINST (2) ABSTAINED (0) ABSENT (3) Aldermen Alderman Alderman McDowell Keery Gibson McIlveen Councillor Councillor Councillors Adair Brooks Cathcart Cooper Kennedy McAlpine McClean McKee McRandal P Smith Thompson Walker

RESOLVED, on the proposal of Councillor Walker, seconded by Alderman McIlveen, that the recommendation be adopted, and planning permission be refused.

(Councillor Adair left the meeting at this stage)

4.5 – 4.12 Static Village Entrance Signage at various locations (LA06/2020/0409/A, LA06/2020/0410/A, LA06/2020/0411/A, LA06/2020/0412/A, LA06/2020/0413/A, LA06/2020/0414/A, LA06/2020/0415/A, LA06/2020/0416/A)

PREVIOUSLY CIRCULATED:- Case Officer’s Report.

DEA: Various Committee Interest: Applications made by the Council Proposal: Static Village Entrance Signage Site Location(s): Millisle, Ballyhalbert, Cottown, Ballywalter, Cloughey Recommendation: Approval

4.5 LA06/2020/0409/A The Officer (C Rodgers) explained that Item 4.5 was for a village entrance sign located 36m North East of 77 Donaghadee Road, Millisle The proposed sign marked the settlement of Millisle to the north of the village and it would be located on the eastern side of the Donaghadee Road. The proposed aluminium sign was 2.5m high and 1m wide. The welcome sign included an image of a windmill and would be finished in the branding and marketing colours of the council. The relevant policy context was provided by Planning Policy Statement 17 Control of Outdoor Advertisements. As detailed in the case officer’s report, it was considered that the signage respects the character and appearance of the site and surrounding

28

PC.04.08.20PM

area. The proposed sign would replace an existing sign and would not result in cluttering of signage and would not be overly dominant in the street scene. DFI Roads had been consulted and returned no objection on the grounds of road safety. RECOMMENDED that planning consent is granted. RESOLVED, on the proposal of Councillor Thompson, seconded by Councillor Walker, that the recommendation be adopted, and planning permission be granted.

4.6 LA06/2020/0410/A The Officer advised that Item 4.6 was for a village entrance sign 16m South West of 4 Ashley Park, Millisle. The proposed sign would mark the western side of the settlement and be located on the northern side of Moss Road. The scale and design of the sign was the same as that previously presented.

It was considered that the signage respected the amenity of the local area. DFI Roads provided no objection to the application on the grounds of road safety. RECOMMENDED that planning consent is granted. RESOLVED, on the proposal of Councillor Thompson, seconded by Councillor Walker, that the recommendation be adopted, and planning permission be granted.

4.7 LA06/2020/0411/A The Officer advised that Item 4.7 was for a village entrance sign 34m North West of 187 Harbour Road, Ballyhalbert. The site was located to the south east of the settlement, on the eastern side of Harbour Road. As with the previous two applications, the blue aluminium welcome sign was 2.5m high and 1m wide. It included an image of an airplane. It was considered that the proposed sign respected the amenity of the area. DFI Roads had provided no objection on the grounds of road safety. RECOMMENDED that planning consent is granted. RESOLVED, on the proposal of Councillor Thompson, seconded by Councillor Walker, that the recommendation be adopted, and planning permission be granted.

29

PC.04.08.20PM

4.8 LA06/2020/0412/A The Officer advised that Item 4.8 was for a village entrance sign 28m south east of 10 ‘The Ten Cottages’ Newtownards Road, Cottown The application site was a grass verge adjacent to the Newtownards Road. The scale and design reflected the previous applications for village entrance signs It was considered that the proposed sign respected the amenity of the area. DFI Roads had provided no objection to the application. RECOMMENDED that planning consent is granted. RESOLVED, on the proposal of Councillor Walker, seconded by Councillor McRandal, that the recommendation be adopted, and planning permission be granted.

4.9 LA06/2020/0413/A The Officer advised that Item 4.9 was for a village entrance sign 36m South East of 6 Coast View Cottages, Ballywalter Road, Millilse The site was located on the western side of Ballywalter Road to the south of the settlement. There was an existing sign on the application site. The scale and design replicated those previously presented. The sign respected the amenity of the locality and DFI Roads had provided no objections. RECOMMENDED that planning consent is granted. RESOLVED, on the proposal of Councillor Thompson, seconded by Councillor Walker, that the recommendation be adopted, and planning permission be granted.

4.10 LA06/2020/0414/A The Officer confirmed that Item 4.10 was for a village entrance sign 34m NE of 156 Shore Road, Ballyhalbert. The application site was located to the north of the settlement, on the eastern side of Shore Road. There was an existing welcome sign on the application site.

30

PC.04.08.20PM

The scale and design reflected the other village signs. It was considered that the proposed sign would result in no detrimental impact on the amenity of the site or surrounding area. DFI Roads had been consulted and no objection had been received.

RECOMMENDED that planning consent is granted. RESOLVED, on the proposal of Councillor Thompson, seconded by Councillor Walker, that the recommendation be adopted, and planning permission be granted.

4.11 LA06/2020/0415/A The Officer advised that Item 4.11 was for a village entrance sign 53m south east of 72 Whitechurch Road, Ballywalter. The application site was located on the eastern side of the Whitechurch Road to the north of the settlement of Ballywalter. There was an existing welcome sign on the application site.

The scale and design reflected the other proposed village signs and included imagery of a coastline. It was considered that the proposed sign respected amenity and would cause no detrimental impact to the site or surrounding area. DFI Roads had returned no objection. RECOMMENDED that planning consent is granted. RESOLVED, on the proposal of Councillor McAlpine, seconded by Councillor Thompson, that the recommendation be adopted, and planning permission be granted.

4.12 LA06/2020/0416/A The Officer advised that Item 4.12 was a village entrance sign 30m North West of 69 Main Road, Cloughey. The site was located on the south-east side of main road to the north of the settlement. The proposed sign sought to replace an existing welcome sign. The proposed sign replicated the scale and design of the signs previously presented and included a white image of a coastline. The proposal respected the amenity of the site and surrounding area and no objection had been received from DFI Roads. RECOMMENDED that planning consent is granted. RESOLVED, on the proposal of Councillor McAlpine, seconded by Councillor Thompson, that the recommendation be adopted, and planning permission be granted.

31

PC.04.08.20PM

5. UPDATE ON PLANNING APPEALS

PREVIOUSLY CIRCULATED: Report dated 19 July 2020 from the Head of Planning detailing that no new decisions had been issued since the date of the last report to Committee.

New Appeals Lodged

1. The following appeal was lodged on 25 June 2020.

Appeal reference: 2020/A0032 Application LA06/2019/0056/F Reference: Appeal by: Decj Property Rentals Subject of Appeal: Refusal of permission for Change of Use from 2no. storage units to 2no. non-food retail units including new shop fronts, new render finish to external walls and increased height to front and side parapet walls Location: Storage units to the rear of 51-53 High Street, Bangor

Details of appeal decisions, new appeals and scheduled hearings could be viewed at www.pacni.gov.uk.

RECOMMENDED that the Council notes the report.

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

6. QUARTER 4 2019/2020 PERFORMANCE REPORT PREVIOUSLY CIRCULATED: Report dated 19 July 2020 from the Head of Planning detailing that Members would be aware that Council was required, under the Local Government Act 2014, to have in place arrangements to secure continuous improvement in the exercise of its functions. To fulfil this requirement Council approved the Performance Management Policy and Handbook. The Performance Management Handbook outlined the approach to Performance Planning and Management process as:

• Community Plan – published every 10-15 years • Corporate Plan – published every 4 years (2015-2019 plan in operation) • Performance Improvement Plan (PIP) – published annually (2018/19 plan published 30 June 2018) • Service Plan – developed annually (approved April 2018)

The Corporate Plan 2015-19 set out 17 objectives for the plan period based on themes of People, Place, Prosperity and Performance. The Council’s 16 Service Plans outlined how each respective Service would contribute to the achievement of the Corporate objectives including, but not limited to, any relevant actions identified in the PIP.

32

PC.04.08.20PM

Reporting approach

The Service Plans would be reported to relevant Committees on a quarterly basis as undernoted:

Reference Period Reporting Month Quarter 1 (Q1) April – June September Q2 July – September December Q3 October – December March Q4 January - March June

Publication of this report was delayed due to the COVID-19 pandemic and awaiting release of the Department’s Annual Statistical tables for April 2019 to March 2020 which were published on 02 July 2020.

The report for the 4th Quarter of 2019/20 was attached.

Key points to note:

Over the 2019-20 year the Planning Department received 10 major development applications and issued decisions on three. These were the following: a) LA06/2018/0610/F – 70 no. dwelling units and garages open space, landscaping, landscaped buffer and all associated site and access works Lands zoned for housing (Ref CR04) fronting Ballygowan Road, Comber b) X/2010/0153/RM - Residential development comprising 158 and associated roads, landscaping and drainage works (amended plans) Lands to the east and west of Seaview Caravan Park, east of 12-16 Ashley Park and West and south of 1 Donaghadee Road, Millisle c) LA06/2017/0533/F – 185 residential units, housing roads and extension to Rivenwood Boulevard, with associated open spaces including play park Land at Rivenwood, Movilla Road, Newtownards a) This application was submitted in June 2018 and the decision notice issued in April 2019, a total of 44 weeks. The reasoning behind the delay in the processing of this application concerned requests from various statutory consultees who raised issues with the proposal as submitted. Subsequently several additional or revised reports were required inter alia - Tree Survey Report, Sound level impact report, Drainage and Flood Risk Assessments, Landscape Plan, Construction Plan and Outdoor Lighting Plan. This necessitates re-advertisement and re-neighbour notification alongside re- consultation with the requisite government bodies. As a result of some of the above, some amendments were made to the site layout and house types.

33

PC.04.08.20PM

b) This was a legacy application inherited from the Department for the Environment on transfer and related to details to be approved of conditions attached to a 1967 outline planning permission issued by Down County Council.

The processing and final assessment of this current reserved matters consent application was significantly hampered by the lack of submission of a copy of the original permission by Down County Council.

Whilst the agent for the applicant considered that sufficient information had been provided to satisfy the relevant legislation, the Planning Department expressed concern over the lack of provision of the original outline planning permission as it was not explicit from the details submitted as to what, if any, matters the County Council had reserved for subsequent approval. The original outline planning permission would have set the ambit of the development proposal as approved. However, in the absence of such clarity, further to receipt of legal advice, the ability of the Planning Department to consider the issues being raised and matters recommended to be conditioned by statutory consultees and determine what, if any, were appropriate was impossible.

However, the matter was resolved on 12 February 2019 by the provision of a copy of the original planning permission from the Council’s Environmental Health and Protection Department which, as it transpired, held a copy of the original outline permission on its file for the original licence granted to operate the caravan park, which had been approved as part of the 1967 planning permission.

Thus, this application was in the system for some nine years, five of which were during DOE time when little was done to progress the case, and the Council required amendments to the details as proposed to address the subsequent local development plan housing zoning and topography of the site. c) This application related to housing zoning NS 20 to the east side of Newtownards and included delivery of an extensive stretch of the eastern distributor road as required by the development plan and funded by the developer. Consultees requested a number of further studies throughout the processing which had to be submitted, and re-consulted upon and which gave rise to redesign and site layout amendments, inter alia ecological appraisal and badger reports, flood risk and drainage assessments, archaeological programme of works and construction environmental management plan. As a result of objection, the scheme was amended from 189 units to 185 units. There were also issues concerning when the requirement for a roundabout rather than the existing signalised junction (associated with Phase 1 of the development) would be triggered which required further transport assessments and consultation with DFI Roads on a number of occasions. The applicant was advised at pre- application discussion stage that a legal agreement dealing with the entirety of the NS 20 zoning would be required to address the comprehensive development of the zoning which was in the ownership of a number of landowners; however, this matter was not addressed by the applicant until quite late in the processing. The application was presented to Planning Committee and determined as an approval in October 2018 pending execution of the associated legal agreement;

34

PC.04.08.20PM

however, following difficulties by the applicant in achieving the execution of the originally proposed planning agreement by all of the land owners in the wider zoning NS 20 which encompasses the application site, the comprehensive master plan had to be amended and the Planning Department had to assess the revised scheme and redrafted legal agreement afresh. As such the application had to be re-presented to Planning Committee in March 2019. The legal agreement was finally executed by the relevant landowners, and the decision issued in mid-April 2019.

• The Planning Department received c900 applications in the local development category and issued decisions on 798 applications taking an average of 15.8 weeks, a very slight increase from 15.6 weeks the previous year.

• A vast array of issues has had an impact on processing times – including secondment on a part time basis of a senior planner to the Department’s Planning Portal Replacement Project Team and a number of secondments to other internal sections which were not able to be backfilled.

• In respect of the part time secondment to the Planning Portal Replacement Project Team, those staffing costs were deducted from the Council’s contribution for the first year’s monies owing to the Department.

Key achievements:

• Of six refusals of planning permission which were appealed, five were dismissed (83% success rate) with the remaining one being upheld (a free- standing digital sign at Belfast Road, Bangor), but subject to a number of conditions.

• The Householder Development team processed 403 applications to decision over the 2019/20 year with a median processing time of 7.8 weeks against the internal processing target of 8 weeks.

• In Enforcement, 496 new complaints of alleged breaches of planning control were received (the 3rd highest in NI) and 422 cases were closed. Of those cases closed:

165 Remedied/Resolved 34 Planning permission granted 65 Not expedient 130 No breach identified 28 Immune from enforcement action

• 455 cases were concluded with 81.1% concluded within 39 weeks (target 70%).

35

PC.04.08.20PM

Emerging issues:

• Heads of Planning across the 11 councils had again raised the issue of an uplift in planning fees and requested introduction of fees for those areas where considerable resource must be focussed but for which currently a fee was not attracted. Those included applications for non-material changes to permissions, discharge of conditions attached to permissions, review of Proposal of Application Notices, and Pre-Application Discussions and provision of advice.

• Additionally, the Department (DFI) had set up a Planning Forum to address issues which were highlighted as affecting the efficiency of the planning system in NI. It was proposed to identify 2/3 key areas on which to concentrate quickly to achieve the best outcomes. Those included introduction of local validation lists, proper resourcing of consultees and capacity building, and potential removal of non-planning elements (e.g. private street determinations, NIW consents etc.) from the planning process to improve efficiencies.

• Review of the major processing times, and in fact, in relation to a number of the local applications, it was absolutely inherent that Planning Service focused on front loading of the system, and only provide one additional opportunity for applicants to submit further information or to revise a design, otherwise a refusal should be issued. Planning Service was investing significant staff resources into applications which had been in the system for an inordinate amount of time whilst it negotiated to amend the scheme to an acceptable outcome, or await submission of information that should have been submitted at the outset (and for which only one initial application fee had been paid).

Action to be taken:

• Continued working with DFI to address continual improvement, alongside learning from fellow councils and review of case law and appeal decisions.

• Recruitment within budgetary constraints to backfill essential posts.

RECOMMENDED that the Council notes this report. AGREED TO RECOMMEND, on the proposal of Councillor Thompson, seconded by Councillor McKee, that the recommendation be adopted.

7. LOCAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN – TIMETABLE AND STATEMENT OF COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT PREVIOUSLY CIRCULATED: Report dated 20 July 2020 from the Head of Planning detailing that Members would be aware of the consideration of the updated Local Development Plan Timetable and agreement. (March 2020) and the SCI (May 2020) via delegated powers to the Chief Executive.

36

PC.04.08.20PM

The Department for Infrastructure had now written to Council (attached at item 7a) and 7b) to agree the Timetable and SCI. The Timetable and SCI should be updated on the website, made available and advertised in the relevant press. RECOMMENDED that Council notes the update. AGREED TO RECOMMEND, on the proposal of Alderman McIlveen, seconded by Councillor McKee, that the recommendation be adopted.

8. LETTER TO HEAD OF PLANNING REGARDING BT SCOTLAND – NI TELECOMMUNICATIONS PREVIOUSLY CIRCULATED: Report dated 22 July 2020 from the Head of Planning detailing that the Council had received notification of a marine environmental appraisal (MEA) of the proposed installation of the British Telecommunications plc (BT) Scotland – Northern Ireland (Scot-NI) Telecommunication Cables, Scot-NI 3 and Scot-NI 4. The attached letter introduced the Scot-NI project and provided more information on the proposed approach to the MEA report. Also included was an overview of the proposed marine routes in the attached Location Overview Map. It was noted that the route displayed in that map was indicative at that stage and subject to change following the cable burial assessment and route review.

The sender welcomed any comments the Council would have on the project by 31st July 2020. The Head of Planning would review and respond accordingly.

RECOMMENDED that Members note the content of the attached letter and map.

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

EXCLUSION OF PUBLIC/PRESS

AGREED, on the proposal of Councillor McRandal, seconded by Councillor Walker, that the public/press be excluded during the discussion of the undernoted items of confidential business.

9. ENFORCEMENT REPORT **IN CONFIDENCE** SCHEDULE 6 – INFORMATION REALING TO THE FINANCIAL OR BUSINESS AFFAIRS OF ANY PARITCULAR PERSON (INCLUDING THE COUNCIL HOLIDNG THAT INFORMATION).

37

PC.04.08.20PM

10. LOCAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN STEERING GROUP UPDATE - AUGUST 2020 **IN CONFIDENCE** SCHEDULE 6 – INFORMATION REALING TO THE FINANCIAL OR BUSINESS AFFAIRS OF ANY PARITCULAR PERSON (INCLUDING THE COUNCIL HOLIDNG THAT INFORMATION).

RE-ADMITTANCE OF PUBLIC/PRESS

AGREED, on the proposal of Councillor Thompson, seconded by Alderman McDowell, that the public/press be re-admitted to the meeting.

TERMINATION OF MEETING

The meeting terminated at 9.26 pm.

38

ITEM 7.2.

ARDS AND NORTH DOWN BOROUGH COUNCIL

A meeting of the Environment Committee was held remotely using Zoom on Wednesday, 5 August 2020 at 6.00pm.

PRESENT:

In the Chair: Councillor Greer

Alderman: Cason M Smith (6.59pm) Wilson

Councillors: Armstrong-Cotter Edmund Boyle MacArthur Cathcart McAlpine Cummings (6.02pm) McKee Dunne McNickle Douglas Smart

Officers:- Director of Environmental Services (D Lindsay), Head of Waste and Cleansing Services (N Martin), Democratic Services Manager (J Wilson) and Democratic Services Officer (P Foster)

1. APOLOGIES

There were no apologies.

NOTED.

2. DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST

The Chairman, Councillor Greer, sought Declarations of Interest at this stage.

There were no Declarations of Interest.

NOTED.

(Councillor Cummings joined the meeting at this stage – 6.02pm)

3. POLICY FOR THE PROVISION OF KERBSIDE HOUSEHOLD WASTE COLLECTION SERVICE (FILE 68003) (Appendix I)

PREVIOUSLY CIRCULATED:- Report dated 15 June 2020 from the Director of Environment detailing that the Council had a policy in relation to the provision of kerbside household waste collection services. As part of that policy, the standard entitlement of each household was one wheeled bin of each type (max. 240L), except in the case of larger households (6 or more occupants) or where an occupant generated extra waste as a consequence of their medical condition. Additionally,

EC 05.08.20 PM our policy stated that regardless of household size, the Council may provide a larger blue bin free of charge, where it was satisfied that that the standard 240 litre blue bin was consistently providing insufficient capacity for the fortnightly dry recycling requirements of a home.

Officers had been finding that the number of requests for larger blue bins had been rising, particularly during the Covid-19 lock down period when the amount of blue bin recyclable materials generated in homes had increased. Unfortunately, the budget for the purchase of new bins was now under significant pressure, and during the first quarter of the current financial year the Council had exhausted 58% of its budget for the purchase of all new bins. This meant that there was now very limited opportunity to exercise the flexibility contained within the policy to provide a larger blue bin to homes regardless of household size, and were currently only providing such a bin upgrade in the case of large households (six or more people). Members may recall that part of the proposed Smarter Bins Trial would have involved the receipt of grant funding by DAERA for larger blue bins for all homes involved, but the Council had been unable to draw down such support when the Council decided not to proceed with the proposal to reduce grey bin collection capacity to counterbalance the enlarged blue bin capacity.

Whilst financial constraints meant that the Council could not currently provide a free 360L blue bin upgrade to smaller households (less than six persons), it was in a position to supply one at a current cost of £43.20 (the normal delivery charge of £5 would be waived, as it currently was for deliveries of all household recycling containers).

Officers were currently reviewing the wider bin provision policy in the context of target customer service, recycling and financial outcomes and would propose bringing a further report on this matter in the near future.

RECOMMENDED that the Council notes this report on the limited availability of 360L blue bin upgrades and approves the update to our current kerbside bin provision policy.

Councillor Boyle proposed, seconded by Councillor McNickle, that the recommendation be adopted.

Councillor Boyle thanked the Director of Environmental Services for his report and noted that currently 58% of the budget had been spent which he added was a worry particularly given the drive to enhance the Council’s recycling policy. He added that he felt the Council had missed an opportunity to receive grant money from DAERA for the proposed Smarter Bins trial, which was unfortunate and would not sit well with ratepayers.

The seconder Councillor McNickle, echoed Councillor Boyle’s comments adding that it demonstrated the ongoing effects of earlier decisions, adding that she looked forward to future arrangements for bin provision.

2

EC 05.08.20 PM

Concurring with those comments Alderman Wilson acknowledged that blue bin capacity had struggled throughout lockdown and asked if additional blue bins could be given out at no cost.

In response the Director indicated that would be looked at in conjunction with any policy review.

Councillor Cathcart sought clarification on the volume of waste which had been dealt with during the period. He also suggested that as people gradually stared to return to their place of work there could be a decline in blue bin recyclable materials. Councillor Cathcart also sought clarification on where the Council was going in respect of longer-term issues.

The Director indicated there had been an anticipated increase in the amount of material collected from the kerbside during lockdown, with more people at home for longer.

At this stage, the Head of Waste and Cleansing Services confirmed that kerbside glass recycling had increased by 30% from 700 tonnes to 1,000 tonnes in the same period last year. Landfill however had decreased due to the HRCs being closed during lockdown, while blue bin recycling had increased by 10% on the same period last year. It was noted brown bin recycling rates had also increased.

The Director acknowledged that many more people were likely to continue to work from home at least in the medium term and that would have an impact on the amount of household waste that Council would be liable for managing.

In response to a query from Alderman Carson, the Head of Waste and Cleansing Services confirmed that currently the Council purchased its bins from Schaefer UK. He added that when an upgrade to a 360l blue bin was provided, the 240l bins would be uplifted from the householder, but would still be available for other uses such as events. In respect of glass waste, the Head of Waste and Cleansing Services confirmed that the Council now paid a gate fee for the processing of the glass.

Councillor Dunne offered his praise and thanks to the Council’s bin collection teams which he acknowledged had excelled in continuing to provide a first-class service during what had been a very challenging time for all. He also noted there had been increased demand throughout lockdown and that service had been recognised by rate payers. Continuing Councillor Dunne sought clarification on how to purchase an additional brown bin.

The Head of Waste and Cleansing Services confirmed there was a charge of £50 per annum via direct debit and the second brown bin could then be purchased for £29. It was noted this service was also subject to available collection capacity on rounds where applications were received. He reported to members that around 70 to 100 households in the Borough were availing of the service.

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

3

EC 05.08.20 PM

4. FOLLOW-UP NOM REPORT – ACCESS TO HRCS WITH GARDEN WASTE (FILE 47045 )

PREVIOUSLY CIRCULATED:- Report dated 15 June 2020 from the Director of Environment detailing that a report was brought to the Environment Committee in October 2019 in relation to access to HRCs with garden waste. At that meeting it the following was agreed:

Officers brought back a further report detailing:

• Estimated cost of granting a second brown bin free of change and waiving the annual £50 fee. • Estimated cost of staffing changes to allow staff to check vans used for grass transportation and assessment of burden on staff. • A list of what operations were in place in the other Councils to deal with grass waste disposal. • The process of opening HRCs on the Spring bank holiday to allow greater access to those who found current hours difficult due to work/caring schedules.

The following information was now provided in response to those queries:

1. Estimated cost of granting a second brown bin free of change and waiving the annual £50 fee.

Such a change in policy would have several cost implications.

i. There were currently approximately 70,000 households in the Borough. Although in theory, every household could request a second brown bin free of charge if the policy was changed to facilitate this, based on a working assumption of around one third of homes doing so, the total cost of providing this number of extra bins would be approximately £540,000. Should all homes request the extra free brown bin, the cost of providing those could be as much as £1.61M (excluding bin delivery costs) ii. Whilst it was difficult to estimate precisely how much extra garden waste would have to be collected at the kerbside in the extra free brown bins provided to homes, for planning purposes it would be necessary to assume that a significant proportion of such waste material (say 80%) that was currently brought by residents to HRCs would instead be left for collection at the kerbside. In the last full reporting year for which published statistics were available, approximately 7,000 tons of garden waste was brought to HRCs. If 80% of that ended up in extra freely provided brown bins for collection at the kerbside, this equates to an additional 5,600 tons. In order to facilitate this extra demand upon the kerbside bin collection service, an additional four vehicles and crews would be required at an annual additional cost of £420,000 (this was on the basis of the additional collection requirements being distributed evenly across 12 months, however in reality use of the second bin would be seasonal and heavily

4

EC 05.08.20 PM

dependent on weather patterns - making service planning across the year extremely difficult). iii. The above costs would be additional to the existing budgeted costs for the Waste Collection Services and would have to be considered in terms of affordability as part next year’s estimates process. In the context of the current budgetary challenges facing the Council, it was not proposed that the provision of a free additional bin service was financially viable. iv. Cost estimated summary – between £540,000 and £1.61M upfront cost for bins and extra £420,000 annually recurring revenue costs for extra collections.

2. Estimated cost of staffing changes to allow staff to check vans used for grass transportation and assessment of burden on staff.

The historic staffing model for all our HRCs apart from the two largest sites at Balloo and North Road, was a single attendant on duty at any one time. The introduction of further checks on vehicles coming into sites, including vetting of incoming vans to verify that they were bringing in garden waste only, would necessitate a change in this already very lean operating model, requiring an extra one and a half attendants at each site. The cost of this would be in the region of £325,000 to cover all scheduled operating hours.

With the onset of Covid-19 extra staffing had to be deployed to all reopened sites to ensure effective compliance with all related safety protocols at HRCs. Whilst this could potentially support checks on vans bringing garden waste into HRCs, a change to the permit rules to allow such access would effectively remove any potential for a return to single manned HRCs in a post-Covid era (although that may not be viable in any event given the factors that otherwise mitigate against reliance upon single operative sites). It was proposed that this should be borne in mind when considering whether to amend the HRC multi-use permit access rules to allow transport of garden waste into sites inside vans, and it would be advisable to defer any decision on this until the longer term site staffing demand was more discernible.

3. The following table details arrangements supplied by other Councils for disposal of garden waste.

5

EC 05.08.20 PM

1st Brown Bin Additional Brown Bin HRC Access With Garden (Garden Waste Waste /Organics) Ards and North Yes - FOC Yes (subject to collection Yes – car and small trailer Down route capacity) – charge unrestricted. for supply of bin and Large trailer – FOC annual annual £50 service fee. multi-use permit required (vans must remain unopened if being used in conjunction with large trailer that requires annual multi-use permit). Antrim and Yes - FOC Yes – up to 4 bins Yes – unlimited access Newtownabbey Armagh, Yes - FOC No – Except for large Yes – unrestricted. Banbridge & families (on request), Craigavon FOC for 2-year concessionary period, (subject to collection route capacity)

Belfast Yes - FOC Yes – FOC Yes – unlimited access Causeway Following Yes – max of 2 brown Yes – car/van and small Coast & Glens introduction of bins per household. trailer unrestricted. brown bin service Charge for supply. £35. last year. All these No annual service were issued FoC. charge. All new requests pay for brown bin £35. Derry City & FOC No Yes - unrestricted Strabane Fermanagh & Brown Bin Free of Do not offer an option Yes Omagh charges Lisburn & Yes - FOC £50 annual charge for Yes, unrestricted access Castlereagh additional brown bin plus charge for supply of bin. Currently suspended due to Covid19 Mid & East Yes - free of charge Second brown bin FOC, Yes, unrestricted access. Antrim maximum of two bins per household. Mid Ulster Brown bins Not at present – however Yes, unrestricted access originally provided proposed policy change at larger (Tier A) sites free of charge will permit collection of a however no trailers however all new second bin brown for permitted at smaller sites brown bins must £100 annual service fee now be purchased

6

EC 05.08.20 PM

Newry Mourne Yes. Charged at No. Only have capacity Yes. Daily limit of 1 x & Down £20 for collection to service 1 x brown bin trailer of grass. No access from depot + £25 per household. Where for >1.95 metres height & for delivery. requests received for 2nd >3.5 Tonnes GVW. Vans Normally provide a bin they do offer home < 1.95 metres height, <3.5 kitchen caddy with composter (subsidised tonne GVW & trailers to brown bin FOC by the Council) at £25 be managed via permit system. No access for horseboxes & high-sided trailers.

4. The potential for Bank Holiday opening had been the subject of consultation with Unions for some time now. As the operating model for reopened sites has had to be reviewed in the context of Covid-19, with associated significant extra staffing costs, the affordability of Bank Holiday opening in the future would have extra significance (aside from the issue of securing an agreement with Unions in relation to staff working on Bank Holidays). It was proposed that a further report on both those issues (affordability and staffing availability) would be brought back to Committee as soon as possible.

RECOMMENDED that the proposals set out in this report be noted and that officers be directed in relation to these.

Councillor Boyle suggested that officers were asked to bring back the reports referred to within the report. He stated that he was happy to propose the recommendation on the provision that further clarity was sought on those matters referred to within the report. Continuing he asked for further clarity on those proposals.

In response the Director referred to access to HRCs for vans with garden waste rather than those vehicles with a trailer. He commented that to take a decision on that now would impact upon the Council’s ability to return to pre-Covid19 staffing levels. Continuing he informed members that a detailed report on matters such as this would be considered at the forthcoming meeting of the Strategic Covid19 Recovery Group.

Councillor Boyle stated that in order to clear up confusion he was keen for a full report with full costings and full options to be brought back on such matters as affordability of staffing on Bank Holidays.

The Director confirmed that negotiations continued with Unions in respect of staff issues and confirmed that all matters would be encompassed within a longer-term HRC service model report.

Councillor Boyle proposed that the matter be deferred to enable all outstanding issues to be investigated and a full report be brought back with full costings and full options.

7

EC 05.08.20 PM

At this stage Councillor Edmund sought clarification on a planned timetable for the re-opening of all HRCs.

Councillor Armstrong-Cotter indicated that she wished to second Councillor Boyle’s recommendation and asked if he would consider adding in the following matters:

- Impact of additional staff on HRC sites and the potential for greater recycling efforts - Not all households would require an additional brown bin, consider offsetting the cost of this - Definitive timelines provided on when a final report would be brought back on all matters.

Councillor Boyle indicated that he would be content to add those matters into his proposal.

Alderman Wilson noted the report before members for consideration was quite detailed and was clear as far as he was concerned on the expense which would be involved. Continuing he stated that he would welcome the opening of HRCs on Bank Holidays and added that he recognised that many of the matters referred to would be considered by the Strategic Covid19 Recovery Group.

Councillor Cummings referred to route capacity and agreed that the focus should be on free bins but also recognised the current affordability issues. He noted the 7,000 tons of waste in HRCs and expressed a view that not all of this would transfer to the kerbside collections. Considering that he sought further clarification on the capacity of lorries.

In response the Director indicated that brown bins routes were currently largely at capacity, highlighting that the brown bin collection infrastructure had not been expanded significantly when the rules around food waste disposal were introduced a few years ago. He added that if someone requested a second brown bin, the supervisor would assess the capacity on the particular route concerned. He added that in respect of this matter there was very little additional information which could be brought back in a further report. The imposition of a charge was a necessary means of controlling demand for second brown bins and avoiding unmanageable volume of requests.

At this stage Councillor Edmund sought clarification on when HRCs would be likely to return to their fuller opening hours and asked for some meaningful timescales in respect of that.

The Director reiterated that a report on that matter would be considered at the following week’s meeting of the Council’s Strategic Covid19 Recovery Group, given the financial considerations to be made in respect of this matter.

Councillor Edmund commented that it was not his wish for residents to be asked to pay for an additional brown bin and he asked if it would be possible for all members to see the report going to the Strategic Covid19 Group for consideration.

8

EC 05.08.20 PM

Officers confirmed that all members would as a matter of course have sight of such reports in advance of the meeting.

At this stage Councillor Cathcart agreed that it was essential for members to have all of the available information in order to make logical decisions. He suggested that as part of any HRC service review that consideration was given to the current set up of the facilities and how they could perhaps be made more efficient.

AGREED TO RECOMMEND, on the proposal of Councillor Boyle, seconded by Councillor Armstrong-Cotter, that the matter be deferred to enable all outstanding issues to be investigated and a full report be brought back with full costings and full options and furthermore that the following also be taken into consideration:

- Impact of additional staff on HRC sites and the potential for greater recycling efforts - Not all households will require an additional brown bin, consider offsetting the cost of this - Definitive timelines provided on when a final report would be brought back on all matters.

5. PROVISION OF PORTALOOS AT ANNUAL GOLDSPRINGS FLUTE BAND EVENT (FILE 65081)

PREVIOUSLY CIRCULATED:- Report dated 10 March 2020 from the Director of Environment detailing that the following report related to the amended Notice of Motion agreed by Council in March 2019:

“That this Council provides two portable toilets for this year’s Goldsprings True Defenders Flute Band in Comber and requests officers to review the provision of portable toilets at public events to ensure equitable and fair provision.

Furthermore, requests that public toilets in Comber are publicly accessible for the event.”

Summary of Review

In recent years the Borough Cleansing Service had been requested to provide portable toilets in Comber, for the above band parade (organised by Goldsprings True Defenders Flute Band). In order to meet the request, the units had to be hired in, as the Council did not retain portable toilet units. This was the only non-Council event held in the Borough where the Council directly met the costs of providing portable toilets. More generally, where requested by the organiser of an event, Cleansing would make arrangements to keep any public toilets in the vicinity of the event open late, to facilitate the public attending. For the vast majority of band parades and community run events across the Borough, the extended opening of the nearest available Public toilets would meet the organisers’ needs.

9

EC 05.08.20 PM

In the case of larger non-Council events where the location was remote from public toilets and/or, the public toilets could not cater for the anticipated numbers, the event organiser was required to meet the costs of hiring in additional portaloos. Examples of such events would include the recent Snow Patrol concert, 12 July parade, Portaferry Gala Week and the Royal Black Parade on the last Saturday in August.

While the cost of hiring the portaloos for the parade in Comber (~ £200) may appear insignificant, it does set a precedent and if applied to all the Band competitions and other third party events that took place across the Borough annually, it would represent a significant additional unbudgeted cost.

From an Equality perspective, the Council had duties and responsibilities under Section 75 (Northern Ireland Act 1998), as agreed in the Council’s Equality Scheme. The Council had a responsibility to have due regard to the need to promote equality of opportunity to the nine identified Section 75 categories and to have regard to the desirability of promoting good relations between persons of different religious belief, political opinion and racial group. The provision of portable toilets by the Council, exclusively for one event in Comber, meant that the Council was not meeting its obligation as agreed in the Equality Scheme.

In regard to the suggested wider provision of portable toilets at public events, Members would appreciate that the variety, number and scale of such events would make it very difficult to plan and budget for the demand that might be placed upon the Council in order to fulfil such a commitment. As suggested in the NOM, in order to ensure fair and equitable provision, Council would need to be non-discriminatory with such event support - and this was liable to generate significant extra budgetary pressure. In view of the fact that the Council had a wide network of 30 public toilet facilities around the Borough and the Council would endeavour to work with organisers of significantly sized events to try and accommodate extended opening of those toilets beyond normal hours where that was deemed necessary, it was not considered necessary to introduce a policy of providing portable toilets at public events.

RECOMMENDED that going forward, the Council does not introduce a policy of providing portable toilets at public events and does not do so for the Goldsprings True Defenders Flute Band parade in Comber.

Councillor Boyle proposed, seconded by Alderman Wilson, that the recommendation be adopted.

The proposer, Councillor Boyle, indicated that he was also mindful of the many Council events at which no portable toilet provision was made and the need to not set such a precedent which ultimately had associated costs for the Council.

The seconder, Alderman Wilson, agreed adding that a consistent approach in such matters needed to be adopted by the Council.

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

10

EC 05.08.20 PM

6. STREET NAMING REPORT – HIGH TREES, DONAGHADEE (FILE FP/2019/1003/MAST/91200 )

PREVIOUSLY CIRCULATED:- Report dated 24 July 2020 from the Director of Environment detailing that the first phase of a large development, initially comprising of 72 dwellings was currently under construction on lands at Newtownards Road, Donaghadee.

Since March 2019, the Council had endeavoured to contact the developer on several occasions inviting them to submit their street naming suggestions for the development. Unfortunately, there had been no response from either the developer or their architect.

Therefore, the Council would now suggest street names for their development, as per the Street Naming policy, to prevent any issues for house buyers and installation of services.

As the development was directly behind the small forest known historically and locally as ‘High Trees’, the proposed names for the new development were High Trees Drive, High Trees Green, High Trees Grove and High Trees Park, which was in keeping with the general neighbourhood.

RECOMMENDED that the street names High Trees Drive, High Trees Green, High Trees Grove and High Trees Park, be adopted.

Further recommended that Council accepts the general name and delegates acceptance of suffixes to the Building Control department.

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

(Alderman M Smith joined the meeting at this stage – 6.59pm)

7. REVIEW OF PROPERTY CERTIFICATE (LOCAL GOVERNMENT) FEE (FILE91000)

PREVIOUSLY CIRCULATED:- Report dated 24 February 2020 from the Director of Environment detailing that the fees paid for the Local Government Property certificate when conveying a property have remained unchanged since January 2004.

The Law Society had agreed to change the fee as per the attached table from 1 April 2020, with a rolling four yearly inflationary review.

11

EC 05.08.20 PM

The Council would also offer the option of an updated property certificate to show the outcome of a completion following issue of the original property certificate, at a cost of £30.

RECOMMENDED that this report be noted.

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

8. UPDATE REPORT – SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT AGENDA – BUILDING REGULATIONS ENERGY EFFICIENCY STANDARD (FILE 9100) (Appendix II)

PREVIOUSLY CIRCULATED:- Report dated 22 July 2020 from the Director of Environment detailing that reference was made to a report brought to the September 2019 meeting of the Environment Committee (Appendix 1) on the role of the statutory building control regime, administered and enforced by local Councils, in the achievement of the UK’s statutory net zero greenhouse gas emissions target.

As agreed letters had been sent to the Department of Finance, the UK Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government to lobby for significant and far reaching changes to the energy efficiency standards required under the NI Building Regulations and to all of the other 10 NI Councils asking for support in this campaign (see Appendix).

Responses had been received from the Permanent Secretary at the Department of Finance, the Finance Minister and the UK Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (see Appendix). The content of those responses was very positive and appeared to indicate an intention to recognise the points raised by the Council in a planned review of the NI Building Regulations. Officers would maintain a close review of progress and if necessary, lobby further on the matter to promote timely fulfilment of commitments given.

RECOMMENDED that Council notes the report.

Councillor McKee proposed, seconded by Councillor Boyle, that the recommendation be adopted.

12

EC 05.08.20 PM

The proposer, Councillor McKee expressed his thanks to the Director for the lobbying letters sent to the Department of Finance, the UK Minister and the other Councils in Northern Ireland. Continuing, he welcomed the positive nature of those responses received and expressed the hope that the other Councils would follow suit in lobbying.

Councillor McKee noted that both responses from the Department of Finance concurred and were positive and added that he hoped they would be true to their word in bringing them through as quickly as was practicable. He expressed the view there had been far too many reports, strategies and pieces of legislation which had sat on desks at Stormont while Northern Ireland fell behind. Northern Ireland had the lowest energy efficiency standards and the highest levels of fuel poverty, not to mention the emissions targets which needed to be met, to tackle this climate crisis.

In summing up Councillor McKee stated that the time for action was now adding that the right regulations could make a world of difference. He expressed his hope the Minister for Finance and his department would see the reform of those regulations as a simple step towards the objective of a net carbon zero society, as was agreed in the New Decade, New Approach document.

The seconder, Councillor Boyle, expressed his thanks to the Director and welcomed the responses which had been received to his correspondence.

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

9. LICENSING SERVICES UPDATE – ENTERTAINMENT LICENSING (FILE LR100/90101)

PREVIOUSLY CIRCULATED:- Report dated 23 July 2020 from the Director of Environment detailing that during the COVID lockdown Licensing Services had worked to ensure that premises licensed for entertainment had been able to protect their licence so that they could begin operating again once the lockdown ended. They had also sought to reduce the burden on businesses at this time.

The main problem for licensed premises had been in relation to the renewing of their Entertainment Licence. Under the legislation a renewal application must be made before the previous licence expires to ensure that the licence would continue until the renewal had been granted. As part of the renewal process applicants also needed to place an advertisement in the local press and obtain test certificates for their electrical installation, firefighting equipment, and fire alarms.

Obviously, applicants were unable to undertake any of that work during the lockdown period and in some cases the business did not have the funds to do so.

Licensing Services considered that in the circumstances it would accept an application form from the licensee but that it would not require the advertisement, licence fee or other documentation until a later date. This allowed for continuity of their legally ‘licensed’ status. It had now been decided timely to request that such certification be provided within the next 12 weeks or before then if the premises 13

EC 05.08.20 PM planned to provide entertainment during that period. During the lockdown the Council received 43 applications for renewal under the arrangements outlined.

Receiving the application forms also allowed the Licensing Service to begin the statutory consultation process with the NIFRS and PSNI.

To support the businesses further during this very difficult period, the Council had been easing the burden and cost to individual businesses of advertising their applications by placing a single collective Notice in the local press in relation to all renewal applications made between the 20 March and the end of July. This would help them reduce the cost and administrative work as each advert would ordinarily cost each business approximately £100. The cost to Council to place the single advertisement was very modest, at approximately £250 (compared to the advertising fees that would have collectively run into thousands of pounds for the local businesses).

RECOMMENDED that approval is granted for the approach outlined in this report for supporting local Places of Entertainment in the Borough.

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

10. NOTICES OF MOTION

10.2. NOTICE OF MOTION SUBMITTED BY COUNCILLOR GREER

The Chairman advised members that the Notice of Motion had been withdrawn.

NOTED.

10.2. NOTICE OF MOTION SUBMITTED BY COUNCILLOR MCCLEAN

Councillor McClean proposed, seconded by Councillor Smart, that this Council writes at the earliest opportunity to the Minister for Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs (DAERA), to request the maximum amount payable under a Fixed Penalty Notice in respect of littering and dog fouling offences be increased from the current limit of £80 to £250;

And that officers report to members on the annual cost of Borough cleansing and enforcement in relation to littering and dog fouling offences, with a view to further proposals which may assist in achieving a ‘polluter pays’ principle for the Borough, including but not limited to the possibility of requesting devolving powers for setting Fixed Penalty rates to Councils.

Councillor McClean stated that an increase of this nature was long overdue and his proposal of £250 was set at this level in order to set a principal and support the principal of ‘Polluter Pays’. He added that ratepayers should not pay for clearing up after others. Continuing he noted that in June 2020 there had been 113 Fixed

14

EC 05.08.20 PM

Penalty Notices issued which he stated under his proposals could equate to £20,000 of additional revenue per month.

By writing to the Minister, Councillor McClean indicated that he would expect a response to such correspondence as while it was the Council’s job to keep the Borough clean only the Minister could give increased powers to the Council. He also took the opportunity to make mention of Leslie Cranshaw a local beach cleaner who had lifted one metric tonne of litter last year from the Borough.

The seconder Councillor Smart expressed his support for the motion adding that he too had noted how many residents had taken an interest in monitoring their own locality for litter and therefore he welcomed the proposal to gain further powers to clamp down on this issue.

(Alderman M Smith left the meeting at this stage – 7.15pm)

At this stage Councillor Armstrong-Cotter agreed that litter was a blight and she too knew of one constituent who took it upon themselves to lift rubbish in and around the Lead Mines area and brought it to their own home for sorting. Continuing she commented that on occasions those who had dumped litter had been traced through their own documents which they had dumped. She expressed her support for the proposal and took the opportunity to express her thanks to the litter wardens for their efforts to date.

Councillor McNickle also thanked the proposer for bringing forward his motion and suggested that members had conversations with their respective MLAs in order to put additional pressure on them in respect of this matter. She acknowledged the work already being carried out by the Council’s Neighbourhood Environment Team and added that anything that could be done to help them was to be welcomed.

Also supporting the motion, Councillor Douglas stated that she would be content for the Department to set the rate.

Councillor Cathcart voiced concern that money was being taken away from ratepayers to tackle the problem of litter and in light of that he welcomed the proposal before them. Continuing he questioned whether or not the Minister had the power to increase fines and also suggested that consideration was given to perhaps more flexibility on fines or flexible fines.

Congratulating Councillor McClean on his motion, Councillor Cummings agreed that an effective deterrent was required when it came to the issue of litter. He supported the need to expedite the process for Local Government and took the opportunity to pay tribute to those in the community who were involved in litter picking.

Also expressing his support for Councillor McClean, Councillor Edmund questioned whether it was strong enough. Continuing he stated that he too was aware of a number of litter picking groups throughout the Ards Peninsula adding that the issue of dog fouling was also a high priority for many constituents. He also sought clarification at what point someone could be taken to Court for littering offences.

15

EC 05.08.20 PM

In response the Director referred the member to Item 12 of the Agenda which detailed those Court proceedings brought by the Neighbourhood Environment Team. Continuing the Director confirmed that it was possible to go straight to prosecution in some cases of littering offences.

Councillor MacArthur noted that the issue of litter currently cost £45M throughout Northern Ireland and expressed the view that was disgraceful. Continuing she expressed concern with the increased use of takeaway items and the ongoing issue of seagull proof bins in seaside towns such as Donaghadee. Councillor MacArthur noted that the use of automated bins had been introduced in a number of seaside resorts in the South of Ireland which had been successful. Of the 113 Fixed Penalties issued in June she asked if any appeals had been made.

The Director confirmed that periodic reports of that nature were brought to Committee for consideration throughout the year and as such one would be brought to the September meeting of the Committee which would provide a comprehensive break down of such matters. At this stage, the Director provided the member with a brief synopsis of the appeal process. In respect of Fixed Penalty Notices, he advised that the names of offenders would not be published as no one had been formally convicted of a criminal offence at that stage. However, when an offence was referred to Court it was often the case that would be picked up by the press and subsequently published.

Councillor McAlpine commented that she would be supportive of ‘Polluter Pays’ as litter and dog fouling was in her opinion disgusting and wrong. Referring to the report at Item 12 Court Proceedings – Neighbourhood Environment Team, Councillor McAlpine expressed some concern that some offenders appeared not to pay their fine and others proceeded to Court.

Also supporting Councillor McClean, Councillor Cathcart sought clarification from the Director whether this was what the Council needed currently.

In response the Director confirmed that officers agreed that this was long overdue and as such had been considering the matter in the background. He referred members to the fact that around 1,430 FPNs had been issued by officers from Ards and North Down last year, which compared to a NI total of around 3,000 the year before.

Alderman Carson took the opportunity to commend officers on their efforts to date.

In summing up Councillor McClean welcomed members supportive comments and noted that if fines were increase based on last years figures the Council could have raised an additional £1/4 million of income, which was very significant.

AGREED TO RECOMMEND, on the proposal of Councillor McClean, seconded by Councillor Smart, that this Council writes at the earliest opportunity to the Minister for Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs (DAERA), to request the maximum amount payable under a Fixed Penalty Notice in respect of littering and dog fouling offences be increased from the current limit of £80 to £250;

16

EC 05.08.20 PM

And that officers report to members on the annual cost of Borough cleansing and enforcement in relation to littering and dog fouling offences, with a view to further proposals which may assist in achieving a ‘polluter pays’ principle for the Borough, including but not limited to the possibility of requesting devolving powers for setting Fixed Penalty rates to Councils.

10.3. NOTICE OF MOTION SUBMITTED BY COUNCILLORS DOUGLAS AND MCRANDAL

Councillor Douglas proposed, seconded by Councillor McRandal, that this Council agrees to write to the Department of Agriculture, Environment & Rural Affairs (DAERA) to request a Litter Strategy is drawn up which should include a regional multi-media campaign to tackle litter, including dog fouling, in a bid to deal with the ever increasing public and environmental health issues which littering presents to our society.

The proposer Councillor Douglas stated that she wished for the Borough and the whole country to be a great place to live in, where there was clean water and air; beautiful countryside to enjoy and urban areas which were prosperous, vibrant and welcoming. She commented that the environment in which we all lived had a profound impact on the quality of our lives.

The issue of littering interfered with that vision. Littering, including dog fouling was a perennial one, which had been more pronounced during the initial easing of the lockdown from Covid-19, when she was sure many fellow members like herself, would have borne witness to substantial amounts of litter being discarded at beauty spots such as: Ballyholme, Helen’s Bay and Seapark beaches, to name but a few; as well as in town centre locations and green spaces. Where waste had been discarded at will, with no thought or care about other people nor the natural environment. As an active Beach Cleaner, Councillor Douglas stated that she could see such discarded waste first-hand on a weekly basis. Continuing she noted that even where bins had been provided in public areas, and fines imposed, litter remained a huge challenge.

Councillor Douglas noted that the Council in recent times had responded to the upsurge in littering through the social media campaign of ‘Your waste, Your responsibility’, encouraging people to take their rubbish home where bins were full or not available. Additionally, large signage was erected at beauty spots across the Borough, three of which she had observed were now damaged and had become litter in themselves. In addition, the Council had increased the number of Wardens to monitor and respond swiftly to incidents of littering, but again that had its limits and was very costly alongside the processing of the waste.

Continuing Councillor Douglas emphasised that littering was not only a public health issue, it could be also be harmful to the natural environment and was economically costly. It was also aesthetically displeasing, where it could have an adverse impact on attracting visitors and could create a social norm that littering and dog fouling was somehow acceptable and therefore, encourage further anti-social behaviour. She stated that the very essence of littering threw up many issues from how and what everyone consumed to product and service design and manufacturing. To deal

17

EC 05.08.20 PM with the scourge of littering, including dog fouling, by responding with fines and localised messaging was not addressing the issue as effectively as it might be, which was why she believed what was needed was a cross-Departmental Strategic informed by evidence-based behavioural science to positively influence human behaviour to seriously tackle the issue. She referred members to the regional approaches from road safety in the 1970s, to the wearing of seatbelts when in a car, the no drink driving campaign, and anti-smoking approach, all of which had been robust and effective in responding to challenging issues faced by Council areas across NI. Further she recalled how in 2014 the Scottish Government published its strategy entitled, ‘Zero Waste Towards A Litter-Free Scotland: A Strategic Approach to Higher Quality Local Environments, followed by England in 2017 simply entitled, ‘Litter Strategy for England’. Whilst Northern Ireland had a Waste Management Plan for Northern Ireland dated 2019 and the Northern Ireland Marine Litter Strategy dated 2013, which made partial references litter, a robust and bespoke Litter Strategy was presently a gap.

Councillor Douglas suggested that a Strategy could promote a coordinated response to littering and influence people’s behaviours, through targets and actions plans by motivating citizens to cease littering, pick up their dog poop, cease fly-tipping, and encourage recycling in public places. There were numerous ways that could be achieved, including:

1. through agreeing consistent and clear messaging; 2. via improving the facilities and services provided to reduce litter and promote recycling for example bottle deposit schemes; 3. Via enforcement by strengthening the deterrent effect of legislation; and 4. Working with businesses in terms of product and service design, and corporate responsibility.

Such a Strategy she suggested should aim to encourage personal responsibility and reduce the need for expensive clean-up or enforcement. After all, everyone paid for those in the end either as taxpayers or as consumers of goods and services.

In summing up Councillor Douglas reminded members the Borough was an area of outstanding natural beauty, landscapes and biodiversity. From the constituents she engaged with, they wanted to live in a clean and safe community which had social- economic and environmental benefits for all. There was also a desire to attract tourists and visitors, therefore working towards a litter-free NI, and indeed a litter-free Borough should be a Departmental priority, as well as Council one. Councillor Douglas stated that it was for those reasons that she was proposing the Council write to the Department to seek the development of an overarching strategy similar to what was in place in Scotland and England. She added that the Council could not tackle the issue alone but did have a part to play alongside other agencies in the public, private and third sector and therefore a coordinated and strategic approach must be the priority to ensure long-term the issue of littering including dog fouling was dealt with effectively. She urged members to support the motion.

The seconder, Councillor McRandal commented that he had been shocked as he was sure many others had been at the scale of littering that had taken place at many

18

EC 05.08.20 PM beauty spots during the spell of good weather in the first couple of weeks after lockdown was lifted.

He reported that along with Councillor Douglas he had undertaken litter picks during most weekends since then. He added that it had become pretty clear from what they had seen that there was a deep-rooted societal problem. Most in society he stated were aware that littering was wrong and knew what the consequences were. However, he stated there was too much litter and too many people littering. Littering he suggested could not be blamed on any particular demographic or section of society. Those who left dog poo lying differed from those leaving their drinks tins and bottles and pizza boxes behind them. Those leaving dirty nappies and used wipes differed from those leaving cigarette butts lying beside park benches. Councillor McRandal suggested that some of the latter may not even appreciate that they were littering.

Therefore, Councillor McRandal suggested that a Litter Strategy should involve a range of measures, both short and long term and address the different types of littering which occurred. Measures implemented therefore should be targeted to address each type of littering with buy in secured from all interested agencies and organisations to ensure that they were all pulling together to achieve common goals.

He referred to the first weekend he had went litter picking after lockdown which had been on a Sunday morning at Seapark. He recalled how at 9am Council staff had lifted a large trailer full of waste from the beach and parklands and on speaking to the team leader he confirmed that littering was getting worse each year. Therefore, he emphasised the need to turn that situation around to see a year on year improvement and where any improvement could be measured for the benefit of ratepayers and the environment. He added that implementing an effective Litter Strategy was the best way to achieve that.

Expressing his full support for the motion, Councillor McKee agreed that littering was a problem throughout Northern Ireland and while he welcomed a potential increase in fines, he was not sure that would be enough to assist to eradicate the issue. Instead he expressed the view that the mindset of individuals needed to change and added that he hoped the DAERA would be supportive.

Councillor Cummings thanked Councillor Douglas for bringing forward the motion particularly as it could assist to inform the Council going forward. He added that he was aware of a Marine Strategy which was already in place and suggested the detail of that was obtained to assist the Council with the creation of its Litter Strategy.

In summing up Councillor Douglas thanked members for their comments adding that she would welcome an integrated approach which could then make the Council’s Strategy more robust. . AGREED TO RECOMMEND, on the proposal of Councillor Douglas, seconded by Councillor McRandal, that this Council agrees to write to the Department of Agriculture, Environment & Rural Affairs (DAERA) to request a Litter Strategy is drawn up which should include a regional multi-media campaign to tackle

19

EC 05.08.20 PM

litter, including dog fouling, in a bid to deal with the ever increasing public and environmental health issues which littering presents to our society.

11. ANY OTHER NOTIFIED BUSINESS

EXCLUSION OF PUBLIC AND PRESS

AGREED, on the proposal of Councillor Douglas, seconded by Councillor Smart, that the public and press be excluded during discussion of the following items of confidential business.

12. COURT PROCEEDNGS – NEIGHBOURHOOD ENVIRONMENT TEAM (FILE 90202) (Appendix III)

***IN CONFIDENCE***

***NOT FOR PUBLICATION***

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

13. FUTURE GLASS RECYCLING SERVICES (FILE 68018) (Appendix IV)

***IN CONFIDENCE***

***NOT FOR PUBLICATION***

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

RECESS

The meeting adjourned at this stage 8.10pm for a recess and resumed at 8.20pm.

NOTED.

(Councillor Boyle left the meeting at this stage – 8.28pm)

14. NOM REPORT – SUSTAINABLE ENERGY MANAGEMENT STRATEGY FOR THE COUNCIL ESTATE (FILE 50002) (Appendix V)

***IN CONFIDENCE***

***NOT FOR PUBLICATION***

20

EC 05.08.20 PM

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

(Councillor Dunne left the meeting at this stage – 8.38pm)

15. CONTRACT EXTENSION FOR LEGIONELLA SERVICES (FILE 77001)

***IN CONFIDENCE***

***NOT FOR PUBLICATION***

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

TERMINATION OF MEETING

The meeting terminated at 8.44pm.

21

ITEM 7.3

ARDS AND NORTH DOWN BOROUGH COUNCIL

A virtual meeting of the Regeneration and Development Committee was held in the on Thursday 6 August 2020 at 6.00pm via Zoom.

PRESENT:

In the Chair: Councillor Gilmour

Aldermen: Girvan Menagh McDowell M Smith Wilson

Councillors: Adair Dunlop Armstrong-Cotter Kennedy Blaney McClean Brooks McKimm Cummings Walker

In Attendance: Director of Regeneration, Development and Planning (S McCullough), Head of Regeneration (B Dorrian), Head of Economic Development (C McGill), Head of Tourism (R Richardson), Democratic Services Manager (J Wilson), Business Technology Officer (T Smyth) and Democratic Services Officer (J Glasgow)

1. APOLOGIES

No apologies were received.

2. DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST

No declarations of interest were notified.

3. ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT PERFORMANCE REPORT, QUARTER 4 (JAN-MAR) 2019-2020 (Appendix I)

PREVIOUSLY CIRCULATED:- Report from the Director of Regeneration, Development and Planning attaching fourth quarter performance report. The report detailed that Members would be aware that Council was required, under the Local Government Act 2014, to have in place arrangements to secure continuous improvement in the exercise of its functions. To fulfil that requirement Council approved the Performance Management Policy and Handbook. The Performance Management Handbook outlined the approach to Performance Planning and Management process as:

• Community Plan – published every 10-15 years

RDC.6.08.20 PM

• Corporate Plan – published every 4 years (2015-2019 plan in operation) • Performance Improvement Plan (PIP) – published annually (2018/19 plan published 30 June 2018) • Service Plan – developed annually (approved April 2018)

The Corporate Plan 2015-19 sets out 17 objectives for the plan period based on themes of People, Place, Prosperity and Performance. The Council’s 16 Service Plans outline how each respective Service would contribute to the achievement of the Corporate objectives including, but not limited to, any relevant actions identified in the PIP.

Reporting approach

The Service Plans would be reported to relevant Committees on a quarterly basis as undernoted:

Reference Period Reporting Month Quarter 1 (Q1) April – June September Q2 July – September December Q3 October – December March Q4 January - March June

Key points to note:

• The staff attendance figure was below target due to team members off with long-term illness. That had proved challenging for the team members still working but all staff were being supported to aid recovery or to enable functions in work to be carried out. • The last meeting for the year of the ED Forum did not take place as the ED conference took precedence in February.

Key achievements:

• Most performance indicators for the quarter and year end met target or were close to target despite challenging circumstances. • Officers worked closely with all third party operators which meant contracts continued to perform well and fulfil all obligations.

Emerging issues:

• Staff sickness levels and the impact on other team members would need to be closely monitored and managed. • A flexible approach would need to be taken to ensure Council could effectively respond to an ever changing business environment and the team would need to be realigned to meet the challenges.

Action to be taken:

2

RDC.6.08.20 PM

• Need to ensure that the team carry our regular review of services and delivery and team members would need to be supported in all ways to work from home to remain effective and connected.

RECOMMENDED that Council notes this report.

Proposed by Alderman Girvan, seconded by Alderman Wilson, that the recommendation be adopted.

Alderman Smith referred to the emerging issues in respect of staff sickness which provided detail that the team would need to be realigned to meet the challenges and asked for further clarity in that regard. The Head of Economic Development explained that Officers sickness absence had an impact overall within the Economic Development Business Support, Development Project and Administration teams. The teams had worked together to undertake work which was not necessarily their normal roles to ensure the service obligations were met and business support was provided.

Alderman Smith recognised that sickness levels were difficult to measure given the current situation however sought reassurances that those levels were being monitored. The Head of Economic Development confirmed that to be the case. The Council was keeping in touch with employees who were off sick and Occupational Health appointments continued to take place where possible to support staff for their return to work as and when they were able to do so.

Councillor McClean referred to the emerging issues and asked in what context those were emerging issues as he felt those had been talked about since 2015. The Head of Economic Development explained that the long term sickness levels had increased and the report highlighted how the team had to realign responsibilities and pull back on some service delivery.

Councillor McClean wondered how the long-term sickness was broken down and asked if more could be done in particular in respect of moral issues. The Head of Economic Development stated that the sickness reasons varied and the Council was supporting each individual.

In response to further questions from Councillor McClean, the Head of Economic Development explained that the short-term sickness level within the section was low.

The Chairman suggested to Councillor McClean that some of his questions may be best directed to the Corporate Services Committee which dealt with the sickness/absence levels across the Council.

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

3

RDC.6.08.20 PM

4. BANGOR MARINA QUARTER 4 (JAN-MAR) 2020 AND ANNUAL REVIEW 2019-2020 (Appendix II)

PREVIOUSLY CIRCULATED:- Report from the Director of Regeneration, Development and Planning attaching Quarter 4 and Annual Review Report for 2019/20. The report detailed that Members would be aware that Quay Marinas was in the process of merging with Dean Reddyhoff and that was completed by Deed of Novation in April 2020. Apart from the change of name, all aspects of the original Contract Agreement with ANDBC remained the same. The companies were now trading under the name ‘Boatfolk’.

Dean Reddyhoff (formerly Quay Marinas) now operated Bangor Marina on behalf of Council. As part of the agreement, Dean Reddyhoff would continue to provide quarterly and annual reports which would be presented to Committee as received.

Due to the Coronavirus pandemic and lockdown which was introduced, Bangor Marina and Harbour closed on Tuesday 23rd March 2020. The Marina and Harbour had been re-opening in stages from Tuesday 19th May 2020 following strict safety protocols.

The report covered the entire range of activities that were undertaken in the Marina.

RECOMMENDED that Council notes this report.

Proposed by Councillor McKimm, seconded by Alderman Girvan, that the recommendation be adopted.

Alderman Smith referred to the report which stated ‘our efforts are shackled, unlike many other sites, our offer at Bangor is limited to berthing facilities and does not include any storage ashore, lifting, launching or other boatyard services’ and wondered about the effect that had. The Head of Economic Development stated that the marina had the services of a boatyard. She explained that in many marinas they were part of one operation, in Bangor there was a separate operator and therefore time slots had to be booked. Despite that the Head of Economic Development stated that no major issues had been highlighted.

Alderman Smith wondered if Boatfolk wanted to put storage ashore for launch would they incur the cost. The Head of Economic Development confirmed that to be correct they would pay the Boat Yard.

Alderman Girvan asked if the marina was shut at the current time. The Head of Economic Development explained that the report was for the last quarter. The marina had re-opened at the beginning of July.

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

4

RDC.6.08.20 PM

5. TOURISM UNIT PERFORMANCE REPORT, QUARTER 4 (JAN- MAR) 2019-2020 (Appendix III)

PREVIOUSLY CIRCULATED:- Report from the Director of Regeneration, Development and Planning attaching Quarter 4 Performance Report. The report detailed that Members would be aware that Council was required, under the Local Government Act 2014, to have in place arrangements to secure continuous improvement in the exercise of its functions. To fulfil that requirement Council approved the Performance Management Policy and Handbook. The Performance Management Handbook outlined the approach to Performance Planning and Management process as:

• Community Plan – published every 10-15 years • Corporate Plan – published every 4 years (2015-2019 plan in operation) • Performance Improvement Plan (PIP) – published annually (2018/19 plan published 30 June 2018) • Service Plan – developed annually (approved April 2018)

The Corporate Plan 2015-19 sets out 17 objectives for the plan period based on themes of People, Place, Prosperity and Performance. The Council’s 16 Service Plans outline how each respective Service would contribute to the achievement of the Corporate objectives including, but not limited to, any relevant actions identified in the PIP.

Reporting approach

The Service Plans would be reported to relevant Committees on a quarterly basis as undernoted:

Reference Period Reporting Month Quarter 1 (Q1) April – June September Q2 July – September December Q3 October – December March Q4 January - March June

Key points to note:

• Overall the Q4 performance was mixed – strong in some areas but less so in others – and towards the end of the quarter the impact of Covid 19 was beginning to affect all activity. It was not anticipated that the recovery for tourism would be other than a very gradual one during 2020/21 (and probably beyond).

Key achievements:

• An excellent performance was achieved across all staff-related PIs, including an excellent attendance rate.

5

RDC.6.08.20 PM

• Awards for 5 of the borough’s designated bathing beaches were once again secured, in partnership with Keep Northern Ireland Beautiful. • 25 local businesses agreed to sign up to be part of a pilot green tourism initiative. Their green stories would be promoted post Covid-19 through both Tourism and Corporate marketing communications. That and the beach awards were just two examples of 5 tourism development initiatives delivered with partners over the course of 2019/20. • The recently formed Food and Drink Network had grown steadily with 50 businesses now members and a lead committee in place from the turn of 2019. (Note: A deliberate strategic shift was made away from attempting to establish 5 geographical clusters, as this fragmented the ability to progress development of a coherent food destination approach.) • An excellent performance was achieved across all Marketing PIs, under the stewardship of the new Borough Marketing Manager, recruited in mid-2019. • The attendance target for the Council’s tourism events was exceeded, with customer satisfaction remaining very high. Challenging traffic management issues at Groomsport and Portavogie events were successfully addressed.

Emerging issues:

Budgetary performance was well outside the target range, at 13% underspent. That figure was however based on the budget set at the start of 2019/20, and did not take into account the fact that a budget review was carried out towards the end of 2019, requiring a significant surrender of budget from discretionary areas of spend including tourism, due to the overall ANDBC financial position.

In the Events area, some areas of performance were disrupted by the resignation of the Events Officer (Grants and Research) in autumn 2019, including provision of safeguarding training to third party events’ organisers. There were also significant problems with a new, agency-based market research model which had been introduced at the start of the event season. While the new model delivered substantial cost savings compared to using a professional market research agency, the sample sizes secured by agency research staff were extremely inadequate, leading to question marks over the validity of average visitor spend and cost per attendee figures included in the report. It was also worth noting that the number of attendees at grant-aided events and the associated cost per attendee were not directly within the Council’s control but were dependent on the success of events organised by third parties. The ability to start applying the new Borough Events Strategic Direction in Q4, in preparation for events in 2020/21, had been negatively impacted by the emergence of the Covid 19 pandemic.

An ongoing issue over the Council’s ability to allow overnight stopovers by motorhomes while remaining compliant with legislation relating to the operation of caravan sites continued to impede any further development of motorhome facilities at this time.

Action to be taken:

Recruitment of a replacement Events Officer got underway during Q4, with the new officer in place for 2020/21. Aspects of this Officer’s duties, subject of course to the

6

RDC.6.08.20 PM restrictions Covid 19 would entail, optimising market research and providing direct support to grant-aided event organisers. The new officer would also be integrally involved in the application of the new Borough Events Strategic Direction to the Council’s tourism events once those resume, post Covid restrictions.

RECOMMENDED that the Council notes this report.

Proposed by Alderman Girvan, seconded by Councillor Cummings, that the recommendation be adopted.

Councillor Cummings referred to the recruitment of an Events Officer as detailed within the report and asked for an update in that regard and their access to the Council’s new plans in terms of the Corporate Plan. The Head of Tourism stated that the new Officer commenced at the start of April and unfortunately had not been able to physically meet her colleagues. The Officer had been working from home familiarising herself with the Events Strategy. The new Events Officer was a good asset and had experience working within Tourism NI.

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

6. REGENERATION UNIT PERFORMANCE REPORT, QUARTER 4 (JAN-MAR) 2019-2020 (Appendix IV)

PREVIOUSLY CIRCULATED:- Report from the Director of Regeneration, Development and Planning attaching Quarter 4 Performance Report. The report detailed that Members would be aware that Council was required, under the Local Government Act 2014, to have in place arrangements to secure continuous improvement in the exercise of its functions. To fulfil the requirement Council approved the Performance Management Policy and Handbook. The Performance Management Handbook outlined the approach to Performance Planning and Management process as:

• Community Plan – published every 10-15 years • Corporate Plan – published every 4 years (2015-2019 plan in operation) • Performance Improvement Plan (PIP) – published annually (2018/19 plan published 30 June 2018) • Service Plan – developed annually (approved April 2018)

The Corporate Plan 2015-19 sets out 17 objectives for the plan period based on themes of People, Place, Prosperity and Performance. The Council’s 16 Service Plans outline how each respective Service would contribute to the achievement of the Corporate objectives including, but not limited to, any relevant actions identified in the PIP.

Reporting approach

The Service Plans would be reported to relevant Committees on a quarterly basis as undernoted: 7

RDC.6.08.20 PM

Reference Period Reporting Month Quarter 1 (Q1) April – June September Q2 July – September December Q3 October – December March Q4 January - March June

Key points to note:

• A number of village plan projects had been finalised but site works had not commenced due to Covid-19. • DfC had not been able to fund certain projects which were included in the Service Plan. • An internal review of budgets had led to the deferral of a number of projects. • The creation of new Town Steering Groups had been delayed. • The town animation projects scheduled for the five towns could not be completed due to Covid19.

Key achievements:

• RDP had committed all the funding allocated to the area, as well as circa £1m of additional resources. • The job creation target for RDP had been met and exceeded. • Even with the challenging funding issues with DfC, five town projects were completed.

Emerging issues:

• Creation of the remaining Village Stakeholder Groups had proven more difficult than anticipated. • Finalisation of the DfC budget and its allocation was delayed. • One member of staff was on long term sick leave. • Covid19 had hindered or stopped some key aspects of the work being commenced or completed.

Action to be taken:

• Develop new delivery plans in line with the guidance on Covid19 (HoS, UDM & RDM). • Work with the Chambers of Commerce and the rural groups to develop recovery plans for the five towns and the villages (HoS, RDM & UDM). • Work with DfC and DAERA to agree recovery plans and to secure funding for implementation of same (HoS, RDM & UDM). • To finalise the process for the creation of the new Town and Village Steering Groups (HoS, RDM & UDM).

RECOMMENDED that the Council notes this report.

8

RDC.6.08.20 PM

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

7. RECONSTITUTED TOWN ADVISORY GROUPS

PREVIOUSLY CIRCULATED:- Report from the Director of Regeneration, Development and Planning detailing that as Members would be aware and following on from previous reports, each of the towns in the Borough have had a Town Steering Group for the last five years. The Steering Groups were derived from the original public realm Steering Groups.

As the remit of the new Town Advisory Groups had been broadened beyond the current regeneration functions to encompass wider Council services, the Town Steering Groups were being reformed to be more reflective of the wider community. In addition to DEA Councillors, the Advisory Group would include Chamber of Commerce Representatives, Community Representatives, Regeneration Group Representatives and also includes Faith and Youth representations. The number of social partners would be equal to the number of elected members for each respective DEA.

The new Advisory Groups would be more independent from the formal Council structure, which was a sub-committee of the Regeneration and Development Committee. Newly reconstituted Advisory Groups would enable all members to fully participate and vote in the workings of the Groups. Minutes and suggestions from the Groups would come by way of an Officer’s report to Council for consideration.

In order to remain independent from this process, the Regeneration Unit sought assistance from Community Development Section to develop a process to attract social partners (community, faith and youth). In instances where there was more than the prescribed number of representatives, social partners would be rotated on a yearly basis and agreed by the Advisory Group. The Community Development recommendations were detailed below:

Bangor Town Advisory Group – 6 social partners

Community Representatives

NAME ORGANISATION Lynda Williams Alzheimer’s Society Peter McDonald Harbour Ward Community

Faith Representative

Mary Lappin Hamilton Road Baptist Church

Youth Representative

Stuart Buchanan/ Julie-Ann Skinner Bangor YMCA

9

RDC.6.08.20 PM

Chamber Representatives

Geoff Thompson Bangor Chamber of Commerce Paula Kane Bangor Chamber of Commerce

Additional Applications Received

Pat O’Driscoll Society of St. Vincent de Faith Paul Philip McMillan King’s Church Faith Jim Russell Kilcooley Community Community Forum Alan Moore Resident Community

Comber Town Advisory Group – 5 social partners

Community Representatives

NAME ORGANISATION Stephen Mills Comber Residents’ Group

Faith Representative

No nomination

Youth Representative

No nomination

Chamber Representatives

Laura Bradley Comber Chamber of Commerce TBA Comber Chamber of Commerce

Additional Applications Received

Roy Murray Comber Regeneration Community Community Partnership

Donaghadee Town Advisory Group – 6 social partners

Community Representatives

NAME ORGANISATION Adrian Kerr Donaghadee Community Development Association No nomination

10

RDC.6.08.20 PM

Faith Representative

No nomination

Youth Representative

No nomination

Chamber Representatives

Kate Boyd Donaghadee Chamber of Commerce John Caldwell Donaghadee Chamber of Commerce

Holywood Town Advisory Group – 5 social partners

Community Representatives

NAME ORGANISATION David Longmore Holywood Residents’ Association

Faith Representative

Marilyn Toogood Holywood Street Pastors

Youth Representative

Nadia Dornan Holywood Family Trust

Chamber Representatives

Leslie Waite Holywood Chamber of Commerce Susie Diesel Holywood Chamber of Commerce

Additional Applications Received

Barry Ditty Holywood Residents’ Community Association Robin Mansfield Holywood Shared Town Community John Moore Holywood Conservation Community Group Louise Green Redburn Loughview Community Community Forum

Newtownards Town Advisory Group – 7 social partners

Community Representative

NAME ORGANISATION Pam Williamson Ards & North Down Street Pastors

11

RDC.6.08.20 PM

Tracy McVea Youth Academy N. I.

Faith Representative

Mark Houston North Down CFC

Youth Representative

No nomination

Chamber Representative

Derek Wright Newtownards Chamber of Commerce Leigh Nelson Newtownards Chamber of Commerce TBC Newtownards Chamber of Commerce

Additional Applications Received

Jonathan Duncan No group identified Community

RECOMMENDED that Council approves:

1. the new reconstituted Town Advisory Group membership and then confirms the details to all involved in the process, 2. that the Advisory Groups will meet four times per annum (additional meetings can be called through agreement with the Chair), 3. the ability to co-opt up to two additional members with relevant skills on specific topics (one-year durations to be reviewed annually), 4. where an Advisory Group does not have the full social partner membership, additional members may be co-opted with agreement of the Advisory Group and 5. the Chair of the Advisory Groups will be appointed at the inaugural meeting for a term of one year.

Proposed by Councillor Cummings, seconded by Councillor McKimm, that the recommendations be adopted.

Councillor Cummings asked for estimation as to when the meetings would commence. He also referred to the vacant positions that remained within some of the groups and asked if there had been difficulties in recruiting to those positions. In response the Head of Regeneration stated that it was hoped that meetings of the Town Advisory Groups would commence at the end of September/start of October. In relation to the appointments, that process was undertaken earlier in the year and nominations had not been received for some areas. When the Town Advisory Groups meet, the vacancies in the sectors could be reviewed and filled by co-option.

Councillor McKimm was pleased to see movement in respect of Bangor Town Advisory Group. In terms of the membership he recognised that was not as extensive as that could be however he was of the understanding that Bangor Open House would be represented on the Group. Also he was of the clear impression that

12

RDC.6.08.20 PM the meetings would occur more regularly than four times a year. The Head of Regeneration referred to the recommendations and the ability to co-opt up to two additional members with relevant skills on a year by year basis. In terms of Bangor Town Advisory Group the group could discuss the co-option at the first meeting. The Head of Regeneration stated that when the last update report was brought before Council it was agreed that the meetings would be quarterly.

Councillor McKimm was of the understanding that Open House had received an invitation to join the Bangor Town Advisory Group. The Head of Regeneration stated that there were no invitations issued, the sections under which individuals could apply was youth, faith, community and Chamber of Trade.

Councillor Dunlop asked for clarity on the make-up of the Holywood Group. The Head of Regeneration stated there were 3 representatives from the community sector and those could alternate on a yearly basis. The vacant positions could be reviewed at the first meeting of the group.

Councillor Dunlop stated that he would recommend some of those named individuals and felt they would give up their time exceptionally well and would like to see those people included within the Group. The Head of Regeneration urged for a consistent approach across the five groups.

Alderman McDowell asked for clarity on the remit and role of the Town Advisory Groups and expressed concern that the focus of regeneration would be missed which was essential for each of the towns. The Head of Regeneration recognised that point however as the group was an advisory group for the overall betterment of the town they had the remit to talk about how they felt the regeneration and redevelopment of the specific town was going.

Alderman McDowell expressed concerns that the groups could be become bogged down on other issues and not concentrate on regeneration.

In response to a question from Councillor Kennedy, the Head of Regeneration explained that the number of social partners matched the number of Members within the DEA.

Councillor McClean was surprised that the Holywood Town Advisory Group would proceed with the exclusion of Robin Masefield who had done an extraordinary amount of work for Holywood. He asked for clarity on the means by which the groups could decide to include other people. The Head of Regeneration highlighted there were 5 spaces for Holywood. The Council previously agreed the set-up of the groups and the numbers.

The Director stated that as the Head of Regeneration had already alluded to recommendation 3 allowed for the Group the ability to co-opt up to two additional members with relevant skills.

(Alderman Girvan and Councillor Blaney withdrew from the meeting – 6.33 pm)

13

RDC.6.08.20 PM

Therefore if the Holywood Group felt the need for additional Members they could co- opt those individuals.

Councillor McClean was content with the clarity and stated he did not want to see people ruled out who had exceptional skills.

(Alderman Girvan and Councillor Blaney re-entered the meeting – 6.34 pm)

Councillor Walker referred to the Donaghadee Advisory Group and vacant spaces and asked if that effected the group getting up and running or would there be a review undertaken.

The Head of Regeneration confirmed that a review would be undertaken. The vacancies would not stop the meetings commencing.

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

8. TOWN CENTRE BANNERS ON STREET LIGHTING COLUMNS (Appendices V, VI)

PREVIOUSLY CIRCULATED:- Report from the Director of Regeneration, Development and Planning attaching corresponding appendices. The report detailed that each year Council applied, through a detailed process, to DfI to erect Town Banners on DfI Street Lighting Columns as part of the Town Centre Regeneration Schemes. Prior to an application being made this year, Council was advised that as the Department was engaged in a judicial review in respect of banners, emblems, flags, bunting or any unapproved appendage being erected on street lighting columns, that no applications were being accepted.

Despite that information, a request was submitted along with a request on behalf of Bangor Chamber as part of the C-19 recovery programme. A response was received in which the Department advised that it could not give formal authorisation to the erection of banners as requested by Council.

RECOMMENDED that Council notes the content of this report.

Proposed by Alderman Wilson, seconded by Councillor Walker, that the recommendation be adopted.

Councillor McClean referred to recent feedback from the members of the public on social media in respect of the Council. He stated that the regeneration of towns was about getting shops to profitably return and increasing the footfall and it was not about the ‘shiny stuff’. Councillor McClean felt that Bangor did not need branded and the product offering that was there was unfilled. He understood the importance of corporate branding however highlighted the need to focus on seafront regeneration, allowing people to feel there was a sense of place.

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

14

RDC.6.08.20 PM

9. NOTICE OF MOTION

9.1 Notice of Motion submitted by Councillor Adair

That this Council expresses concern at the collapse of the airline Flybe which has resulted in a negative impact on the local economy through job losses and lack of regional connectivity. The Council urges the Chancellor of the Exchequer to scrap Air Passenger Duty which disadvantages regions such as Northern Ireland and calls on HM Government to step up measures to support regional connectivity across the United Kingdom.

Proposed by Councillor Adair, seconded by Councillor Cummings, that the Notice of Motion be adopted.

Councillor Adair advised that despite the delay in the motion coming before Committee the motion remained very relevant. On 4th March 2020 the final Flybe flight flew over Belfast resulting in a loss of 300 jobs in Northern Ireland along with a 100 supporting role jobs. One job loss was one too many and he noted the impact that had people’s livelihood and families. Some of those affected where residents of the Borough and had been unable to find alternative employment. Councillor Adair also referred to the collapse of Thomas Cook were there had also been a lot of job losses in aviation. The collapse of Flybe was a regional connectivity disaster particularly for Belfast City Airport. There had been a lot of campaigning already done in aim to improve connectively between Northern Ireland, mainland GB and the Continent. Air Lingus had recently brought a base to Belfast City Airport which should be welcomed however with the collapse of Flybe the route to Cardiff was no longer available and many other city routes did not run as frequent. Also the flight to Cardiff had been a connection flight to Paris and the London City route had been lost resulting in a loss of regional connectively.

(Councillor Blaney withdrew from the meeting – 6.43 pm)

Councillor Adair explained that the second part of the motion was to call on the Chancellor to scrap Air Passenger duty which disadvantaged Northern Ireland. In order to have a level playing field and to aid Northern Ireland’s economy that needed to occur. Covid19 had devasting effects on the aviation industry and there been very little government support in the UK. He called on the Council to support the motion to increase regional connectively which would boost business, the economy and tourism.

Councillor Cummings stated that regional connectivity was crucial to the UK and equally important to the connection with the ROI. It was important due to Northern Ireland’s geographic location to have access to local market opportunities.

(Councillor Blaney re-entered the meeting – 6.45 pm)

The appeal in respect of Air passenger duty was particularly important as it would create an opportunity for Northern Ireland to compete on a level playing field.

15

RDC.6.08.20 PM

Alderman Smith supported the motion and felt it was very relevant to this Borough as it involved tourism and employment. She stated that the Flybe staff were devastated when the airline collapsed. Alderman Smith referred to the burden of air passenger duty and felt it would be good to see the Council unanimously support the motion as connectivity was of great importance.

Councillor Dunlop stated that he did have some sympathy with the aims of the motion, but he did not believe that to be the appropriate means of securing any beneficial long term goal. He highlighted that only 30 of the airlines worldwide were profitable before the pandemic crisis making rescue packages short term ineffective and a waste of scarce public resource. The Council had recognised the need for climate action to reduce CO2 emissions and Councillor Dunlop felt the motion undermined any effort to reduce such action and was in his view a knee jerk reaction typical of short term thinking that has brought us to the position of having to address our impact on the planet. To simply increase demand was suicide and there was a need to address the supply and make it more efficient. For many years’ aviation had had a free pass when it came to regulations of the type that forced car makers to clean up their product. Any form of subsidy must now encourage clean aeroplanes and fair employment contracts. France’s aerospace bail-out included 1.5bn euro to develop zero-emission planes and very cleverly halts short flights between French cities that were served by fast rail links and believed that to be the smart way.

(Councillor Blaney withdrew from the meeting – 8.48 pm)

Airbus now had the corporate goal of developing such an aircraft by 2035. That change would never have come about by subsidising demand and could be achieved by supporting the supply in a direction that was sustainable and benefits everyone. Councillor Dunlop recognised the need for international connectivity for island locations but a more level playing field for different transport modes needed to be created and the disparities in taxation that discourage more sustainable modes of travel were necessary. There was a need to improve day and night trains, ferries, public transport as well as cycling at a local level. If there was to be financial support for the aviation sector it should be to promote the engineering skills whereby NI could participate in sustainable aviation. That should be to support jobs with fair contracts. For the reasons outlined, Councillor Dunlop stated that he could not support the Motion and urged the Council to call for a fresh policy of developing long term sustainable transport links to connect Northern Ireland to other urban hubs.

Councillor Walker supported his motion and whilst he did agree with some of the points made by Councillor Dunlop he not believe those to be same issue. Local business required to travel to do business abroad particularly in GB which was one of NI major markets and anything to assist local business had to be supported. Councillor Walker stated that he supported the idea of sustainable travel however that was not what the motion was about.

Councillor McClean supported the motion and stated that Councillor Dunlop’s points on environmental impact were understandable given Council had declared a climate emergency and there was a duty to do something on the environmental impacts. Councillor McClean stated that air passenger duty could be cut and an extortionary amount of environmental good could be done yet those things were not necessarily

16

RDC.6.08.20 PM mutually exclusive. In argument to Councillor Dunlop’s points he stated that to do the work to improve environmental impact would require brave decisions and discussions with trade partners.

Councillor Adair thanked Members for their contributions and noted the devastating upset for the Flybe staff. He highlighted the need to support industries. He was disappointed with the remarks of Councillor Dunlop and stated that those arguments were for another day. His motion was about people losing their jobs and the negative effects on the economy. In finishing Councillor Adair called for a recorded vote which resulted as follows:-

FOR (14) AGAINST (2) ABSTAINED (0) ABSENT (0) Aldermen Girvan Menagh McDowell Smith Wilson Councillors Councillors Adair Dunlop Armstrong-Cotter McKimm Blaney Brooks Cummings Gilmour Kennedy McClean Walker

AGREED TO RECOMMEND, on the proposal of Councillor Adair, seconded by Councillor Cummings, that the Notice of Motion be adopted.

10. ANY OTHER NOTIFIED BUSINESS

There were no items of any other busines.

The Chairman took the opportunity to note the success Newtownards had in the Retail NI Independent Business Awards. A number of business across the Borough had been placed and in particular a number of businesses on the Newtownards High Street had won awards.

NOTED.

EXCLUSION OF PUBLIC/PRESS

AGREED TO RECOMMEND, on the proposal of Councillor McClean, seconded by Councillor Armstrong-Cotter, that the public/press be excluded during the discussion of undernoted items of confidential business.

17

RDC.6.08.20 PM

11. EXPLORIS QUARTER 4 (JAN-MAR) 2020 AND ANNUAL REVIEW 2019-2020

***IN CONFIDENCE***

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

12. PICKIE QUARTER 4 (JAN-MAR) 2020 AND ANNUAL REVIEW 2019-2020

***IN CONFIDENCE***

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

13. BELFAST REGION CITY DEAL UPDATE (Appendices VII, VIII, IX)

***IN CONFIDENCE***

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

14. QUEEN’S PARADE UPDATE

***IN CONFIDENCE***

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 TO RECOMMEND, on the proposal of Councillor Armstrong-Cotter, seconded by Councillor McClean, that the public/press be readmitted to the meeting.

TERMINATION OF MEETING

The meeting terminated at 7.27 pm.

18

ITEM 7.4.

ARDS AND NORTH DOWN BOROUGH COUNCIL

A virtual meeting of the Corporate Services Committee was held via Zoom on Tuesday, 11 August 2020 at 6.00 pm.

PRESENT:

In the Chair: Councillor Chambers

Aldermen: Keery Irvine Gibson McIlveen

Councillors: Blaney Gilmour Cooper Mathison Dunlop McKimm Egan Smith, T (camera not working) Greer Smith, P

Officers: Director of Organisational Development and Administration (W Swanston), Director of Finance and Performance (S Christie), Head of Administration (A Curtis), Business Technology and Democratic Services Officers (H Loebnau and J Glasgow)

1. APOLOGIES

Apologies for inability to attend were received from Alderman Girvan.

2. DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST

Councillor P Smith declared an interest in Item 21 – Request from Comber Regeneration Community Partnership to Renew Licence for the former Civic Amenity Site.

NOTED.

3. BUDGETARY CONTROL REPORT MARCH 2020 (FILE FIN45) (Appendix I)

PREVIOUSLY CIRCULATED:- Report from the Director of Finance and Performance covering the 2019/20 financial year (1 April 2019 to 31 March 2020) and the Revenue Budgetary Control Report by Directorate was set out. The Council incurred a deficit of £406,532 (box A) before Fund transfers compared with a budgeted deficit of £300,000 (box B) resulting in an adverse variance of £106,532 (box C).

Given the financial difficulties experienced in the early part of the year the final outturn represented an overall good result for the Council. The result was due to a mixture of some opportunistic year-end savings and the prudent and diligent approach taken by all budget holders to try to live within set budgets.

CS.11.08.20

As part of the 2020/21 budgeting process Heads of Service and Service Unit Managers estimated end of year outturns for their Services. The Council’s actual deficit of £406,532 was £182,068 better than the end of year forecast (deficit of £588,600). The key changes from the previously forecast deficit position were as followed: -

Directorate / Service Actual Comment Outturn vs EoY Forecast £’000 Community & Culture (£121.3k) – mainly Community Development (£40k) and Arts Community & (25.4) & Museum (£59k). Wellbeing Leisure & Amenities £103.4k – mainly Parks & Cemeteries £83k Waste & Cleansing (£119.9k) – Borough Cleansing (£70k), Waste Cleansing £133k, Waste Resources (£158k). Environment (321.4) Assets & Property (£149.0k) – mainly Technical Services (£156.3k). Regulatory Services (£75.8k). RDP HQ - (£58.7k) – BRCD projects. Economic Development (£86.9k) – ED Regeneration, projects & DETI Transferred projects. Development & Planning (£97.1k) – legal fees and (367.1) Planning planning portal contribution. Tourism (£92.2k) – Tourism (£44.4k), Tourism Events (£24.4k, Borough Marketing (£23.8k). Finance & 19.6 Performance HR&OD (£62.8k) – HR legal fees (£40k). Organisational Administration (£257.1k) – Self Insurance Development & (320.2) provision (£114.0k), Compliance (£65k), Administration Customer Services (£32.3k), Democratic Services (£34.1k). Corporate Management – holiday pay on Chief Executive (146.7) overtime. Corporate Communications (£40.1k). Non-Service Income EMF transfers £981.1k. 1,122.8 & Expenditure DfC (£75.6k) and CJRS (£68.1k) Covid 19 Covid 19 Funding (143.7) funding

(182.1)

2

CS.11.08.20

Due to the improvements made during the latter part of the year it was planned to set aside a small amount in the Earmarked Fund to help the Council weather the Covid 19 financial pressures in 2020/21. That had been mainly due to additional government funding made available for March 2020 (£143k).

Also, due to Covid 19 and other delays there were a number of 2019/20 budgeted projects that were not fully completed at 31 March 2020. An amount (£300k) would be set aside in the Earmarked Fund to allow those committed projects to be completed.

The full list of required transfers to the Earmarked Fund (including the Covid 19 reserve) were itemised in the appendix.

RECOMMENDED that the Council notes the final 2019/20 outturn position including transfers to the ear-marked fund.

Councillor T Smith referred to the Waste and Cleansing budget and asked what that incorporated and for an explanation of the significant variance. The Director of Finance and Performance explained that that deficit of almost £375k was viewed as a good result especially under the current difficult circumstances which had persisted since the start of the year. Under the Environment section the main areas of overspend were due to the increased costs of recycling in a number of areas and waste collection and disposal generally. The Member was happy with the answer but stated that he would contact the Director directly for more information about those figures. The Director repeated that a deficit of £300k had been planned for and with that in mind and the circumstances currently being experienced the Council viewed the figure as a good result.

Councillor Gilmour asked about the Leisure Facilities Operations Fund and for further detail on that. The Director of Finance and Performance stated it would be difficult to discuss that matter in an open forum but that he would be happy to do so later in the meeting In Confidence.

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

4. BUDGETARY CONTROL REPORT – JUNE 2020 (FILE FIN45)

PREVIOUSLY CIRCULATED:- Report from the Director of Finance and Performance detailing that the Budgetary Control Report covered the 3-month period 1 April to 30 June 2020 and the Revenue Budgetary Control Report by Directorate was set out. The Council had a surplus of £84,640 (box A) compared with a budgeted surplus of £128,750 (box B) resulting in an adverse variance of £44,110 (box C). The surplus was after Covid 19 funding of £2,368,509 and without that the Council would have had a deficit of £2,283,689 for the first 3 months (adverse variance against budget of £2,412,619).

Explanation of Variance

3

CS.11.08.20

The Council’s budget performance (before Covid 19 funding) was further analysed into 3 key areas: -

Report Type Variance Box Page Report 2 Payroll Expenditure £134,573 favourable D 4 Report 3 Goods & Services Expenditure £594,709 adverse E 5 Report 4 Income £1,952,483 adverse F 6

Boxes D, E and F add up to the Council’s overall adverse variance (Box C - £2,412,619) before Covid 19 funding.

Explanation of Variance The Council’s overall adverse variance before Covid 19 funding (£2,412,619 – box C Report 1) could be summarised by the following table: -

Type Variance Comment £’000 There were a number of vacant posts throughout the Council. Due to Covid 19 Payroll Expenditure (134.6) lockdown staff recruitment had not taken place. Due to Covid 19 the Council was facing Goods & Services 594.7 additional cost pressures (supplier and Expenditure rent relief, Covid 19 expenditure) The Covid 19 lockdown and associated cessation of services had had a devastating impact on Council income. Leisure £735.3k, Building Control £210.0k, off street car parking £249.9k, trade waste Income 1,952.5 £81.8k, Planning £126.9k. In addition, rates income was expected to be significantly reduced this year and the report reflected it being £250.0k behind budget to date.

Total 2,412.6 Box C on Report 1

Covid-19 Funding The Covid-19 funding reflected in the report consisted of: -

DfC - £1,340,134 DAERA - £ 300,000 CJRS - £ 728,375 Total £2,368,509

Individual reports to operational committees would only recommence once the budgetary position became clearer later in the year.

4

CS.11.08.20

Re-alignment of Budgets

At the moment Council had only secured funding for losses for quarter 1 of the current financial year. A further claim was in with the Department for Communities in respect of quarter 2 and officers were pressing for clarity with regard to support for the remainder of the year. Given the uncertainty of central government support the Council had agreed to undertake a process to revise budgets and service plans in order to provide a balanced budget that did not put reserves under further strain.

In the event that additional support was provided, the work would assist with the preparation of budgets for the 2021/22 financial year.

RECOMMENDED that the Council notes the report.

The Director of Finance and Performance explained that the figures were for the first quarter of the new year. The report indicated a breakeven position after three months which had only been achieved due to levels of external governmental support such as from DfC, DAERA and the Furlough Job Retention Scheme which had brought in £2.4M to the Council covering its loses during the same period. The report was self-explanatory and reflected the significant volatility with income.

Alderman Irvine queried if the Council had received further information about potential further financial support to be given until the end of the year. In response the Director replied that no comfort could be taken on that presently and he was engaged with DfC on the Council’s behalf as part of a Local Government Finance Directors Subgroup. A bid had also been made to DAERA but no assurances had been forthcoming. Much of the public sector was currently underfunded and huge financial pressures lay ahead. He added that the Strategic Covid Recovery Group (SCRG) would continue to be updated on that matter.

Councillor Mathison referred to the adverse variance of over £1M in the Leisure and Amenities budget and asked the Director if he could shed some light on those figures particularly since the leisure facilities had been closed in the first quarter of the financial year. The Director explained that the facilities had been closed and as a result all income streams had ceased. Meanwhile the Council was still incurring the cost of staffing and other essential running and maintenance costs. That had been offset in part due to the government’s financial assistance. He added that the Council would continue to be challenged by the continued uncertainty going forward and an interim budget would be set up to mitigate against that loss.

Councillor P Smith enquired about the adverse spend of £594k to date on Goods and Services and how the Council had got to that position. The Director apologised that he did not have that information to hand but would report back directly to the Member following the meeting.

Councillor Greer considered that the financial reports had made worrying reading and she had been grateful that government assistance had been made available. She stressed the need for the Council to have healthy reserves moving forward and

5

CS.11.08.20 that it took a holistic approach to spending. She asked if she too could be included in the response the Director would be providing to Councillor P Smith.

The Chairman, Councillor Chambers offered his thanks to the Director and his team for the work that they had undertaken in very challenging circumstances.

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

5. UPDATE ON PERFORMANCE REPORTING

PREVIOUSLY CIRCULATED:- Report from the Director of Organisational Development and Administration detailing that Members would be aware that the Council was required, under the Local Government Act 2014, to have in place arrangements to secure continuous improvement in the exercise of its functions.

As part of that approach each Council Service produced an annual Service Plan and reported performance against that, to the relevant Committee, on a quarterly basis. This was typically as set out below.

Reference Period Reporting Month Quarter 1 (Q1) April – June September Q2 July – September December Q3 October – December March Q4 January - March June

The Covid-19 ‘lockdown’ had had a number of major impacts on that for 2020/21: • Limited resource available to report due to service disruption, staff redeployment and furlough. • Disruption to Council operations meant that activities were significantly different from through previously planned, reducing the relevance and value of the Plans. • Disruption to Committees, with meetings unable to take place. • Financial impact, leading to a need for a major review of activities and budget for the remainder of 2020/21 – a process had been agreed for that that envisaged revised Service Plans being brought to Committees in Autumn 2020.

That had resulted in number of short-term changes:

1. Key performance issues had been reported on a regular basis using a performance dashboard. 2. Performance against Quarter 4 for 2019/20 would be reported to respective Committees in the near future. 3. Performance for Quarters 1 and 2 would not be reported on for individual periods. Given that revised 2020/21 Plans should be in place by Quarter 3, performance would be reported from Quarter 3 onwards. That would reflect the year to date position i.e. inclusive of performance during Quarters 1 and 2 were relevant.

6

CS.11.08.20

RECOMMENDED that the report be noted.

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

(Councillor Blaney withdrew from the meeting – 6.20 pm) 6. QUARTERLY REPORT ON EQUALITY AND GOOD RELATIONS (SECTION 75 OF THE NI ACT 1998, 1 APRIL – 30 JUNE 2020 (FILE EQ1) (Appendix II)

PREVIOUSLY CIRCULATED:- Report from the Director of Organisational Development and Administration detailing that in accordance with the ECNI Guidance and the Council’s Equality Scheme, a 5-year review of the Equality Scheme was required. The publication by ECNI titled Section 75, Northern Ireland Act 1998 Guidance on conducting a 5-year review of an equality scheme stated that a review should be based on evidence.

‘The purpose of a 5-year review is to examine how those arrangements have been applied and to assess how effective they have been in assisting public authorities to comply with the Section 75 duties’.

It should also be noted that paragraph 3.1 of the document stated,

‘Public authorities are not obliged to make changes to their equality schemes following their reviews, but they may consider if it is appropriate to do so’. Only where the public authority wishes to make substantive changes, is there a requirement to consult and re-submit the scheme to the ECNI’.

The Council’s Equality Scheme as approved by ECNI in March 2015 had been subject to a table top 5 year review, drawing on the relevant outcomes and actions addressed in the Quarterly Reports on Equality and Good Relations (Section 75 of The N.I. Act 1998) and the Annual Reports to ECNI over the relevant period. No significant changes were deemed to be required.

Following the approval of this report, the revised Equality Scheme would be made available on the Council’s website and submitted to ECNI for good practice. All current consultees would be informed of its existence and how to access it.

It was not a requirement to report on each of the points provided in the guidance, thus a number had been selected and were evidenced in the relevant reports referred to above to demonstrate the 5-year review had been thorough and meaningful. The 5-year review was not prescriptive and was based on reviewing the period 1 April 2015 – 31 March 2020 by identifying the significant improvements across Council services whilst delivering on all their duties and responsibilities.

Ards and North Down Borough Council Equality Scheme had only required minor changes as the organisational structure and named officers remained mainly the

7

CS.11.08.20 same from 2015. The annual reports to ECNI had all been submitted on time following their adoption by the Council. For the last three years the Council had accepted a review meeting with the relevant Equality Commission officer. Those meetings had been an excellent opportunity to discuss local and regional issues, the work of the Council, to receive comment on what the Commission considered was good practice by Ards and North Down Borough Council when carrying out their S75 duties and responsibilities and to review the priorities in delivering the Section 75 duties across the Council whilst both parties may identify where improvements could be made.

Leadership The support from senior management to ensure the Council met its duties and responsibilities has assisted in embedding Section 75 NI Act 1998 across the organisation.

Screening The commitment to screen policies at an early and often draft policy stage had enabled mitigating measures to be identified or potential adverse impact to be removed through policy review. That was also demonstrated in the internal organisation with the requirement for all Committee and Council reports to challenge if the Report was Section 75 compliant by having that question in the report template for all officers when drafting their reports. There was a 100% completion rate of the report template. The request for all Notices of Motion to be tabletop screened was also a valuable exercise to enable potential adverse impact to be identified early in the reporting process.

In the 5-year period to the writing of the report the Council had screened 204 policies for equality and good relations. Where mitigation had been identified that had been considered and enabled responsible officers to review the policy or operational delivery to ensure relevant mitigating measures were put in place.

The Notices of Motion being tabletop screened engaged senior management early in the process as a number were agreed in meetings. The process assisted senior officers to be made aware of potential Section 75 issues to enable them to respond to those when being discussed or considered in the Chamber.

Equality Impact Assessments Within the period of the 5 years two EQIAs had been carried out to enable a detailed screening and consultation on the two matters to be considered and discussed publicly. Those were the ‘Decision to name the Council’s new-build leisure facility in Newtownards as: ‘Ards Blair Mayne Wellbeing and Leisure Complex’’ and, secondly, the Council’s response to a request to locate Ulster Scots Agency Operation Lion plaques at Bangor and Donaghadee Harbours. The EQIA’s demonstrated that screening was a valuable process as it scrutinised the potential impact on any of the Section 75 dimensions and multiple identities and how the Council was prepared to engage to ensure decisions that had identified adverse or potential adverse impact were appropriately addressed and decisions made based on consultation of service users and potential service users.

Value of consultation

8

CS.11.08.20

All screening forms were available on the Council’s website and those were added to quarterly in January, April, July and October and all consultees informed. The outcome of each screened Council policy was discussed and challenged at two levels. Firstly, the Internal Screening Group was a group of officers from across the Council directorates who met to review the completed screening forms and discuss the issues identified and address those where possible in a practical manner across directorates. Secondly, the External Consultative Panel was made up of a group of individuals from outside the Council who were trained to identify potential adverse Section 75 issues and where appropriate, explain how those did or may impact on the individuals they represented. The panel members were from local and regional groups that represented some of the Section 75 dimensions and all individuals attended with their own multiple identities and experiences. Those two forums met when there were a significant number of screening outcomes to discuss and that was on average three times per year. Training was offered to each group to meet the specific needs and to assist in some topics. The external panel challenge workshops were chaired by an independent facilitator to enable the officers and panel members to look beyond their responsibilities.

Those two practices had ensured all screening documents were completed and reviewed and addressed any questions and any potential mitigation that was suggested and followed up; thus, exploring how any adverse or potential adverse impact might be mitigated against. The purpose and format of both panels were each identified as good practice by ECNI. The Compliance Officer (Equality and Safeguarding) had been contacted to speak to groups and individuals on how those practices could also be embedded into their organisations.

Training Training of employees and elected members had been delivered through a range of training forums and across the geographical area of the Council to ensure all had the opportunity to attend training relevant to their position. In the five years since the Equality Scheme was adopted the following range of diversity training had taken place.

Elected Members

Training In attendance Section 75 13 members Equality and Good Relations 32 members Vulnerable persons 8 members It Takes Allsorts 20 members Real Lives Dementia workshop 6 members Safetalk 1 member

Focused training sessions on Section 75 were offered to elected members when there were sensitive issues to be discussed including the two EQIA’s and in addition to the request to light up the Town Hall in Newtownards in rainbow colours. The training and open discussions were considered honest, challenging but importantly beneficial in helping to make Council decisions that had the potential to impact on residents, ratepayers, employees and visitors to the Borough.

9

CS.11.08.20

Employees of the Council

Training In attendance Keeping Children Safe/Keeping Adults Safe 30 employees Safeguarding 101 employees Diversity Awareness 379 employees Dementia Awareness 69 employees Deaf Awareness 16 employees BSL Awareness 49 employees BSL Sign Video 19 employees Safetalk 25 employees Mental Health First Aiders 73 employees It Takes Allsorts 102 employees Awareness of Nominated Safeguarding Role 11 employees (Safeguarding)

The training sessions had enabled council officers to be effective in decision making as they encouraged them to have a breadth of awareness of the range of needs of all users, potential users and employees.

It Takes All Sorts was an annual employee event that had now been widened to include statutory and community partners from across the Borough. It was a half- day session – two of which were held annually to encourage all attendees to learn about the diverse needs of those we lived amongst and provided services to in the Borough. The range of speakers was balanced to explore disabilities, difference, good relations, unconscious bias and commonalities.

Section 75 complaints To date there has been one Section 75 complaint received and that was an ongoing matter and the ECNI had been informed, as was the procedure outlined in the Equality Scheme. Any customer complaints or comments that were in any way related to an individual’s Section 75 dimension were identified and referred to the Compliance Officer (Equality and Safeguarding) for appropriate action and service improvements. That was taken from the monitoring information used on the customer services comment cards.

Monitoring data Monitoring data was a valuable source of ensuring all services were meeting the needs of their customers as well as monitoring where there may be gaps in accessing the range of service provision. The monitoring data enabled screening to be more meaningful, had enabled updating of employee records and had a profile of those they interacted with. Monitoring data on sporting activities, grant applications and awards had been particularly useful in arranging appropriate service improvements, particularly in reaching out to hard to reach or engage dimensions.

Recognition of the value of diversity In January 2020, the Council was awarded the Legal Island Diversity and Inclusion Aware Charter Mark with special commendation. That was awarded for internal and external policies and practices across the Council that ensured the diverse needs of employees and all those who used its services were anticipated and met. The

10

CS.11.08.20 decision panel reported they were delighted to see the work Ards and North Down Borough Council was doing to embrace Diversity and Inclusion in Northern Ireland.

Summary The 5-year review had enabled officers to reflect on the good practice and consider how that may be further developed. In our view the model scheme was the vehicle to implementing Section 75 as it was a live and working document and was being delivered effectively across the organisation and with all partners in any partnership working arrangement including Community Planning. That was demonstrated by the training, monitoring, consultation methods and forums as detailed above and with the support of senior management to ensure all areas of responsibility across the Council considered how its duties and responsibilities met statutory Section 75 responsibilities. That had ensured robust and inclusive policy making as screening was an integral part of the policy development process and officers wanted to ensure their decisions were inclusive of all potential users.

The Equality Scheme had been updated to reflect minor changes that included organisational/personnel changes and operational improvements. As the original Equality Scheme was approved by the Equality Commission Northern Ireland on 25 March 2015 the revised scheme was required to be updated to ensure the commitments continued from 26 March 2020.

RECOMMENDED that the minor amendments to the Ards and North Down Borough Council Equality Scheme from 26 March 2020 were retrospectively noted and that the 5-year review and the Revised Equality Scheme April 2020 – March 2025 were forwarded to ECNI and published on the Council’s website.

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

(Councillor Blaney re-entered the meeting – 6.20 pm) 7. ARDS AND NORTH DOWN BOROUGH COUNCIL DISABILITY ACTION PLAN 2020-2025 (FILE DIS1) (Appendix III)

PREVIOUSLY CIRCULATED:- Report from the Director of Organisational Development and Administration detailing that Members would be aware that each public authority had a duty to produce and annually monitor a Disability Action Plan.

Ards and North Down Borough Council agreed the first Disability Action Plan for the period of two years from April 2015. A revised Disability Action Plan (2017-2020) was produced that built on identified actions from the first and second years of its review.

The next phase was a five year plan and the Council consulted on that from 2nd March until 22nd May 2020. There were only a total of five comments received from the survey questionnaire, by email and at a face to face consultation in early March. Two further consultations had to be cancelled due to Covid-19.

11

CS.11.08.20

The new draft Disability Action Plan 2020 – 2025 was attached and incorporated some amendments to reflect comments received during the consultation period. Those included:

• ensuring the needs of carers are considered; • ensuring the layout of the Action Plan is clear for each action and ease of reference for readers; • the need to ensure the needs of those with a disability were reflected in the actions; • identifying SMART targets for each action; • that the actions demonstrated their applicability to the Disability Duties and took proactive steps in the promotion of positive attitudes towards disabled people and encourage their participation in public life.

The Disability Action Plan was highly aspirational and some of the initiatives may need to be revised post covid-19 due to budget restrictions.

The Plan would be circulated to all consultees and placed on the Council’s website once approved. The Plan would also be made available in alternative formats where a need was identified.

RECOMMENDED that the Disability Action Plan 2020 – 2025 be adopted.

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

8. EQUALITY COMMISSION NI – ANNUAL PROGRESS REPORT 2019 -2020 – SECTION 75 OF THE NORTHERN IRELAND ACT, 1998 AND SECTION 49A OF THE DISABILITY DISCRIMINATION ORDER (DDO) 2006 (Appendices IV & V)

PREVIOUSLY CIRCULATED:- Report from the Director of Organisational Development and Administration detailing that the Equality Commission for Northern Ireland (ECNI) had requested that all Councils in Northern Ireland complete a template to demonstrate progress on its implementation of the Section 75 statutory duties of The Northern Ireland Act 1998 and progress on implementation of positive duties under Section 49A of the Disability Discrimination Order (DDO) 2006. The template covered the period 1 April 2019 – 31 March 2020.

The information included in those Annual Progress Reports was used by the ECNI to monitor and report on the implementation of the statutory duties across local authorities.

The Commission had again included a section that served to review the Council’s implementation of its Disability Action Plan.

The completed template was to be returned electronically to the Commission by 31 August 2020.

12

CS.11.08.20

RECOMMENDED that the Council’s Annual Progress Report for the period 1 April 2019– 31 March 2020 be adopted and forwarded to the Equality Commission for Northern Ireland.

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

9. ADULT SAFEGUARDING CHAMPION POSITION REPORT 2019-2020 (FILE SG18)

PREVIOUSLY CIRCULATED:- Report from the Director of Organisational Development and Administration detailing that Adult Safeguarding: Prevention and Protection in Partnership Policy (July 2015) established new roles and responsibilities for implementation of adult safeguarding across all sectors. The regional policy also required the appointment of an Adult Safeguarding Champion (ASC) where an organisation had staff or volunteers who were subject to any level of vetting under the Safeguarding Vulnerable Groups (Northern Ireland) Order 2007. The Compliance Officer (Equality and safeguarding) was the Council’s nominated ASC.

The ASC was required to complete an Annual Report to meet the governance requirements set out in the Policy. The Report was an important overview and governance tool for all organisations and groups supporting adults at risk or in need of protection. It contained significant information for the organisation or group’s Senior Management Team and/or Trustees and should be scrutinised by them on an annual basis. The report was commensurate with the size of the organisation, nature of service delivery and the level of adult safeguarding activity.

Attached was the second Adult Safeguarding Champion Position Report for Ards and North Down Borough Council. The Designated Officer at Bangor Aurora Aquatics & Leisure Complex had also completed a Report and forwarded it to the ASC for reference.

RECOMMENDED that the Annual Adult Safeguarding Position report 2019/20 was noted.

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

10. REQUEST TO LIGHT UP COUNCIL BUILDINGS BY (1) UNITED NATIONS ASSOCIATION OF NORTHERN IRELAND AND (2) PNEUMOLIGHT (FILE LP37)

PREVIOUSLY CIRCULATED:- Report from Director of Organisational Development and Administration detailing that the Council had received the following new requests to light up Council buildings:

1. United Nations Association of Northern Ireland (UNA- NI)

13

CS.11.08.20

The Council had received a request from UNA-NI to light up Council buildings blue on Saturday 24th October 2020 to mark the 75th anniversary of the founding of the United Nations organisation.

The UNA-NI, a branch and region of UNA-UK, was a non-governmental, voluntary organisation. It existed to encourage public and governmental support for the goals of the UN, to seek a safer, fairer and more sustainable world.

2. World Pneumonia Day 2020

The Council had received a request from Pneumolight to light up the colour blue on Thursday 12th November 2020 in support of World Pneumonia Day.

World Pneumonia Day was celebrated on 12th November every year. The Council had been invited to join the Worldwide Pneumonia Awareness Campaign “Pneumolight” that was part of the Every Breath Counts Coalition and launched by The Association for the Support of Patients with Pneumonia and their Families. PneumoLight was a new colloborative project created to increase the visibility of pneumonia and raise awareness of the disease.

RECOMMENDED that the Council accedes to the requests and lights up the Council buildings on the dates requested by each organisation.

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

11. REQUEST TO SUPPORT SUSTAINABLE NI IN THE IMPLEMENTATION OF A CLIMATE CHANGE ACT FOR NORTHERN IRELAND (FILE SUS1)

PREVIOUSLY CIRCULATED:- Report from the Director of Organisational Development and Administration detailing that in November 2018 the Council made a commitment to carbon neutrality in November 2018.

‘That this council agrees that Climate Change is one of the biggest global challenges of our time, affirms that the council has an important leadership role in creating a low carbon future and accordingly requests that offers bring back a report on the possibilities of Ards and North Down Borough Council becoming a Carbon Neutral Council including possible timescales for achieving carbon neutrality’

In February 2019 the Council declared a Climate Emergency:

‘That this council notes the recent IPCC report on the impacts of climate breakdown agrees that drastic and far-reaching measures must be taken across society to try and mitigate the risks, and declares a Climate Emergency’. It requests an urgent report to assess the impact of the activities of Ards and North Down Borough Council on greenhouse gas emissions, exploring what mitigation measures can be put in place and establishes a

14

CS.11.08.20 working group to bring the issues of climate breakdown to the fore in the council structures and actions, local communities and businesses, as well as formulating a climate adaptation plan.’

As a result of the above decisions, Officers appointed a consultant to assist with the development of an Ards and North Down Borough Council Roadmap for Sustainability, which detailed how the Council could better target issues on sustainable development and climate change and set itself on a better, more effective pathway for sustainability and real change moving forward. That would be presented to Council in the coming months.

Proposed Northern Ireland Climate Change Act

The UK had set a target of net zero emissions by 2050 - one of the most ambitious in the world. Net zero meant any emissions would be balanced by schemes to offset an equivalent amount of greenhouse gases from the atmosphere, such as planting trees or using technology like carbon capture and storage. However, Northern Ireland was one on the worst performing UK regions and, without specific legislation and a major shift from fossil fuels to renewables, it would fail to meet that target.

On 21 July the NI Assembly passed a motion to implement a ‘climate change Act with legally binding and ambitious sectoral emission reduction targets and to ensure that any economic recovery strategy is underpinned by rapid decarbonisation and a just transition to protect jobs through upskilling people in carbon-intensive sectors; and further calls on the Minister to introduce this Act in the Assembly within 3 months.’

However, the motion was just the first step and additional support was required to ensure that it was progressed and implemented within the timeframe stipulated.

Sustainable NI was campaigning for the legislation to be passed within the proposed timeframe of 3 months as seen in the appendix.

RECOMMENDED that the Council registers its support by a letter to Sustainable NI regarding their campaign to ensure a Climate Change Act for Northern Ireland is introduced within the timeframe laid out.

The recommendation was proposed by Councillor P Smith and seconded by Councillor Dunlop.

Councillor P Smith stated that it was important that the Council gave its support to this to go beyond the rhetoric on the issue.

(Alderman Gibson withdrew from the meeting - 6.24 pm)

The Council had made its commitment as had had the Northern Ireland Assembly and now comprehensive legislation was required for the region to have its own Climate Change Act. Indeed, it was the only part of the United Kingdom not to have done that already. Northern Ireland’s emissions were 4% of the total United Kingdom emissions yet the population was only 2% and its GDP only 1%. Figures

15

CS.11.08.20 from DAERA had shown that Northern Ireland’s poor performance was hindering the United Kingdom in meeting its net zero progress. There was a long way to go and implementing legislation would get the ball rolling.

Councillor Dunlop proposed an amendment, seconded by Councillor Mathison, that the Council registers its support for this campaign by Sustainable NI, by writing to the Minister for Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs, stating its support for the campaign and requests that a Climate Change Act for Northern Ireland is introduced within the timeframe laid out, and agreed to, in the Assembly motion.

(Alderman Gibson returned to the meeting – 6.25 pm)

(Councillor Blaney withdrew from the meeting – 6.25 pm)

Councillor Dunlop began by stating that it was unfortunate that many viewed climate change as something in the distant future and not within their own experience and he stressed that that was a misconception and was highly destructive.

Communities in the global south were already experiencing the impact of climate change in the form of floods, droughts, hurricanes, and other extreme weather events. Climate change was now causing death and destruction and would threaten peace and security. It increased social inequality on a global scale and threatened economic stability at the heart of our way of life. It increased the risk of future pandemics and aggravated mass displacement.

He had been shocked to read that the UN had forecasted that there could be anywhere between 25 million and one billion environmental migrants by 2050.

(Councillor Blaney returned to the meeting – 6.28 pm)

Covid-19 had presented a worldwide challenge like no other and what was now being witnessed was a taster of things to come. The country needed to plan and prepare and with that in mind everyone needed to be realistic in thinking what a post pandemic economy would look like. As Professor of Green Political Economy, John Barry had stated recently, “The coronavirus has cancelled the future. But that is OK. It wasn’t a great one to begin with.”

He considered that society had a unique chance to change and needed to rebuild with a transformative Green New Deal. The Council’s Covid-19 recovery plan must decarbonise the economy in a way that tackled inequality and enhanced the lives of all people. That transition must be underpinned by values of social justice and the principle of no one being left behind.

The New Decade, New Approach agreement included new commitments to introduce legislation and targets for reducing emissions in line with the Paris Agreement which he thought was long overdue. Northern Ireland was not leading the pack but rather lagging far behind and he called for those in leadership to take action to address that.

16

CS.11.08.20

In seconding the amendment Councillor Mathison was happy to support what had been said and was disappointed with Northern Ireland’s performance and its failure to meet targets.

Councillor P Smith was happy to support the amendment and the committee was in agreement with it.

On the amendment being put to the meeting, it was AGREED TO RECOMMEND, on the proposal of Councillor Dunlop, seconded by Councillor Mathison, that the Council registers its support for this campaign by Sustainable NI, by writing to the Minister for Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs, stating its support for the campaign and requests that a Climate Change Act for Northern Ireland is introduced within the timeframe laid out, and agreed to, in the Assembly motion.

12. RESPONSES TO NOTICES OF MOTION

(a) NOM 117 – Plans to Close Bennet House, Portrush (Appendix VIII)

PREVIOUSLY CIRCULATED:- Report from the Director of Organisational Development and Administration detailing that in February 2020 the following Notice of Motion was agreed by Council:

‘That this Council notes with concern the plans to close Bennett House in Portrush. Bennett House is the only Royal British Legion break centre in Northern Ireland and is used by thousands of veterans each year for respite purposes. We feel its closure will have a detrimental impact on the wellbeing of veterans and would call for the facility to be maintained. Furthermore, that the Council writes to the Royal British Legion in London.’

A letter was sent from the Council to The Director General of the Royal British Legion on 10 March 2020 and a reply was received on 25 March 2020.

RECOMMENDED that the Committee notes the attached reply.

Proposed by Alderman Irvine seconded by Councillor McKimm that the recommendation be adopted.

Alderman Irvine expressed his disappointment in the response from the Royal British Legion but had not been surprised. The decision came as a disappointment to the many veterans who used the facility and it would exacerbate the social isolation that many of them felt.

Councillor McKimm concurred informing the committee that over the 30 years of his career he had worked with many veterans returning from war zones. The facility had been valuable in enabling those people to improve their mental and physical wellbeing and helping them to re-integrate into normal society. The facility had offered much and had been used by a large number of residents of the Ards and North Down Borough.

17

CS.11.08.20

(Alderman Gibson withdrew from the meeting – 6.37pm)

Councillor Cooper stated that he was gravely disappointed and felt the decision could not be justified. It was particularly disappointing since there had been a huge demand for it and it represented the closing down of the only facility which had been available for veterans in Northern Ireland. He felt aggrieved by it and he and his fellow veterans would continue to fight to have the decision reversed.

Alderman Keery did not believe that the Royal British Legion response should be accepted. He pointed to the fact that per head of population Northern Ireland supplied many more people to the armed forces than anywhere else in the United Kingdom. He recognised that there were similar facilities in other parts of the United Kingdom but the local veterans had expressed concern to him that they would now need to travel to mainland United Kingdom to avail of them. It was important to have a facility locally in Northern Ireland. Disapproval should be expressed at the decisions which were being made in London and so he called for the Council to send another letter stating that the decision could not be accepted. Northern Ireland raised much money for the Poppy Appeal annually and the cost of running the facility at Portrush was only a fraction of that sum.

(Alderman Gibson returned to the meeting – 6.41 pm)

AGREED TO RECOMMEND, on the proposal of Alderman Keery, seconded by Councillor Cooper, that the Council write to the Royal British Legion insisting that the Council could not accept its decision to close the facility at Portrush.

(b) NOM 116 – Resurfacing A23 Belfast to Ballygowan (Appendix IX)

PREVIOUSLY CIRCULATED:- Report from the Director of Organisational Development and Administration detailing that in January 2020 the following Notice of Motion was agreed by the Council.

“That Council writes to the Department for Infrastructure calling for the prioritisation of the resurfacing of the part of the A22 which runs through the centre of Ballygowan due to the appalling state of the current road surface and the ongoing impact of heavy traffic.”

The Council wrote to Department of Infrastructure (DfI) Roads, Southern Division on 11 March 2020 requesting DfI Roads to prioritise the resurfacing of the A23 Belfast Road, Ballygowan. The Council had received a reply from DfI to advise that it would be its desire to include a resurfacing scheme on that stretch of road on the 2020/21 programme. However, at the time of writing it had not received a budget allocation for the coming year and the ability to carry out a scheme would very much depend on the availability of funding together with all the other competing demands and pressures.

RECOMMENDED that Members note the contents of the letter in the attached appendix.

18

CS.11.08.20

Councillor P Smith suggested that the Council writes back to Mr Hamilton, Divisional Roads Manager to clarity if the budget had been made available since his letter to the Council was received in April 2020 since it was important that the A23 was improved.

Alderman Gibson seconded that suggestion and repeated that the road was in a poor condition and was an important one being a main road for towns such as Ballygowan into Belfast city.

AGREED TO RECOMMEND, on the proposal of Councillor P Smith, seconded by Alderman Gibson, that the Council writes back to Mr Hamilton, Divisional Roads Manager to clarity if the budget had been made available since his letter to the Council was received in April 2020 since it was important that the A23 was improved.

13. NOTICES OF MOTION

13.1 Notice of Motion submitted by Councillor Cooper

Councillor Cooper proposed, seconded by Councillor T Smith, that this Council opposes the squander of millions of pounds to be spent on the Irish Language and Ulster Scots and related language and identity schemes in the upcoming budget from Stormont over and above the pressing need to adequately fund our health service, and will write to the Executive Office and the Secretary of State to intervene and prioritise funding the NHS to alleviate waiting lists and the increasing burden on all levels of staff instead.

(Alderman Gibson withdrew from the meeting – 6.44 pm)

Councillor Cooper outlined his Notice of Motion and stressed that it should not be turned in to a ‘green’ and ‘orange’ issue. It was simply about prioritising urgent public health services over a very difficult time when they were appallingly underfunded. At the current time there were over 300k people in Northern Ireland on a waiting list for a first hospital appointment with a consultant, up 8.5% on the previous year, and it was estimated that it would take over £1 billion to eradicate the waiting list within the local health service.

Covid-19 had compounded pressures on the services and increased further the waiting lists. It was in light of that that he felt it was wrong to spend hundreds of millions of pounds supporting languages when the health service was so desperately stretched. Adequately funding the National Health Service was a way of showing appreciation to the staff who worked within it and he hoped that Members would approach the subject in the right frame of mind.

As seconder of the proposal Councillor T Smith reserved his right to speak at that moment to allow other members of the committee to express their views.

Councillor McKimm stated that unfortunately he could not support the Notice of Motion because he felt that health should be viewed in a holistic way and that there

19

CS.11.08.20 were many factors contributing to a healthy society. He stressed the importance of funding services that extended beyond the National Health Service and areas such as heritage and the arts were valuable to the human experience and contributed to wider wellbeing. Health was wider than funding for doctors and pills.

(Alderman Gibson returned to the meeting – 6.49 pm)

Alderman McIlveen congratulated Councillor Chambers as the new Chairman of the committee and he stated that he agreed with Councillor McKimm’s comments. He completely understood the motivation for the Notice of Motion and everyone had witnessed in the past few months the fantastic work of the health care system locally. He hoped that the Minister for Health would secure additional funding for the service. He added that the Irish language was protected and enshrined by legislation and no one could ignore those requirements. There was a duty to promote minority languages and that required appropriate funding. He agreed that the quality of life for the population also needed to be supported and it was for that reason he could not support the Motion.

(Alderman Gibson withdrew from the meeting – 6.55 pm)

Councillor Egan agreed that the National Health Service should be adequately funded but it also needed to experience major reforms. She stated that 46% of the budget given to Northern Ireland was spent on health and social care and the expected budget was expected to double by 2026/2027. She did not support the Motion however because she did not believe that further funds should be diverted to health at the expense of other commitments. It was true that the waiting lists in Northern Ireland were horrifying but she pointed to Scotland and Wales, countries which also invested in languages and they were still able to have shorter waiting list than we had locally.

Councillor P Smith said that he could support the gist of the Motion and welcomed Councillor Cooper back to the committee and wished him a continued recovery.

(Alderman Gibson returned to the meeting – 6.56 pm)

Councillor P Smith considered that it was all about prioritisation and that the Council also needed to be mindful of that when setting its own budget. He was happy to see that the Irish language as well as Ulster Scots had been included and therefore it was about languages per se and therefore inclusive. He agreed that additional funding would not solve the bigger problem in the service which needed longer term reform. Northern Ireland’s waiting lists were the longest in the United Kingdom by a mile and as the current pandemic left there would be a long trail of backlogs which needed to be taken forward. However he suggested that the proposer and seconder of the Motion could consider adding the word ‘further’ before funding as a way of taking the Motion forward.

Councillor Mathison agreed that the Health Service needed to be reformed and required investment but warned against falling into a trap of throwing money at the problem. Councillors could not pick and choose priorities for the Assembly and that

20

CS.11.08.20 was not a good way to do government. He also agreed that quality of life in general was important to improve people’s health and wellbeing.

Councillor T Smith stated that he was fully supportive of everyone’s right to enjoy their culture and languages, but the issue was how our country used its limited resources. Health was the most basic of those services and was one that everyone benefitted from. He understood that society had a legal obligation to protect those languages under the Irish Language Act but he pointed to the vast sums of money involved. He questioned how MLAs could support increasing their own allowances which were unbudgeted and wondered why the same attitude could not be taken with health which the entire population benefited from.

Councillor Cooper summed up the Motion and was happy to include the word ‘further’ before millions of pounds. He stated that no one should misunderstand the Motion and the word prioritising was important, he had no intention of suggesting that the whole fund given to languages be used. He discussed the waiting lists and believed that the people on those lists would be appalled to put languages at a higher priority particularly in this current health care crisis which had been further stressed by the Covid-19 pandemic. It simply did not make sense to him and he requested a recorded vote.

On the proposal being put to the meeting with 7 voting For, 5 voting Against, 3 Abstained and 1 Absent it was declared CARRIED.

FOR (7) AGAINST (5) ABSTAINING (3) ABSENT (1) Aldermen Councillors Aldermen Alderman Keery Dunlop Gibson Girvan Irvine Egan McIlveen Councillors Greer Councillor Blaney Mathison Gilmour Chambers McKimm Cooper P Smith T Smith

AGREED TO RECOMMEND, on the proposal of Councillor Cooper, seconded by Councillor T Smith, that the amended Notice of Motion be adopted. That this Council opposes the squander of further millions of pounds to be spent on the Irish Language and Ulster Scots and related language and identity schemes in the upcoming budget from Stormont over and above the pressing need to adequately fund our health service, and will write to the Executive Office and the Secretary of State to intervene and prioritise funding the NHS to alleviate waiting lists and the increasing burden on all levels of staff instead.

13.2 Notice of Motion submitted by Councillor Brooks and Councillor Chambers

Councillor Brooks proposed, seconded by Councillor P Smith, that this Council notes that the bicentenary of the laying of the foundation stone for the iconic Donaghadee

21

CS.11.08.20 harbour will take place on 1st August 2021 and instructs officers to consult with organisations in the local community and produce a report by 30th September 2020 setting out costed proposals for how the occasion might be marked.

The Chairman, Councillor Chambers, explained that he would not be making comment on the Notice of Motion, nor would he be seconding it and he would remain in the Chair during the discussion.

Councillor Brooks explained that under the Reform of Local Government Donaghadee Harbour was handed over to the Council to administer and the Council was now a custodian of that area. He outlined the wording of the Motion and recognised that the original date laid out in the Motion of 30th September 2020 may not be binding.

(Councillor Egan withdrew from the meeting – 7.13 pm)

He gave a brief history of the laying of the foundation stone at the harbour which had been on 1 Aug 1821 with the Marquis of Downshire in attendance. A time capsule had been buried and he considered that it would be appropriate to put the items within the capsule on display for the anniversary before resealing them and reburying with a current time capsule prepared by local school children and other people within the town. There had been a large parade at the laying of the foundation stone and several thousand people had attended. He believed that the Council should recognise this significant anniversary and look at opportunities to promote an event for the town while working with the community to source potential external funding for it.

Seconding the Motion Councillor P Smith had no further comments to add to what had been well presented.

Councillor Mathison agreed to support the Motion but asked if it would be possible to consider moving the date for the report due to pressure it could present to officers.

(Councillor Egan returned to the meeting – 7.16 pm)

Councillor McKimm agreed that external sources or funding could be explored so that the Council did not carry the cost of the event entirely.

In summing up Councillor Brooks thanked Members for their positive comments and proposed a revised date for the report to be 30 November 2020 which would allow three months. He stressed that consultation and delegation to local groups within the town would be beneficial since those groups were well versed in obtaining funding. He would be interested to read the officer’s recommendation on that report and he hoped that the town would benefit greatly from that.

AGREED TO RECOMMEND, on the proposal of Councillor Brooks, seconded by Councillor P Smith that the amended Notice of Motion be adopted. That this Council notes that the bicentenary of the laying of the foundation stone for the iconic Donaghadee harbour will take place on 1st August 2021 and instructs officers to consult with organisations in the local community and

22

CS.11.08.20 produce a report by 30th November 2020 setting out costed proposals for how the occasion might be marked.

13.3 Notice of Motion submitted by Councillor McNickle and Councillor Douglas

Councillor McNickle proposed, seconded by Councillor Douglas, that this Council recognises the impact of misogyny and transmisogyny on those affected by it, as well as the role these attitudes play in a variety of crimes including harassment, assault, sexual assault and hate crimes, and on the career choices and personal lives of women, girls and non-binary people.

The Council supports in inclusion of misogyny as a standalone offence and as a category of hate crime, recognising crimes targeted at women including transwomen as hate crimes based on misogyny, and will write a letter to that effect to judge Desmond Marrinan, as part of his ongoing review of hate crime legislation in Northern Ireland. The Council supports also the Raise Your Voice Project, which tackles sexual harassment and sexual violence across Northern Ireland, by placing posters in all Council properties to raise awareness of the project.

Councillor McNickle offered congratulations to the new Chairman of the committee and thanked everyone for the opportunity to speak about her Notice of Motion.

She began by stating that Raise Your Voice was a project designed to tackle sexual harassment in Northern Ireland, bringing together experience and expertise from across the women’s sector. She was delighted to do what she could to support their sustained efforts to create a cultural change in Northern Ireland. Last June, the Department of Justice launched a review of hate crime legislation in Northern Ireland led by Judge Desmond Marrinan. As part of that review, Judge Marrinan had been considering whether the categories of hate crime should be expanded and whether the current approach for dealing with hate crime was adequate. Although there were many areas for change needed, the Motion focused on misogyny and the difference the Raise Your Voice Project could make in the community. As a woman in Northern Ireland, it felt like society was making strides towards equality before the law, and she was hopeful that Judge Marrinan’s review would allow us to go further along the road towards respect for women’s rights.

The review classified hate crime as ‘offences which are motivated by hostility/bias based on a personal characteristic of the victim’. From that definition, it was hard to understand why misogyny had not been recognised as a category under hate crime. She didn’t think it was an understatement to say that the vast majority, if not all, women and girls, including trans-women, had experienced misogyny, “dislike of, contempt for, or ingrained prejudice against women”, to a greater or lesser degree. From catcalling schoolgirls walking alone, to hate speech and threats on social media, to violent sexual attacks, the spectrum of misogynistic crimes and incidents affected women across Northern Ireland, and our Borough, every day. She considered that sexual assault was a routine and normalised part of a night out, whilst everyone was aware that domestic violence against women was epidemic in our society. We all, as women and non-binary people, moderated our behaviour,

23

CS.11.08.20 consciously and unconsciously, to keep ourselves safe. We could not walk freely in our streets, we could not speak our minds on social media without fear of often vile responses, and too often our ‘nos’ or silences are taken to be ‘yeses’. That should not be normal and should be recognised as the hate that it was in her view.

She added that those incidents were not one-offs. They happened because society did not take misogyny seriously, and had not tackled the cultural norms that enabled violence against women.

She was not claiming that recognising misogyny and transmisogyny as hate and treating such hate crimes as stand-alone offences would immediately change how our society viewed and valued girls and women. However, including misogyny as a category of hate crime allowed the law to capture the nature of the offence and the extent of the harm to the victim, from the very start, rather than as an add-on at sentencing, if it ever got that far. Naming the cause was a vital first step to truly eradicating it, and would give victims confidence that they would be taken seriously. With reports of rape, sexual assault and domestic violence a fraction of the true numbers, anything that could be done to help victims step forward was to be welcomed.

What was being suggested was not new. Most famously, Nottinghamshire County Police had recognised misogyny as a hate crime in 2016. The policy did not criminalise anything that was already illegal, but gave victims more confidence in coming forward and in surveys the majority of respondents who brought complaints to police reported feeling like their concerns were taken seriously and that they would encourage others to report (even if their case made it no further). That itself was very significant - a fear of being mocked, derided or dismissed was one of the main reasons why victims didn’t report elsewhere. That told us what we had long suspected: it meant a lot to be seen, heard and taken seriously, and recognising misogyny as a hate crime would do just that.

Furthermore, we were aware that statistics were vital to identifying trends and areas of concern. At the moment, as the PSNI were not facilitated by the law to record hate crimes against women, we could not identify patterns of misogynistic incidents and crimes. Again, recognising the problem was the first step to eradicating it.

Recognising misogyny and transmisogyny as categories of hate crime was not, as some claimed, policing thought. Hate crime had to be an action that was already criminal. For example, an assault was already a crime, but an assault motivated by hatred of the victim because of their identity was a hate crime. Hate crime legislation targeted actions, not thoughts, and added an important clarifying detail to a conviction, as well as sending a signal to society that hate crimes were understood to be especially horrific because they are especially harmful.

(Alderman Gibson withdrew from the meeting – 7.25 pm)

She felt that the Council must show residents that it took misogyny seriously and supported victims. The Motion, as well as submitting a letter to Judge Marrinan’s review, would also help residents to access workshops that explored sexual harassment and violence, allowing women, girls and non-binary people to share their

24

CS.11.08.20 stories and experiences. She explained that she and Councillor Douglas had begun work on the Motion before lockdown had hit and unfortunately, raising awareness of Raise Your Voice’s work through posters in Council properties would not have the same effect, until the community and leisure centres were full again. However, she hoped that, if the motion passed, discussions could take place with the Council’s communications team about how social media could be used as a replacement in the meantime. Changing behaviours, changing attitudes and changing cultural norms were just as important in tackling misogyny as legislative change and it was necessary to ensure that the Council was doing what it could to raise awareness of the project.

The Motion had achieved cross-party support in Belfast, and she was personally grateful to have the support of Councillor Douglas. She sincerely hoped that Ards and North Down would also be able to show solidarity with victims of misogyny, to stand with women and girls, those who are non-binary and those who were transgender across the Borough. The Motion simply asked that hatred against all women be called out for what it was.

Councillor Douglas then spoke stating that she was pleased to second the Motion. She recognised three elements to the Motion.

(Councillor Cooper withdrew from the meeting – 7.27 pm)

Firstly, that Council recognised the impact misogyny and trans-misogyny could have on those affected in a number of ways; Secondly, that Council writes a letter to the NI Hate Crime Review Team headed up by Justice Marrinan, to note its support for the inclusion of misogyny as a standalone offence and as a category of hate crime; and thirdly, Council supported the ‘Raise Your Voice Project’ by way of placing posters in Council premises to raise awareness of the project, which aimed to tackle sexual harassment and violence in Northern Ireland.

(Alderman Gibson returned to the meeting – 7.27 pm) (Councillor Cooper returned to the meeting – 7.27 pm)

She explained that misogyny was defined as "incidents against women that are motivated by the attitude of men towards women and includes behaviour targeted at women by men simply because they are women".

Some examples included sexual assault, indecent exposure, groping, taking unwanted photographs on mobiles, up-skirting, online abuse, being followed home, whistling, sexually explicit language, threatening/aggressive/intimidating behaviour, and unwanted sexual advances.

A hate crime was one where the victim or any other person perceives to be motivated by hostility or prejudice towards any aspect of a person's identity. Currently police monitored 5 strands of hate crime:- Disability, Gender identity, Race, ethnicity or nationality, Religion, faith or belief and Sexual orientation.

However, not all hate crimes were criminal offences according to the legal definition so she explained why misogyny should be included as a stand-alone hate crime.

25

CS.11.08.20

To legitimise and validate the experience of those affected directly by misogyny; to encourage people to come forward and report; It avoided any ‘hierarchy’ on equality grounds; It would identify the need for services to be provided to support the victims of those hate crimes; It would assist alongside other measures, to tackle gender- based violence; It would also enable the collection of data to identify trends in terms of understanding how often, when and where it is happening; It would help shape social policy; It would also be consistent with international obligations to prevent and protect against discrimination and violence targeted at women and girls, namely The Istanbul Convention (2014) and CEDAW (Convention for the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women); and importantly, it would send out a clear message locally that in the Borough and in Northern Ireland we would not tolerate girls, women and trans women being harassed, assaulted and violated and that we wanted better for our children, grandchildren, partners, wives, mothers, sisters and friends.

In July 2018, research revealed overwhelming public support for the inclusion of misogynistic hate crime after a two-year pilot scheme by Nottinghamshire police, which became the first police force in the UK to record public harassment of women, such as groping, using explicit language, or taking unwanted photographs, and assault. Since then, other Police Forces in North Yorkshire, Northamptonshire, and Avon and Somerset had followed suit to record misogynistic hate crime.

Professor Mullaney and Dr Trickett in their research found harassment of women and girls in public spaces remained endemic, with 93.7% respondents saying they had either experienced or witnessed it. Dr Trickett had said, "Much of this behaviour on this spectrum is criminal behaviour, but because of the culture we have, it's just acceptable to intimidate women on the street, to go up to a woman and touch her backside, or to comment on her body and put her in fear of an assault." Professor Mullany said, "There's a spectrum of crime here, and it goes up to rape and sexual assault, and we were really shocked at how high the figures were in terms of people reporting the more serious end of crime, and that becoming part of a regular occurrence."

She outlined the research findings:-

Misogyny Hate Crime was highly prevalent, but still significantly under-reported partly due to the ‘normalisation’ of those incidents. Within certain contexts, such as the night-time economy, groping and sexual assaults were commonplace and normalised; 63% of respondents stated they had changed their behaviour in response to misogynistic behaviours. It also ran counter to the dominant mass media narrative that such events were simply trivial examples, often portrayed as harmless fun; Respondents often felt intimidated and lived in fear of what may happen to them in public spaces and of those women who reported, those who had positive experiences praised the police for taking them seriously, and stated it made them feel safer

(Councillor Blaney withdrew from the meeting – 7.31 pm)

Many men found the behaviour completely unacceptable and wanted to prevent it from happening. With regards the final element of placing posters to raise awareness

26

CS.11.08.20 of the ‘Raise Your Voice’ project she suggested any organisation that wished to tackle sexual violence and harassment through awareness raising and education should be welcomed to ensure both staff and users of Council facilities could feel supported and access support where they needed to, similar to other motions agreed previously by Council.

In conclusion, the Council could act as a role model and deliver the clear message that misogynistic and trans-misogynistic behaviours were unacceptable and would not be tolerated and that it was crucial that girls, women and trans-women who worked, lived and visited our Borough were made to feel safe and welcome.

(Councillor Blaney returned to the meeting – 7.32 pm)

Alderman McIlveen proposed an amendment, seconded by Alderman McIlveen, that this Council recognises the impact of a variety of crimes including harassment, assault, sexual assault and hate crimes, on the career, choices and personal lives of all of those affected and condemns the perpetration of such acts. As the consultation period for Judge Marinnan’s review of hate crime legislation expired on 30 April 2020, the Council encourages all of its members, political parties and members of the public to continue to engage with the process, particularly when the report is published, to ensure the breadth of opinion on this important issue is heard. The Council also supports the Raise Your Voice Project, which tackles sexual harassment and sexual violence across Northern Ireland, by placing posters in all Council properties to raise awareness of the project."

Councillor T Smith referred to Standing Order 18.1 and believed that the amendment was quite different to the Motion before the committee. The Chairman disagreed with that point of view stating that many of the words addressed roles and attitudes around sexual assault and hate crimes and he allowed the amendment to be discussed.

In response Alderman McIlveen explained that the words he had used in his amendment were intended to include rather than exclude and stressed that the opportunity should not be lost to include everyone under hate crimes. Three months had passed since the end of the consultation and it was important to move towards the next phase of it. Undoubtedly, he considered that there were gaps in hate crime legislation which was not working for many of the groups identified. He considered that it was important that everyone was able to live their lives without interference and he fully supported helping vulnerable people. He believed that his amendment was fully inclusive.

Alderman Irvine spoke in support and stated that hate crime must be tackled at every level. He believed that Alderman McIlveen’s amendment was a good step forward.

Councillor P Smith agreed that what was being discussed was a major issue. Violence against women and the growing porn culture needed to be addressed. His daughter had just left school and he was keen that she could make her place in the world without fear or harassment. Crimes against women should be removed from society. He discussed the amendment and the legal position around that and the fact that the consultation had now passed. He stressed that it was important to have

27

CS.11.08.20 good legislation and he would be interested in Councillor McNickle’s response to Alderman McIlveen at that point.

Councillor Egan understood the points made regarding the closing dates on the consultation but felt that the amendment would water down the original Motion. She considered that it was important that the Motion focused on misogyny. She referred to a recent report from the United Nations which had suggested that during the Covid-19 pandemic there had been a 20% increase of domestic violence which disproportionally affected women. It was important that the Council recognised misogyny as a hate crime. She was pleased to see the Raise Your Voice Project and welcomed the Notice of Motion.

Councillor McKimm was happy to sit within a Council that showed it cared for the wellbeing of all people. He asked Alderman McIlveen if he could simply add transmisogyny to his amendment.

In response Alderman McIlveen believed that everyone should be included. He pointed out that transmisogyny was already recognised as a hate crime so there was no need and that everyone should be able to feed into the definition of hate crime as a whole.

Councillor Dunlop said he could not support the amendment since it did not focus on misogyny.

Councillor Mathison thought the Motion was a good example of parties working together and he felt that the amendment diluted the intentions of the original with its focus on misogyny. He questioned if responses could be received now that the consultation had passed. He hoped that the Council could support the Raise Your Voice Campaign but he could not support Alderman McIlveen’s amendment.

Councillor T Smith stated that he was the father to two young women and he said he stood for all women finding abuse towards women in any circumstance completely unacceptable. He wondered why the Democratic Unionist Party in Ards and North Down could not add the words misogyny and transmisogyny when they had been in other Council areas. He supported the original Motion.

Councillor McNickle thanked those who had shown support to her amendment and was confused about why the amendment had been brought since she had hoped for a united front. She could not support the amendment since it did not identify misogyny and transmisogyny. It was unfortunate that the deadline had passed by and she was aware that letters of support were still being accepted. She did not feel that the amendment presented where the Council stood in supporting victims of misogyny and not to have it as a standalone crime did not capture the true offence of hatred against women in many circumstances.

On the amendment being put to the meeting with 6 voting For, 8 voting Against and 1 Abstained and 1 Absent it was declared LOST.

(Alderman Gibson withdrew from the meeting – 8.02 pm)

28

CS.11.08.20

Alderman McIlveen recognised the vote but insisted he still had concern about misogyny as a standalone issue. He thought that it was worth waiting for the full report to come through and that the members of the committee were probably not qualified to be making judgements on that. There had been issues in Scotland about standalone crimes and he hoped that that could be avoided here. He wanted all women to feel safe and comfortable in society and hoped that the legislation brought into Northern Ireland worked. He was not in a position to support the Notice of Motion but the Raise Your Voice Campaign had his full support.

Councillor P Smith agreed that there were some elements that needed to be examined from a legal perspective but he looked forward to the report and would support the Motion to send a message that this Council was opposed to misogyny and transmisogyny.

Councillor Mathison confirmed his support for the Motion and that he was disappointed that the Democratic Unionist Party seemed to struggle with the wording. He felt it was important to send a message that this crime was a scourge on society. The detail would be dealt with by the justice system.

Councillor Blaney also supported the Notice of Motion and was happy to stand against misogyny.

(Alderman Gibson returned to the meeting – 8.05 pm)

Councillor McNickle summed up by thanking everyone for their support and was glad that a strong message could be sent out. She felt that it was unfortunate that Alderman McIlveen could not support her Motion and she was aware that legislation was not made by Councillors but that from the information she had it was preferred that misogyny was viewed as a standalone offence.

On the proposal being put to the meeting with 9 voting For, 5 voting Against and 1 Abstained and 1 Absent it was declared CARRIED.

AGREED TO RECOMMEND, on the proposal of Councillor McNickle, seconded by Councillor Douglas that the Notice of Motion be adopted.

14. ANY OTHER NOTIFIED BUSINESS

There were no items of Any Other Notified Business.

MEETING ADJOURNED 8.11 PM MEETING RECONVENED 8.20 PM

(Councillor Blaney did not return to the meeting)

EXCLUSION OF PUBLIC/PRESS

AGREED TO RECOMMEND, on the proposal of Councillor McKimm, seconded by Councillor Dunlop, that the public/press be excluded during the discussion of the undernoted items of confidential business.

29

CS.11.08.20

15. PORTAVO RESERVOIR – POSSIBLE ASSERTION – PUBLIC RIGHTS OF WAY UPDATE

***IN CONFIDENCE***

***NOT FOR PUBLICATION***

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

16. RENT REVIEW – THE CROWN ESTATE LEASE OF THE FORESHORE AND BED OF THE SEA AT BANGOR BAY, COUNTY DOWN (RECREATIONAL AREAS (FILE LP) (Appendix X)

***IN CONFIDENCE***

***NOT FOR PUBLICATION***

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

17. REQUEST FROM NIE TO AMEND THE WAYLEAVE OVER COUNCIL LAND AT BLALYHOLME PROMENADE (FILE LP539) (Appendices XI &XII)

***IN CONFIDENCE***

***NOT FOR PUBLICATION***

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

18. REQUEST FROM NI WATER TO CLOSE AND CARRY OUT WORKS ON SECTIONS OF THE COASTAL PATH BETWEEN STRICKLANDS GLEN AND BROMPTON (FILE LP) (Appendix XIII)

***IN CONFIDENCE***

***NOT FOR PUBLICATION***

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

30

CS.11.08.20

19. WAYLEAVE FOR LIGHTING AT CHERRY VALLEY, COMBER (FILE LP85) (Appendix XIV)

***IN CONFIDENCE***

***NOT FOR PUBLICATION***

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

20. LAND AT DICKSON PARK, BALLYGOWAN (FILE OS10829) (Appendix XV)

***IN CONFIDENCE***

***NOT FOR PUBLICATION***

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

21. REQUEST FROM COMBER REGENERATION COMMUNITY PARTNERSHIP TO RENEW ITS LICENCE FOR THE FORMER CIVIC AMENITY SITE (FILE LP416) (Appendix XVI)

Having previously declared an interest in the item Councillor P Smith was removed from the meeting during its discussion.

***IN CONFIDENCE***

***NOT FOR PUBLICATION***

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

(Councillor P Smith was readmitted to the meeting at 8.42 pm)

22. REQUESTS FROM LESSEES FOR PARTIAL RENT HOLIDAYS AS A RESULT OF THE COVID-19 CRISIS

***IN CONFIDENCE***

***NOT FOR PUBLICATION***

31

CS.11.08.20

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

TERMINATION OF MEETING

The meeting terminated at 8.50 pm.

32

ITEM 7.5

ARDS AND NORTH DOWN BOROUGH COUNCIL

A Virtual meeting of the Community and Wellbeing Committee was held on Wednesday, 12 August 2020 at 6.00pm via Zoom.

PRESENT:

In the Chair: Alderman Irvine

Aldermen: Menagh Carson

Councillors: Boyle MacArthur Chambers McRandal Douglas Mathison Dunne McNickle Edmund Smart Egan T Smith Thompson

Officers: Director of Community and Wellbeing (G Bannister), Head of Environmental Health Protection (M Potts), Head of Leisure and Amenities (I O’Neill), Head of Community and Culture (J Nixey), Parks, Cemeteries and Amenities Manager (J McConnell), Business Technology Officers (B Robson and G Veitch) and Democratic Services Officer (R King)

WELCOME AND CHAIRMAN’S REMARKS

The Chairman welcomed everyone to the meeting.

NOTED.

1. APOLOGIES

There were no apologies.

NOTED.

2. DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST

The Chairman asked for any Declarations of Interest. The following were declared:

Councillor MacArthur – Item 8 - Community Development Grants 2020-21 Councillor McNickle – Item 10 - DfC COVID-19 Community Support Update Councillor Boyle – Item 12 - Circulated for Information

NOTED. CW 12.08.20 PM

3. ASHBURY/LINEAR PLAYGROUND

PREVIOUSLY CIRCULATED: - Report dated 1 July 2020 (attached) from the Director of Community and Wellbeing, detailing that under the legacy North Down Borough Council Playpark Strategy 2014, the east Bangor area was identified as having a lack of playground provision. An area around Ashbury Avenue (Ashbury shops) and Linear Park was identified as being the best location to locate a playground in that area to serve the local population. A site in the Lower Linear Park area was considered but was discounted due to the proximity of the dual carriageway. The sites which were identified was a location on the grass area to the front of the Ashbury shops and another within Linear Park. They were chosen based on the following considerations:

• Central to the Ballycrochan area. • Near to schools and the shops. • Good access for construction and ongoing maintenance. • Can be easily checked for antisocial behaviour by PSNI and Neighbourhood Safety Team.

In the summer of 2019, a total of four public consultation events were held (2 sets of 2 sessions) which were facilitated by the Community Development Team of the Council. The events were advertised locally via a leaflet drop (1000 per session), posters were placed in the shops, local schools were given flyers and they were promoted on social media. Two of the sessions were held in local Primary Schools in June and a further two sessions were held in a local shop unit in September 2019. A survey in the form of a questionnaire was available at the sessions. A total of 114 questionnaires were completed over the four events.

The two possible locations for the playground were displayed on the map below (Figure 1) at the public consultation sessions. Site A being the green space at the front of the shops at Ashbury and Site B within Liner Park.

2

CW 12.08.20 PM

Figure 1. Map which was shown at public consultation events.

The results were as follows:

Do you live in the Ashbury/Ballycrochan area? 97% said Yes

Do you feel there is a need for a Play Facility in the area? 81% said Yes

Looking at the map on display (Figure 1), Where do you feel is the best location for the play Facility?

42% preferred Site A. 46% preferred Site B. 3% indicated they would be happy with either location. 9% did not include a preference.

A site meeting was conducted with officers from the Assets and Property, Parks and Leisure Services Teams to look at the merits of each site. Below is a summary of the findings.

Site A

Area in red to the front of the shops adjacent to Ashbury Avenue (Figure 2).

3

CW 12.08.20 PM

Figure 2. Site A

Site A - Ashbury Shops Advantages Disadvantages Visible/overlooked site. Purchase cost £70,000 (area in red). Easy to monitor. Proximity to the road. Would require some fencing/planting to buffer the site from the road. Easy to develop. Would require planning permission.

In terms of location Site A was well situated as it was highly visible so would be easily monitored for any potential antisocial behaviour and child protection issues. The only constraining factor in relation to this location was the purchase cost of the land (outlined in red) which was valued at £70,000 by Land and Property Services (LPS) or £7,000 per annum to rent. The larger area in blue (including the area in red) would cost £225,000 to purchase or £22,500 to rent per annum. Those values were considered to be the current market rate. It was only the red area that was being considered for purchase at the time. However, there were no guarantees that the owner would be agreeable to sell/lease the land or concur with the values attributed to it. The land was zoned as an Arterial Route and Local Centre (Policy R4) under the Belfast Metropolitan Area Plan 2015 as a local commercial and shopping node. Planning permission would be required to develop a playground in this location.

4

CW 12.08.20 PM

Site B

Site within Linear Park.

Figure 3. Site B

Site B – Linear Park Advantages Disadvantages No purchase cost Vegetation would need to be removed to open up the visibility of the site so it can be easier monitored. Compensatory planting would be required. Would require mitigation measures in order to create a noise/privacy buffer between the site and the adjacent houses (additional planting along the boundaries and bunding). Will require mitigation measures to protect the river (silt traps). Would require planning permission.

Site B was more challenging in terms of construction, monitoring and maintenance. Sufficient vegetation removal needed to occur along the boundary fencing and a portion of a hedge inside the Park to improve the visibility into the playground as

5

CW 12.08.20 PM shown in the dashed green line in Figure 4 below. Any vegetation removal could be compensated for by replanting elsewhere within the Park. The site was still more removed from public view being to the rear of the shops.

The areas within the dashed blue line would be where the bunds (earth mounds) would be located to act as an acoustic barrier and therefore reduce potential noise nuisance to the adjacent dwellings. Those could also be landscaped with evergreen planting to provide a year round screen to protect the residential amenity of the adjacent dwellings.

The playground had been sited to increase the separation distance between it and the adjacent houses.

Figure 4. Playground location with mitigation measures

While Linear Park was designated as a Local Landscape Policy Area (BR 19 Ballycrochan) it was not considered that the development of the playground would adversely impact on those features for which it was designated as follows:

• Area of local amenity importance – A river corridor and associated public pathways developed as a contemporary urban park. • Area of local nature conservation interest – Structured planting, managed by the Woodland Trust and providing linkage and a wildlife corridor within an urban environment

Given the proximity of the site to the river within Linear Park (approx. 103m) which hydrologically linked to the Outer Ards Ramsar, ASSSI and SPA designated area, a 6

CW 12.08.20 PM

Stage 1, Habitats Regulations Assessment (HRA) would be required and that was likely to require an additional report and a recommendation of the appropriate mitigation measures before any development could occur. Our Biodiversity Officer could complete that. Therefore, planning permission would be required to fully consider those aspects as outlined above. Appropriate mitigation measures such as silt traps etc would be required to protect the river from any sediments created during construction.

The existing fencing and gates of the Park would remain in situ and the gates would continue to be locked at night in order to reduce any antisocial behaviour issues. The existing paths would also remain in situ.

Alternative sites

Alternative sites within Linear Park.

Figure 5. Alternative sites

It should be noted that other areas within Linear Park were considered however those were discounted due to the lack of visibility/access which would create issues in terms of being able to monitor any antisocial behaviour, child protection issues as well as construction and maintenance access. The topography of those sites was also more difficult especially the central area which would make developing that more expensive and challenging.

7

CW 12.08.20 PM

Conclusions

Site A would be the most appropriate location in terms of visibility as it would allow the site to be easily monitored by the Neighbourhood Environment Team and the PSNI from an antisocial behaviour and a child protection perspective. Its location would largely deter any such issues. The public road also buffered the site from adjacent dwellings in terms of noise and privacy and it was further removed from the river therefore any potential environmental impacts would be negligible. There were concerns raised by some during the public consultation in relation to the proximity to the road in terms of safety so the playground would need to be enclosed by a fence and some buffer planting. However, the land purchase costs would initially require more investment from the Council. LPS have valued the purchase cost of land (as shown in red above in Figure 2) in the region of £70,000 and build costs of £100,000 (Total £170,000) had been included previously in the 2020/2021 budget, which was now under review due to the Covid-19 situation. There was of course no guarantee that the site owner would be willing to sell the part of the site required.

Site B while having no purchase cost would be more challenging to develop, monitor and maintain. It would require the mitigation measures outlined above in relation to vegetation removal, acoustic barriers, screen/compensatory planting and silt traps in order to minimise issues such as antisocial behaviour, child protection concerns, noise, privacy and environmental impacts. The main challenge would be the monitoring of the site by the Neighbourhood Environment Team and the PSNI should there be any reoccurrence of antisocial behaviour issues. Should this happen there was the potential for increased costs in relation to maintenance and monitoring in the longer term. A total of £110,000 had been envisaged as part of the 2020/2021 budget (Pre-Covid-19) if that was the preferred location to include the planning, mitigation and contingency costs.

It should be noted that several residents from the area had been in contact with the Council to express their objections to the development of a playground in Linear Park. Their objections mainly focused on concerns surrounding antisocial behaviour which had been an issue in the Park previously. It was understood that antisocial behaviour had been reduced following the installation of the fences and gates around Linear Park and that the park was locked up at night. The residents were not yet aware of the exact proposed location of Site B, only that a site within the Park was an option (as per the public consultation map in Figure 1).

It was intended that a Tier 2/local playground would be constructed at the preferred location.

RECOMMENDED that the Council based on the information about both sites choose a preferred location from between the two sites outlined above. Once a location has been agreed officers should be instructed to progress the development of the playground. No further expense however can be incurred at this time and so progression will be subject to a budget being available to do so. If budget is approved, a further public consultation exercise will be undertaken to allow the

8

CW 12.08.20 PM detailed design to be developed for the site and agree any mitigation for issues that may be necessary.

The Chair invited proposals.

Councillor Smith proposed that the site at the shops be taken forward, but this was not seconded.

Councillor MacArthur proposed, seconded by Councillor Dunne, that the Council chooses Site A as its preferred option for the development of a new playpark and brings back to this committee a detailed report on the viability of Site A subject to entering into negotiations with the landowner to explore how the site may be acquired, (including the possibility of not having to purchase it) as well as the exact cost of a playpark on Site A including any insurance cover and any other cost implications.

Councillor MacArthur said that she hoped this proposal would assist members in coming to a decision on a suitable site for a playpark. While she felt officers had rightly pointed out that the area was in need of the facility, the siting of it however was vital.

Whilst the Linear Park Site B location had marginally more percentage votes, in real numbers that equated to just four more people. It was also worth noting that 3% who voted were from outside of the area equating to approximately 3 people which she suggested almost cancelled out the majority of four. However, a total of 12% or 13 people were happy either way or had no preference.

Pointing to environmental factors, Councillor MacArthur stated that It could be argued that everyone wanted a park but not at their back door, however the difference here was that for the residents of the Nook area of houses and others that back on to the Linear Park their back door opened on to a designated Local Landscape Policy Area (LLPA), and although the report stated that a playpark would not impact on either the river or planting, a Habitats Assessment would still have to be carried out and the Councillor would have concerns about the protected species within the park and how they potentially could be disturbed.

Residents had reported that the park was home to badgers, foxes, squirrels, owls, sparrowhawks etc and whilst it could be argued that Site B was on the perimeter of the Linear Park, it was still within the Local Landscape Planning Area and needed to be protected rather than disturbed. Disturbance would come from not only the use of construction machinery but also the building of artificial bunds and then afterwards, there would be the ongoing disturbance effect with an increased volume of footfall in the area. The Park was also a proposed Community Greenway and a Wildlife Corridor which had UK wide Green Flag certification. Having studied the criteria, she felt it could be compromised by the addition of hard plastic surfaces and manmade bunds.

9

CW 12.08.20 PM

Pointing to Planning considerations, Councillor MacArthur stated that there was a strong presumption against granting planning permission for development on sites like Linear Park (Planning Policy Statement 8). According to the policy, development should not be permitted if it resulted in the loss of existing open space unless it clearly showed that redevelopment would bring substantial community benefits that decisively outweighed the loss of the open space. Antisocial behaviour, vandalism and noise would be potential considerations in any planning assessment. In terms of community benefit, the Officer’s report had highlighted that the above issues would be more easily managed at Site A.

Her proposal continued that Site A was also the safer option in terms of safeguarding as it was closer to the shops and visible from the main road. Any problems at Site A could also be mitigated against with the provision of suitable fencing and being locked in the evenings.

In terms of the financial circumstances post Covid-19 the Council was facing extreme pressures. So as part of the proposal Councillor MacArthur was asking Council to explore with the landowner how Site A might be acquired and at what cost, if any, and bring this back to Council as well as accurate costing around what type of playground could be built given the budget available. In the Playpark Strategy of 2014, the Clandeboye Rd playpark was quoted as costing £125,000.

In summary Councillor MacArthur urged members to support the proposal because whilst she agreed that financial prudence was necessary Council could not assume that the additional land would cost £70K. She advised members to consider what she felt were the negative impacts of Site B not only on the environment but also on the community it was supposed to be serving. Finance was important but it should not alone be the driving factor in the decision-making process.

Councillor Dunne felt that this was a reasonable solution to a long running issue that would help address the demand for play park provision, there was a large child population within the catchment area of the park and it would be sited in a suitable location which included a car park and was therefore happy to second the proposal.

Councillor Chambers acknowledged that the incidents of antisocial behaviour were now in the past and he was content with the park in its current location but would prefer any action be deferred until conversations with the land owner had taken place before making a decision on the location.

Councillor Mathison expressed concern that Council would be making a financial commitment to one specific site within the Borough and felt that it was not taking in to account the current financial context of the wider strategy and spending priorities that were being set out by the Strategic Covid-19 Recovery Group.

Alderman Menagh supported the need for a playground but stated that it was important to make sure that the finance was in place first.

10

CW 12.08.20 PM

Councillor McNickle, whilst acknowledging the need for a playpark in the area, was cautious about making a commitment that Council might be unable to keep given its current financial situation.

Councillor Tom Smith was happy to support the proposal because Council would only be selecting its preferred site at that stage and any financial commitment would be much further down the line. There could be financial obstacles ahead that would prevent the proposed playpark but that did not stop Council choosing its preferred location at the current time. He added that his stance in terms of Council finances remained the same, that Council should reduce its own costs before it cuts, reduces or puts on hold any services.

The Chair wished to advise that he understood any future capital projects were up in the air at this stage and any decisions taken regarding them would go through the Strategic Covid-19 Recovery Group.

On being put to the meeting, with 8 voting FOR the proposal, 5 voting AGAINST, 3 ABSTAINING and 0 ABSENT, the proposal was declared CARRIED.

AGREED TO RECOMMEND, on the proposal of Councillor MacArthur, seconded by Councillor Dunne, with 8 voting FOR, 5 voting AGAINST, 3 ABSTAINING and 0 ABSENT, that the Council chooses Site A as its preferred option for the development of a new playpark and brings back to this committee a detailed report on the viability of Site A subject to entering into negotiations with the landowner to explore how the site may be acquired, (including the possibility of not having to purchase it) as well as the exact cost of a playpark on Site A including any insurance cover and any other cost implications.

4. QUARTER 4 PERFORMANCE REPORT – LEISURE AND AMENITIES (FILE CW22)

PREVIOUSLY CIRCULATED: - Report dated 28th July from the Director of Community and Wellbeing stating that Members would be aware that Council was required, under the Local Government Act 2014, to have in place arrangements to secure continuous improvement in the exercise of its functions. To fulfil that requirement Council approved the Performance Management Policy and Handbook. The Performance Management Handbook outlined the approach to Performance Planning and Management process as:

• Community Plan – published every 10-15 years • Corporate Plan – published every 4 years (2015-2019 plan in operation) • Performance Improvement Plan (PIP) – published annually (2019/20 plan published June 2019) • Service Plan – developed annually (approved April 2019)

11

CW 12.08.20 PM

The Corporate Plan 2015-19 set out 17 objectives for the plan period based on themes of People, Place, Prosperity and Performance. The Council’s 16 Service Plans outlined how each respective Service would contribute to the achievement of the Corporate objectives including, but not limited to, any relevant actions identified in the PIP.

Reporting approach

The Service Plans would be reported to relevant Committees on a quarterly basis as undernoted:

Reference Period Reporting Month Quarter 1 (Q1) April – June September Q2 July – September December Q3 October – December March Q4 January - March June*

*Due to Covid-19 this report was delayed until August

Key points to note:

• Due to the freeze in memberships of the Leisure Centres at the end of March when they were closed to the public it was not possible to produce accurate figures for the % completing the GP referral course, or the % purchasing a membership upon completion. • It had not been possible to obtain a percentage for staff obtaining a team brief, whilst a system was in place to ensure all staff received a brief that was disrupted by the onset of the pandemic in March. • The footfall for the Leisure Centres was slightly under target which was likely due to the impact of the Pandemic in March. It was worth noting that whilst previous reports had the footfall significantly below target the overall target was realistic, but not phased between the periods.

Key achievements:

• The number of fitness classes being run continued to exceed the target set, providing a broad range of classes to all members. • Customer satisfaction in the Leisure Centres remained high at 95% satisfaction. • The membership of the sports forum continued to rise, with 110 members.

Emerging issues:

• The number of clubs in the sports directory did not exceed target, largely due to the introduction of a charge for clubs to be featured, that charge was being reviewed for the next issue of the directory.

12

CW 12.08.20 PM

• Pride in Performance conversations were not formally recorded as being completed by HR. Managers are confident that the majority of Pride in Performance meetings were conducted, however there appears to be a breakdown in recording that information centrally. • The Leisure Centres did not hit the target for recycling figures of 68% of waste being recycled.

Action to be taken:

• The Leisure Centre staff were considering ways to boost recycling in the centres. • Whilst the overall funding for In Bloom was below target, more groups than anticipated applied for smaller amounts and all groups received the funding that they sought. • Closer scrutiny of the communication channels with regard to Pride in Performance meetings would be undertaken by senior managers to ensure that an accurate record was kept of all meetings that were conducted.

RECOMMENDED that the Council notes this report.

Councillor Mathison proposed, seconded by Alderman Carson, that the recommendation be adopted.

Alderman Menagh voiced concerns about recent vandalism at Blair Mayne Wellbeing and Leisure Complex which had included windows getting smashed at the site. He called on the Council and the relevant authorities to take action to address it.

The Director of Community and Wellbeing advised that there had been discussion with the Policing and Community Safety Partnership (PCSP) which had issued a statement. The PCSP was also discussing ways of addressing the problem. The Education Authority had also recommenced its targeted ASB diversionary programme. Finally, money had been allocated from the YES programme towards interventions involving Council staff and others, in order to support young people away from undesirable activity and towards more acceptable behaviour.

Alderman Carson told the meeting that he was aware of a constituent who had taken their child to the play park at the leisure centre and following what he described as terrible scenes of antisocial behaviour they had witnessed, the family had vowed not to return. He was critical of the PSNI’s response, explaining that Police had responded to the incident but had only driven into the car park but the officers had remained in police vehicle. He felt that the PCSP would make little difference if the PSNI were not taking this seriously.

Responding to a query from Councillor Dunne, the Director explained that a detailed report on Portaferry Sports Centre and Holywood Queens Leisure Complex was due to be discussed at the Strategic Covid-19 Recovery Partnership meeting the following day which was the appropriate committee for that subject. Referring to the topic, he advised that a solution had been found to the air flow issues that had 13

CW 12.08.20 PM prevented the facilities from reopening along with the other leisure centres in the Borough but further discussion was to take place.

In terms of the Spa at Ards Blair Mayne Wellbeing and Leisure Complex, the Director advised that the facility could not yet reopen as it did not comply with the latest Covid-19 requirements. Unfortunately, there was no easy solution.

Councillor MacArthur questioned the financial viability of the Sports Directory having noted that the take up from sports clubs had failed to exceed the target. The Head of Leisure and Amenities advised that officers were looking at ways to change the Sports Directory. Three hundred copies had been issued across the Borough and the feedback had been positive but like all other sections across the Council, officers were looking at ways to improve financial viability and the Sports Directory would be looked at next year.

As Chair of the PCSP, Councillor Mathison wished to highlight that the multi-agency partnership was prioritising addressing the antisocial behaviour issues at Ards Blair Mayne Wellbeing and Leisure Complex. It had committed to moving funds to diversionary youth work and the Councillor had taken the opportunity to meet with PCSP staff to see some of the work that was being done to tackle the problem. This had included the delivery of its small grants projects which specifically targeted antisocial behaviour hotspots.

Alderman Menagh, who had experienced some technical issues, wished to clarify that he had not criticised the PCSP during the discussion and having previously sat on the partnership was well aware of its work in attempting to address antisocial behaviour.

Councillor T Smith said that the issues reported went beyond antisocial behaviour. He felt that people smashing windows on the site were in fact committing criminal damage and it was important that the PSNI recognised that.

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

5. QUARTER 4 PERFORMANCE REPORT ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH PROTECTION & DEVELOPMENT (FILE CW22)

PREVIOUSLY CIRCULATED: - Report dated 12 July 2020 from the Director of Community and Wellbeing stating that Members would be aware that Council was required, under the Local Government Act 2014, to have in place arrangements to secure continuous improvement in the exercise of its functions. To fulfil that requirement Council approved the Performance Management Policy and Handbook. The Performance Management Handbook outlined the approach to Performance Planning and Management process as:

• Community Plan – published every 10-15 years

14

CW 12.08.20 PM

• Corporate Plan – published every 4 years (2015-2019 plan in operation) • Performance Improvement Plan (PIP) – published annually (2018/19 plan published 30 June 2018) • Service Plan – developed annually (approved April 2018)

The Corporate Plan 2015-19 set out 17 objectives for the plan period based on themes of People, Place, Prosperity and Performance. The Council’s 16 Service Plans outlined how each respective Service would contribute to the achievement of the Corporate objectives including, but not limited to, any relevant actions identified in the PIP.

Reporting approach

The Service Plans would be reported to relevant Committees on a quarterly basis as undernoted:

Reference Period Reporting Month Quarter 1 (Q1) April – June September Q2 July – September December Q3 October – December March Q4 January - March June

The report for the 4th Quarter of 2019/20 was attached.

Key points to note:

• In the final Quarter to 2019-20 funding was secured from the Public Health Agency for the delivery of the Home Safety Check scheme services and Tobacco control services for delivery of those services in the Borough and for Lisburn and Castlereagh City Council and Newry Mourne and Down District Council.

Key achievements:

• £60,000 was secured from DAERA to install and operate PM2.5 monitoring equipment at Holywood

Emerging issues:

• Covid-19 had vastly increased the workload of the service in relation to service requests which had almost doubled. Particularly, in relation to noise and social distancing. There was a high demand from businesses for advice and assistance on Covid-19 Matters

The EU exit plans continued. Assisting EU approved premises and importers/exporters over the next few months would increase workloads further. 15

CW 12.08.20 PM

Action to be taken:

• The service had had to change and adapt in relation to the Covid-19 threat. Increased demand for service would inevitably mean that the resource would be spread more thinly and waiting times/response times would stretch depending on priorities.

RECOMMENDED that the Council notes this report.

Councillor McNickle proposed, seconded by Councillor Thompson, that the recommendation be adopted.

Proposing, Councillor McNickle was delighted to see that £60,000 of funding was secured from DAERA to install and operate PM2.5 monitoring equipment at Holywood. She felt this would greatly improve the health of residents in the area and the environment. The Councillor asked if there were any other sources of funding for the Borough.

The Head of Environmental Health Protection wished to assure Members that his section was always on the lookout for funding opportunities. With regards to the current funding achieved, he advised that it had secured a very expensive piece of equipment which would feed into the national network. The funding was obtained on the strategic importance of the A2 for commuters travelling to and from Belfast.

Councillor Thompson in seconding the recommendation thanked officers for the report and their ongoing work.

Councillor Douglas asked how the additional workload on the section, expected from Covid-19, was being managed.

The Head of Environmental Health Protection was able to use figures to demonstrate the impact that Covid-19 was having on his unit’s workload. Last year in Quarter One there had been 628 service requests whereas this year in Quarter One that figure was 1129.

As routine visits were not being carried out, that had freed up staff to deal with those additional service requests. Breaking down the figures, the Officer explained that 460 of those service requests were directly related to Covid-19. There had been a rise in the number of noise complaints. Up until July 22nd there had been 278 service requests relating to noise – for the whole of the previous year that number had been 279.

Due to the limited resources, a triage system had been introduced for dealing with those requests, but some noise complainants would now have to wait considerable time before noise monitoring equipment could be installed. There were only four sets of noise equipment to service the Borough each costing £10,000.

16

CW 12.08.20 PM

The Environmental Health Protection unit was already under pressure from its requirements to prepare for the EU exit. It would be involved in border inspections for goods coming in from Great Britain. That would result in extra demands on paperwork. The arrangement was yet to be finalised and it was unclear how that would play out.

Councillor MacArthur was also aware of the noise issues since being appointed. She asked for an update on the noise app and if it was helping.

The Head of Environmental Protection added that the take-up of the app had been tremendous having being launched at the commencement of lockdown. The advantage of it was that instead of officers being required to complete paperwork, complainants were able to record noise on their phones. While that was useful for logging times of incidents, mobile phones were not calibrated pieces of equipment and that made it difficult to serve notices. There had been two notices served to date however on the basis of evidence gathered through the app.

Alderman Carson wished to place on record his thanks for the work of the department in such a difficult time.

The Chair wished to thank the Head of Environmental Protection and his team for their work, particularly for helping local businesses reopen following lockdown.

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

6. QUARTER 4 PERFORMANCE REPORT COMMUNITY AND CULTURE (FILE CW22)

ITEM WITHDRAWN.

7. COMMUNITY FESTIVAL FUNDING 2020-21

PREVIOUSLY CIRCULATED: - Report dated 22nd July 2020 from the Director of Community and Wellbeing stating that the Community Development team processed the Community Festivals Grant funding in March 2020. The table detailing the recommendations of the assessment panel was attached.

Normally a Letter of Offer (LOO) was received from Department of Communities (DfC) at the beginning of the financial year, the recommendations of the assessment panel were considered by Council and final awards were made to successful applicants in March or April, in time for communities to deliver their summer festivals.

Last year the budget for the Festival Grants scheme was £65,000 of which 50%, was funded by the DfC and 50% was contributed by the Council. This year a total budget of £65,000 was again ring fenced for the scheme, however in the absence of a formal LOO from the Department and government restrictions in response to Covid 17

CW 12.08.20 PM

19, the assessment panel’s recommendations and the resulting awards were put on hold. Applicants were aware of that and had been advised that the situation was under review.

The Community Development section recently received correspondence from the DfC (attached – Appendix 2) advising that there would be no funding for Community Festivals in the current year due to the current financial pressures resulting from their emergency response to the COVID-19 Pandemic.

In the absence of a substantial financial contribution from the Department and given the Council’s current financial situation it was proposed that the Community Festivals grant scheme was cancelled for the current financial year. That recommendation was made within the current environment where government restrictions on social gatherings remained in place, there was no indication of when those restrictions were going to be eased further, and the majority of the recommended festivals were due to take place during July and August.

As groups had invested a considerable amount of time and resources in preparing and submitted their applications and Council resources had been invested in processing those applications, it was further proposed that the panel’s recommendations for 2020/2021 (attached) were carried over to the financial year 2021/2022, subject to funding being received from the Department for Communities and matched funding secured by Council.

RECOMMENDED that the Council approves the assessment panel recommendations detailed in the attached table at appendix 1 and further approves that these recommendations are carried over to 2021/2022 financial year, subject to funding being received from the Department for Communities and matched funding secured by Council.

Councillor Boyle proposed, seconded by Councillor Thompson, that the recommendation be adopted.

Councillor Boyle thanked the Officer for the report and sympathised with all those festival organisers which had been unable to avail of the funding this year due to the current Covid-19 situation.

He asked the Officer for clarification on how the overall costs would be met next year due to uncertainty around budgets. He also pointed to a Bangor Community Church application which had been unsuccessful and asked if there was now scope for it, and other unsuccessful groups, to reapply for next year.

The Head of Community and Culture advised that it would not be appropriate to allow unsuccessful organisations to have a second chance at applying. The Officer took the point about the overall amount and how that might be affected by next year’s budget, but it would be subject to the funding being secured next year.

18

CW 12.08.20 PM

Councillor Thompson felt that the recommendation was clear and was hopeful that the funding would be available next year to allow those festivals to go ahead.

Councillor McNickle asked for information on the pass marks and how the threshold was set. She felt that some of the marks awarded appeared to be quite low and asked if Council could help those applicants to increase those scores.

The Head of Community and Culture explained that the Council had set a grants policy a few years ago which recommended a pass mark of 40% although the panel could decide to set its own pass mark. On occasions the pass mark had been set at 80%. She added that in the case of large community events, the full amount applied for had not always been awarded as the applicant was often able to avail of match funding from elsewhere and due to the large amount involved it was easier for those applicants to make savings.

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

(Councillor MacArthur left the meeting at this stage having declared an interest in the following item)

8. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT GRANTS 2020-21

PREVIOUSLY CIRCULATED: - Report dated 27th July 2020 from the Director of Community and Wellbeing stating that the Community Development (CD) Fund 2020/21 was supported by the Community Support Programme from Department for Communities (DfC) and the Council’s Community Development Section. The Letter of Offer from the DfC had been received and a total budget of £99,083.18 was available for the current year. Council’s contribution to that budget was £58,000.

The Community Development Fund was split in two categories 1) running costs up to £2000, 2) project costs up to £1000. Those who were eligible, could apply for either category or both.

The objectives of the CD Fund were to strengthen local communities: to increase community participation; to promote social inclusion through the stimulation and support of community groups; and to encourage and promote community activity.

The expected outcomes for the CD Fund were:

- An active and organised community - An influential community - An informed community - A sustainable community

In terms of running costs 56 applications were received, requesting a total of £91,911.85. That was £1,670.00 more than the amount agreed as per a report approved by the Chief Executive in April 2020 under delegated authority where 19

CW 12.08.20 PM

£90,241.85 for running costs was awarded. At that time one successful application for running costs from Conlig Community Regeneration Group had been omitted in error from the list of successful applicants. That had now been rectified and the overall total of grant recommended for approval had been adjusted to £91,911.85.

In light of the current COVID-19 pandemic, it was agreed under delegated powers to pay all the successful groups 100% of the running costs requested. That ensured financial stability of the groups during the unprecedented time and enabled them to deliver key support services to the community. After payment of the running cost element of the grant, £7,171.33 remained in the CD fund budget.

There were 27 applications received for project costs, requesting a total of £26,363.50. If those applicants were to receive 100% of their project funding, there would be a total budget deficit of £19,192.17 for the financial year 2020/21. It was proposed that due to the Council’s current financial situation that awards to the successful projects be withdrawn in the current year to deliver a saving of £11,233.17 (Council’s contribution to the total budget deficit).

RECOMMENDED that Council approve:

1. The panel’s recommendation to provide running costs of £1,670 to Conlig Community Regeneration Group. 2. To withdraw funding for the project cost element of the Community Development Fund for the financial year 2020/21.

Councillor Dunne proposed, seconded by Councillor Boyle, that the recommendation be adopted.

Councillor Dunne was glad to see that issues with the Conlig Community Regeneration Group had been resolved but was sympathetic to those projects that may have already commenced early planning work and would not receive any funding for their projects. He asked if those applicants had been made aware.

The Head of Community and Culture explained that some of the groups, particularly those which were due to deliver projects over the summer months, had been made aware that the situation was under review. There had not been widespread consultation with groups however and contact would only begin once the Council made its decision.

Councillor McNickle proposed an amendment, seconded by Councillor Douglas, that a decision on the project cost element of the community development fund for the financial year 2020/21 is deferred pending the outcome of Strategic Covid-19 Recovery Group’s workshops on prioritising spending.

Councillor McNickle felt that it was not appropriate for this committee to make decisions on what the spending priorities should be for Council when such matters were being taken by the Strategic Covid-19 Recovery Group. She felt that it was this 20

CW 12.08.20 PM committee’s priority to support community projects and not to take financial decisions such as the one being recommended.

Councillor Douglas supported the proposed amendment, adding that any financial decisions needed a strategic oversight.

Councillor T Smith said that the actions taken at this committee were only recommendations and the final decision was taken by the Council which could then look at the bigger picture. He felt it was unnecessary to pass it over to the SCRG and would not be supporting the amendment.

On being put to the meeting with 7 voting FOR the proposed amendment, 4 AGAINST, 3 ABSTAINED and 2 ABSENT, the proposed amendment was declared CARRIED.

AGREED TO RECOMMEND, on the proposal of Councillor McNickle, seconded by Councillor Douglas, with 7 voting FOR, 4 AGAINST, 3 ABSTAINED and 2 ABSENT that a decision on the project cost element of the community development fund for the financial year 2020/21 is deferred pending the outcome of Strategic Covid-19 Recovery Group’s workshops on prioritising spending.

(Councillor MacArthur returned to the meeting at this stage)

9. CULTURAL EXPRESSIONS PROGRAMME UPDATE 2020-2021

PREVIOUSLY CIRCULATED: - Report dated 27th July 2020 from the Director of Community and Wellbeing stating that the Council’s Cultural Expression (CE) programme supported inclusive local events and festivals that enabled communities and groups to celebrate their culture and identity through grant aid. 75% of that financial support was provided through the Executive Office and 25% was provided by Council. When bonfires were associated with those local events and festivals, Council support was available where communities agreed to core conditions and local agreements which aimed to lessen the negative social and environmental impact of community bonfires.

The Good Relations team normally, through engagement with community representatives, aimed to have the groups signed up to the CE by April each year, so that the CE grants could be awarded in May. Due to the outbreak of Covid-19, the subsequent lockdown and social distancing restrictions put in place, all events held on Council land were cancelled up to the end of August 2020. Given the unique circumstances officers did not ask the groups to sign up to the CE Agreement and similar to others across the Council the CE grant scheme was suspended.

At the end of 2019, 33 bonfires were engaged with the CE programme with 31 taking place in July and 2 in October. However, this year the majority of bonfire representatives, in the spirit of collaboration, continued to engage with the Good

21

CW 12.08.20 PM

Relations Officer (GRO) without a signed agreement and provided updates on their plans and aspirations for the festival season under the government restrictions.

In May, a number of representatives stated they would adhere to government guidelines on social gatherings, confirming that their bonfires would not go ahead at that time. The Good Relations team maintained communication with NIHE, PSNI and NIFRS, sharing information on possible sites and any issues that arose.

In June there was some significant dumping at Ballyferris Walk, Kilcooley. Following local negotiations, it was agreed that the NIHE contractors would clear the site over a period of 3 days. Unfortunately, one day after the work commenced the remaining rubbish was lit and burnt.

In early July, as restrictions started to ease, a number of bonfire representatives informed the Good Relations team that they would in fact be proceeding with bonfires this year. Representatives stated they would endeavour to maintain social distancing guidelines at such. Those sites were:

• Lisnabreen, Bangor • Ballyferris Walk, Bangor • West Winds, Newtownards

Bonfires were also erected on usual sites but by different groups. Those sites were:

• The Glen Estate, Newtownards • Greyabbey • Bowtown, Newtownards • Ballyree Drive Bloomfield, Bangor • Dickson Park,Ballygowan

New sites also emerged. Those sites were: • Cloughey beach • Portavogie harbour • Abbots Wood, Holywood • Kilcooley Football pitch at school

The following sites informed the Good Relations team that they would be proceeding with bonfires and they were formally withdrawing from the Cultural Expression programme:

• Balligan Gardens, Kilcooley • Abbey Ring, Holywood • Strand Avenue, Holywood

The above three sites were managed by the same group as in previous years. The rationale given for withdrawing from the CE Programme, was due to a few sites

22

CW 12.08.20 PM outside of the agreement but that had been appropriately managed in previously years, were not eligible to sign up to the programme.

In total 22 sites proceeded with bonfires, including 8 from within the CE programme and 14 (including 3 withdrawn sites and 4 new ones) outside of programme. A total of 20 July sites, still within the CE programme did not have bonfires/ beacons or fireworks.

With social restrictions in place, those bonfires that did go ahead were of a smaller size than previous years. No major concerns were raised at the time regarding size or materials used. Tyres were reported at a few sites and subsequently removed after engagement with local representatives and both PSNI and NIFRS.

Monitoring The Good Relations Officer monitored when possible, sites usually supported and those not supported by Council, however many sites only became established in the final few days leading up to 11th July.

An increase in fly tipping and illegal dumping was evident on some sites; upon request and through engagement with local representatives and statutory agencies, the material was removed by the contractor from that agency e.g. NIHE in Kilcooley and Breezemount.

The Good Relations team also spoke to local representatives building on Council land at Valentines requesting the removal of potential bonfire material, however that was refused. That site was relatively new and had only been built upon on the last few years and as such was not eligible to join the current CE Programme, but engagement would continue with the group involved in order to help manage any emerging issues.

CE Grant Scheme A number of those groups who normally sign up to the programme had requested that grants were awarded in the current financial year to enable community-based festivals later in the year when current restrictions were lifted. It was proposed that a report on the CE grants scheme was brought back to a later committee meeting for further consideration on the matter.

Feedback from Statutory Partners

PSNI – No major incidents.

2 last minute popup bonfires within Bangor caused some concern:

• An amount of wood was gathered in Owenroe Drive close to a telegraph pole; engagement with local representatives and advised of possible complications. Bonfire was lit early on 11th with no issues.

23

CW 12.08.20 PM

• Small bonfire constructed near Kilcooley primary school and NIFRS reported tyres on site. Engagement with representatives led to those being removed before the bonfire was lit early on 11th with no issues.

NIFRS – No major incidents.

Very quiet night with only 2 NIFRS bonfire related mobilisations.

• Ballygowan – No action required • West Winds – No action required

Complaints As many sites did not gather or go ahead with bonfires, the number of complaints received by the Good Relations team was drastically reduced compared to previous years.

Most complaints were regarding fly tipping and illegal dumping of materials at known sites of bonfires regardless of whether they were proceeding or not.

Cost of the Programme Members should note that the Council is responsible for clearance costs on its own land, and also incurred the costs on land which was privately owned. NIHE was responsible for clearance on land which it owned.

As there was no CE Agreement in 2020 the need for set up at sites was generally not required, only one site (West Winds) requested set up action by Council.

Clearance and disposal of waste from Council and private land post 11th July was expected to be in the region of £13,000 (awaiting confirmation). Barriers erected around Council sites cost £1500. Costs were lower than previous years and not reflective of the true cost of the programme.

To adhere to government guidelines on large social gatherings, beacons were not engaged in the current year in an effort to dissuade such gatherings.

Full and accurate costs, including any reinstatement of Council land were not yet available but were estimated in the table below.

Costs bonfires in programme Amount

Set up, clearance pre & post 13,000 TBC Barriers hire, delivery, and return 1,500 Beacons 0 Total 14,500

RECOMMENDED that the Council notes this report.

24

CW 12.08.20 PM

Councillor Douglas proposed, seconded by Councillor McNickle, that the recommendation be adopted.

Proposing, Councillor Douglas had noted that some groups had decided to withdraw from the programme and queried what measures staff took in relation to that. The Councillor was concerned also that the organiser of the pop-up bonfire at Valentines Playing Fields had ignored Officer requests to remove it. She was aware that there had been a pop-up bonfire at that site for a number of years.

The Head of Community and Culture advised that the Good Relations team had now managed to gain a contact at the site, and planned to engage with the builder from September to discuss their intentions for the following year, this was usual practice for all bonfire sites.

In relation to the groups that had withdrawn, the Officer advised that those groups had indicated that they had no intention of re-engaging with the Cultural Expressions Programme. Those groups had however indicated they would be willing to contact the Council to arrange the removal of any restricted items such as white goods that were dumped at the site. The Officer advised that there was still a relationship but those groups were not willing to sign the agreement.

Councillor Douglas asked what reassurances could be provided to residents who lived close to the site used for the pop-up bonfire. The Officer said until a conversation had taken place with the bonfire builder to assess their intentions or even to dissuade them from using the site in future, it was difficult to answer the question.

Councillor McNickle asked what work had gone in to engaging and making connections with builders at other ‘pop-up’ sites outside of the Good Relations programme. The Head of Community and Culture said until September when engagement ahead of next year would be commenced, it was difficult to provide an answer at this stage.

Councillor McNickle had also noted that tyres had been reported to have been dumped at multiple sites however only one site was referenced in the report. She asked which sites those were. The Head of Community and Culture advised she would need to check with the Good Relations Officer for that information.

Alderman Menagh wished to praise the Good Relations team, advising that officers worked very hard to set the criteria for the programme and engage with bonfire builders, often face to face at bonfire sites. That approach had seen significant improvements in the way bonfires were managed over the last decade. Councillor Edmund echoed those comments and said that great progress had been made over the years and concurred with the Officer’s response that it was difficult to gauge the intentions of bonfire builders until September/October time.

The Chair added that this was a very different year with regard to bonfires and he hoped next year would be different. 25

CW 12.08.20 PM

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

(Councillor McNickle left the meeting at this stage having declared an interest in the following item)

10. DFC COVID-19 COMMUNITY SUPPORT UPDATE

PREVIOUSLY CIRCULATED: - Report dated 12th August 2020 from the Director of Community and Wellbeing stating that as members would be aware the Council received funding of £65,550.00 from the Department for the Communities (DFC) to disseminate to communities who were supporting others through the following objectives -

• Financial – to those on low income and at risk due to financial stress. • Food – access to food (whether due to cost or availability) for those most in need. • Connectivity – to those living alone in rural and border areas that were likely to experience greater challenges in accessing services. • Breakdown of allocation:

25k ring-fenced for '£1000' grants to grass roots community groups via a Service Level Agreement.

£15k 3 x Networks -costs responding to COVID e.g. supplies of food & utility services, staff, volunteer travel costs, overheads, PPE, and promotional materials.

£15k 3 x Food banks to help cover additional costs e.g. purchasing additional food and necessary supplies and overhead costs.

£5k Community Advice for additional costs for extended hours in response to Covid

£1k Ring fenced for Specialist food etc

There was currently a balance of £5,550.00 remaining in the COVID-19 budget, yet to be allocated. DfC had confirmed that additional COVID-19 funding would be made available to Councils but had not confirmed the total budget nor when the funding would be made available, although it should be relatively soon.

It was intended to bring a further report to Council once the additional funding was confirmed making recommendation on how that should be allocated along with the remaining balance of £5,550.00. The recommendations would include support and recovery initiatives.

26

CW 12.08.20 PM

Below was a list of organisations which have received funding under the initial scheme to support their community.

COVID-19 Community Support Funding 2020/2021

Groups Amount What they did 1 Donaghadee DCA £1,000.00 supplying food, toiletries etc for those in need. 2 Holywood Family Trust £1,000.00 food, deliveries, phone calls 3 Redburn LCF £1,000.00 food parcels - fresh produce, meat and perishables 4 Carrowdore DCA £1,000.00 PPE, material for masks, food parcels 5 Millisle Regeneration £1,000.00 food hub 6 Greyabbey DCA £1,000.00 food, deliveries, phone calls 7 Portaferry Community Services £1,000.00 food, deliveries, phone calls 8 Ballywalter CAG £1,000.00 food, toiletries, deliveries 9 Portaferry Men's Shed £1,000.00 deliveries to older residents, care homes and PPE for locals 10 Bloomfield CA £1,000.00 food, deliveries, phone calls 11 Breezemount CA £1,000.00 food, deliveries, phone calls 12 Clandeboye VCA £1,000.00 food, deliveries, phone calls 13 East End Residents £1,000.00 100 food parcels per week, leaflets to 2000 residents with relevant contact details, phone calls 14 Ballyhalbert CA £1,000.00 Food bank 15 Kilcooley Women's Centre £1,000.00 support services, referral, activity packs, cleaning essential, toiletries

16 Whitehill CA £1,000.00 activity and gardening packs for residents 17 Kircubbin DCA £1,000.00 Iain confirmed - scrubs, hand sanitizer and food parcels 18 Portavogie Regeneration Forum £1,000.00 food packs, gloves, hand sanitizer and masks 19 West Wind Development Ass £1,000.00 food packs, gas, electric, meat parcels 20 Glen Ward CA £1,000.00 food packs, meat packs, gas and electric 21 Bowtown Development Group £1,000.00 food packs, hygiene packs, PPE 22 Holywood Shared Town £1,000.00 fuel, food parcels 23 Conlig Community Regen Group £1,000.00 food parcels - fresh produce, meat and perishables 24 Polish Association Bangor £1,000.00 food vouchers

Organisation Amount What they did 1 North Down Community £5,000.00 PPE for Staff, overheads for delivering shopping to Network vulnerable people. Making befriending calls and emergency supply of food and/or electric 2 Ards Development Bureau and £5,000.00 Supporting community groups with the provision of PPE, Community Network food for emergency food parcels. Point of contact for local groups in Ards, Comber and Ballygowan. 3 County Down Rural Community £5,000.00 Support for all rural groups in the Borough, zoom online Network meetings, provision of PPE for groups, activity packs and emergency supplies when needed.

27

CW 12.08.20 PM

1 Bangor Foodbank £5,000.00 Additional food supplies to manage the increase in demand, PPE for volunteers 2 Newtownards Foodbank £5,000.00 Additional food supplies to manage the increase in demand and PPE for Volunteers 3 Storehouse North Down £5,000.00 Additional food supplies to manage the increase in demand and PPE for volunteers

1 Community Advice Ards and £5,000.00 Provision of additional telephone hours in the evening North Down and at the weekend to deal with COVID related queries, referral to the Councils Food Parcel Programme. Working along with other groups/organisation to provide support.

All organisations who received funding had been asked to submit a monitoring form on the projects/initiatives they had been able to deliver with that funding.

RECOMMENDED that the Council notes this report.

Councillor Douglas proposed, seconded by Councillor Mathison, the recommendation be adopted.

Proposing, Councillor Douglas wished to thank the officers for supporting those groups, in particular the food banks and community networks. The last few months had exposed great need following the Covid-19 outbreak and people involved in delivering those services had gone that extra mile. The Councillor suggested that a letter of thanks could be sent to those involved.

Councillor Mathison concurred adding that many people had stepped up and gone way beyond their job descriptions. He was aware of other groups and organisations not listed in the report which had also been doing great work and asked if those groups would be able to benefit from any future funding.

The Head of Community and Culture advised that it would be dependent on the amount of funding that Council got and when it would need to be spent, but she would take the comments on board and acknowledged that there were other organisations out there that had not been able to access the funding.

Councillor Edmund noted that £5,500 of funding was to be removed from food banks to Covid-19 Recovery. He was concerned that once the Government’s Job Retention scheme ended there could be a lot more demand for food banks.

It was advised that officers were in regular contact with food banks and it was clear that they were well provided for at the moment, but the Officer would take the Councillor’s comments into consideration.

Councillor MacArthur queried how many of the pop-up food delivery groups that were included in the funding were still operational having understood that one local food bank was not as busy as what it had been. 28

CW 12.08.20 PM

The Officer understood that the foodbanks had been run by community groups, all of which were constituted – in line with the Council’s grant policy, and were delivering in their own estates or local areas, but she was not aware of any other food banks.

Councillor MacArthur advised she had been referring to the Here to Help Ladies that had been operating in Donaghadee and she was aware of others that had set up in other villages. The food bank she was aware of had reported it was not as busy as it had been but there was still a substantial contribution from the community.

Alderman Menagh said that all estates in Newtownards were given funding for food banks and all were constituted groups, he praised the staff and volunteers involved.

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

(Councillor McNickle returned to the meeting)

11. NOTICES OF MOTION

11.1. NOTICE OF MOTION SUBMITTED BY COUNCILLOR ADAIR

That this Council, in collaboration with other partner agencies and the local communities, investigates and compiles a report on the current and future management of the sand dune systems at Cloughey and Portavogie, with a view to producing a plan that addresses issues such as climate change, coastal erosion and dune stabilisation.

The Chair advised that Councillor Adair was unable to attend the meeting to propose the above Notice of Motion.

AGREED TO RECOMMEND, on the proposal of Councillor Edmund, seconded by Councillor Dunne, that the Notice of Motion be deferred until the September meeting of the Community and Wellbeing Committee.

(Councillor Boyle left the meeting having declared an interest in the following item)

12. CIRCULATED FOR INFORMATION

a)NIHE Traveller Consultation Letter b)NIHE Travellers Accommodation Strategy 2020-2025

AGREED TO RECOMMEND, on the proposal of Councillor Douglas, seconded by Councillor McRandal, that the information be noted.

(Councillor Boyle returned to the meeting at this stage) 29

CW 12.08.20 PM

13. ANY OTHER NOTIFIED BUSINESS

None.

EXCLUSION OF PUBLIC/PRESS

AGREED, on the proposal of Councillor Dunne, seconded by Councillor Boyle, that the public/press be excluded during the discussion of the undernoted items of confidential business.

14. FUTURE CEMETERIES PROVISION

***IN CONFIDENCE***

SCHEDULE 6 – INFORMATION REALING TO THE FINANCIAL OR BUSINESS AFFAIRS OF ANY PARITCULAR PERSON (INCLUDING THE COUNCIL HOLIDNG THAT INFORMATION).

RE-ADMITTANCE OF PUBLIC/PRESS

AGREED, on the proposal of Councillor Dunne, seconded by Councillor Douglas, that the public/press be re-admitted to the meeting.

TERMINATION OF MEETING

The meeting terminated at 7.57 pm.

30

ITEM 7.6.

ARDS AND NORTH DOWN BOROUGH COUNCIL

A meeting of the Audit Committee was held virtually via Zoom on Monday, 17 August 2020 at 6.00 pm.

PRESENT:-

In the Chair: Councillor Douglas

Aldermen: Irvine McDowell (6.12pm)

Councillors: Armstrong-Cotter (6.17pm) Chambers Egan P Smith

In Attendance: ASM – C Hagan Deloitte – C McDermott Deloitte – D Kinsella NI Audit Office – A Allen Independent Member – S Hagen

Officers: Chief Executive (S Reid), Director of Finance and Performance (S Christie), Head of Finance (S Grieve) and Democratic Services Officer (P Foster)

1. APOLOGIES

Apologies for inability to attend were received from Alderman M Smith.

NOTED.

2. CHAIRMAN’S REMARKS

The Chairman welcomed everyone to the meeting and in particular welcomed those external advisors to the Committee.

NOTED.

3. DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST

The Chairman asked for any declarations of interest at this stage and none were noted.

NOTED.

AC.17.08.2020PM

4. MEETING WITH NI AUDIT OFFICE AND INTERNAL AUDIT SERVICE IN THE ABSENCE OF MANAGEMENT

The Chairman informed members that this matter would now be considered at Item 18.

NOTED.

5. MATTERS ARISING FROM PREVIOUS MEETINGS

(a) Audit Committee Minutes from December 2019

PREVIOUSLY CIRCULATED:- Copy of the above minutes.

AGREED TO RECOMMEND, on the proposal of Alderman Irvine, seconded by Councillor Chambers, that the minutes be adopted.

(b) Actions Register (Appendix I)

PREVIOUSLY CIRCULATED:- Report from the Director of Finance and Performance detailing 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. The Committee would note that three actions were required from previous Committee meetings, those were detailed in the appendix.

RECOMMENDED that the Committee notes the report.

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

6. PERFORMANCE IMPROVEMENT REPORT – QUARTER 3 (FILE 260501) (Appendix II)

PREVIOUSLY CIRCULATED:- Report form the Director of Finance and Performance detailing that the Local Government Act (Northern Ireland) 2014 Part 12 put in place a new framework to support continuous improvement in the delivery of Council services. The Council was required each year to determine its priorities for improvement which were aligned to the Community Plan and Corporate Objectives and to publish those in the format of an Improvement Plan. This year Council’s Performance Improvement Plan (PIP) identified four improvement objectives with a corresponding 19 actions together with seven Statutory Indicators and three self-imposed indicators, all were included in the Council’s Service Plans and were monitored and reported on quarterly through each Service’s respective Standing Committee. Since the publication of the PIP DfC requested Council’s report on an additional four indicators and those had been included in the report. It should be noted that this report reflected performance of the PIP only and was not necessarily representative of the overall performance of the organisation.

2

AC.17.08.2020PM

The following table gave an overall assessment of the status across all actions in the PIP, it should be noted that the aggregated result reflects the status of the worst performing action. Detailed information could be found in the attached progress report. Information on performance against the PIP 2019/20 could also be found on the Council’s website at: https://www.ardsandnorthdown.gov.uk/resident/performance/how-we-are-performing SUMMARY TABLE OF PROGRESS AGAINST OUR IMPROVEMENT OBJECTIVES FOR Q3 – 2019/20 Corporate Improvement Objective Aggregated Plan RAG Status Theme across all actions PEOPLE Improve how we engage with, and support all local communities to deliver real social benefits PLACE Improve street cleansing and recycling rates from HRCs and commercial customers PROSPERITY Deliver projects that will create attractive areas that people will want to live, work, visit and invest in. PERFORMANCE Improve efficiency and transparency STATUTORY Municipal Waste INDICATORS Economic Development Planning SELF-IMPOSED Resident Satisfaction INDICATORS Net cost of Services per head of population Prompt Payment of Invoices Average number of working days lost per employee % staff attendance

OVERALL

RECOMMENDED that the report is noted.

AGREED TO RECOMMEND, on the proposal of Councillor P Smith, seconded by Councillor Chambers, that the recommendation be adopted.

7. EXTERNAL AUDIT

(a) Final Audit Letter 2018-19 (Appendix III)

PREVIOUSLY CIRCULATED:- Correspondence from the Northern Ireland Audit Office detailing the Annual Audit Letter for Ards and North Down Borough Council for 2018-19.

At this stage Ms C Hagan, ASM provided members with a brief overview of the document and indicated she was happy to take any comments from members. There were no questions raised.

AGREED TO RECOMMEND, on the proposal of Alderman Irvine, seconded by Councillor P Smith, that the recommendation be adopted.

3

AC.17.08.2020PM

(b) Audit Strategy (Appendix IV)

PREVIOUSLY CIRCULATED: Report from the Northern Ireland Audit Office detailing the Audit Strategy for 2019-2020 for Ards and North Down Borough Council.

Ms C Hagan provided members with a brief overview of the document and indicated she was happy to take any comments from members.

(Alderman McDowell joined the meeting at this stage – 6.12pm)

Councillor Egan proposed, seconded by Alderman Irvine that the Audit Strategy for 2019-2020 be noted.

Mr S Hagan referred to Page 10 of the document which referred to ‘Other Risk Factors’ and highlighted Fixed Assets as one of those. He sought further comment on the issues referred to surrounding Title Deeds.

(Councillor Armstrong-Cotter entered the meeting at this stage – 6.17pm)

In response the Head of Finance indicated that while he did not have those specific details to hand, he confirmed the matter had been pursued by his colleagues. He advised that it had come to light that some of those documents had been held by a number of solicitors for safekeeping, however he endeavoured to follow the matter up.

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

8. INTERNAL AUDIT

(a) Historical Internal Audit Recommendation (FILE AUD04) (Appendix V)

PREVIOUSLY CIRCULATED:- Report from the Director of Finance and Performance stating that in September a report was brought to Committee outlining a proposed way forward to deal with 148 outstanding internal audit recommendations for the period ending March 2018. Internal Audit had now reviewed that approach and their findings and opinion was set out in the report.

As a result of this review the proposed categorisation was revised as follows:

Action Priority 1 Priority 2 Priority 3 Grand Total Closed 1 1 Open for 15 2 17 management action To be captured by 1 11 6 18 policy development No Further Action 35 35 Superseded 1 10 6 17 Grand Total 2 37 49 88

4

AC.17.08.2020PM

Internal Audit’s assessment of this approach could be found on pages five and six of their report. Management was content to accept their recommended treatment of Priority 2 recommendations, however, due to the low level of risk and the number of recommendations with Priority 3, it was not proposed to follow-up any of those historic recommendations.

RECOMMENDED that Council agrees to follow up only those priority 2 internal audit recommendations pre-dating the 2018-19 financial year.

Alderman Irvine sought a progress update on those Priority 2 recommendations which predated 2018-19.

The Director of Finance and Performance advised that a lot work had been undertaken prior to March this year in order to consider those older recommendations. Continuing he stated that the large volume of recommendations had proved difficult, so much so that an internal process had been developed to take the matter forward following consultation with colleagues within Internal Audit. The Director confirmed that a Framework was now in place to enable it to be taken forward as a priority.

AGREED TO RECOMMEND, that the recommendation be adopted.

(b) Internal Audit Recommendation Follow-Up (Appendix VI)

PREVIOUSLY CIRCULATED:- Report from Deloitte detailing the monitoring and verification of Internal Audit Recommendations.

At this stage Mr D Kinsella, Deloitte, guided members through the report highlighting the salient points within it, one of which was the proposal to provide bi-annual updates to the Committee.

Councillor Armstrong-Cotter proposed, seconded by Alderman Irvine, that the report be noted.

Mr S Hagen referred to comments made on Page 6 of the report commenting that they appeared to clash with proposals put forward by Council officers.

In response the Director of Finance and Performance confirmed that those Priority 3 recommendations had been set aside due to there being such a large volume of them and at that time the opinion had been that they were not worth following up. He added that those detailed at 8a were historic whereas those detailed at 8b were more current issues.

AGREED TO RECOMMEND, on the proposal of Councillor Armstrong-Cotter, seconded by Alderman Irvine, that the report be noted.

5

AC.17.08.2020PM

(c) Internal Audit Progress Report 2019/2020 (Appendix VII)

PREVIOUSLY CIRCULATED:- Report from Deloitte outlining the Annual Assurance Report for 2019/2020 the following service areas:

• Procurement • HR Recruitment • Service Review – Regeneration • Service Review – Leisure & Amenities • GDPR • Performance Improvement • Follow up of Implementation of Prior Year Internal Audit Recommendations

Ms C McDermott, Deloitte, guided members through the reports highlighting the salient points and audit priorities within each one. It was noted there were no Priority 1 recommendations however there were a number of Priority 2 and 3 recommendations within each of the individual services.

Alderman Irvine proposed, seconded by Councillor P Smith, that the reports be noted.

Making reference to the Service Review of Leisure & Amenities, Alderman Irvine sought further details on the issue of the misalignment of service and budget planning.

Ms McDermott commented that could be attributed to the timing of when the process had taken place as there had been a number of ongoing staff pressures.

Councillor P Smith referred to the Procurement report and sought further clarity on the Priority 2 recommendation relating to the current paper-based procurement system. He also sought clarity on the lack of a Workforce Strategy referenced in the HR Recruitment report.

In response Ms McDermott noted that the current manual paper-based procurement system relied upon checks being undertaken by officers and it was felt that created a risk.

At this stage, the Director of Finance and Performance advised it was planned to draw up a Business Case for a new financial system. He added that officers were mindful that this was an ongoing issue which would need to be followed up.

Councillor P Smith asked if that was something which could be done in conjunction with other Councils.

The Director of Finance and Performance confirmed that was something which would be of interest if an opportunity arose to do so.

In respect of the Workforce Strategy, Ms McDermott commented that since the merger of the two Councils in 2015 a strategy of this nature had not been implemented. She added that such a Strategy could be beneficial in the long term

6

AC.17.08.2020PM particularly when consideration was given to the demographic of the current workforce.

Councillor P Smith suggested that perhaps consideration of a Workforce Strategy should he higher up the ‘To Do List’.

The Director of Finance and Performance confirmed that was currently one of the priorities of the Strategic Covid 19 Recovery Group going forward.

AGREED TO RECOMMEND, on the proposal of Alderman Irvine, seconded by Councillor P Smith, that the reports be noted.

(d) Annual Assurance Report 2019/2020 (Appendix VIII)

PREVIOUSLY CIRCULATED:- Report from Deloitte outlining the Annual Assurance Report for 2019/2020.

Mr Kinsella provided a summary of the report highlighting the salient points within it for members information. He added that it was a catch all report which set out the role of Deloitte and detailed how a review would be completed annually. Members were asked to note Section 3 of the report which it was felt was key and advised of an overall Satisfactory level.

Councillor P Smith proposed, seconded by Alderman Irvine, that the report be noted.

Mr S Hagen made reference to Page 4 of the report acknowledging that it was a very good outcome for the Council and asked that his congratulations were passed on to all staff.

AGREED TO RECOMMEND, on the proposal of Councillor P Smith, seconded by Alderman Irvine, that the report be noted.

(e ) Draft Internal Audit Plan 2020/21(Appendix IX)

PREVIOUSLY CIRCULATED:- Draft Annual Audit Plan 2020/21 from Deloitte.

Mr Kinsella noted the report had been prepared for presentation at the March meeting of the Committee and continuing he provided members with a brief overview of the report and its contents.

Alderman Irvine proposed, seconded by Councillor P Smith, that the report be noted.

Mr S Hagen referred to Page 6 of the report which detailed the Plan for 2019-2023 and suggested the HR Policy Audit was brought forward one year in order to provide additional clarity and assurance.

Mr Kinsella indicated that he would be happy to make a note of that.

AGREED TO RECOMMEND, on the proposal of Alderman Irvine, seconded by Councillor P Smith, that the report be noted.

7

AC.17.08.2020PM

(f) Internal Audit Progress Report 2020/21 (Appendix X)

PREVIOUSLY CIRCULATED:- Internal Audit Progress Report 2020/21 from Deloitte which detailed that two Audit reports were complete, eight were planned and two left to be undertaken.

Mr Kinsella provided members with a brief synopsis of the report confirming that the Audit Plan would be completed during the year.

At this stage Ms McDermott made reference to the Capital Projects report and provided members with details of the priority recommendations which had been made, those being one Priority 2 and four Priority 3 recommendations.

AGREED TO RECOMMEND, on the proposal of Alderman Irvine, seconded by Councillor P Smith, that the report be noted.

9. CORPORATE GOVERNANCE

(a) Corporate Risk Register (Appendix XI)

PREVIOUSLY CIRCULATED:- Report from the Director of Organisational Development and Administration stating that the Corporate Risk Register (CRR) was a live document which was amended as required to reflect new or changing risk factors. The Register had been reviewed by Heads of Service and the Corporate Management Team.

Two additional risks had been added since the September 2019 Risk Register together with some minor updates to existing risk headings. The CRR had been updated to reflect the current status of controls with associated amendment, or adjustment, to Risk evaluations and any further actions required. Minor updates were not included in this report.

New Risks CR13 Cyber Security. The impact of a cyber-security breach with damage to systems or theft would have substantial implications from an inability to deliver services, financial loss and legal or other regulatory action. In addition to an array of controls additional actions were being undertaken integrate cyber security across the organisation, ensuring a robust approach to this risk, those include risk evaluation, the development of organisational and incident management plans, training and exercises, process review and ongoing monitoring. (Risk added January 2020, CRR v14).

CR14 Response and Recovery from COVID19 Pandemic. The potential magnitude and medium to long term impacts of the pandemic on both Council and the Borough was recognised in this risk. The Corporate Leadership team had met on an on-going basis with additional sub-groups for response and recovery. Although the NI Hub had been stood down for the pandemic, issues were fed into the Department through existing regional emergency planning structures. (Risk Added August 2020, CRR v15)

8

AC.17.08.2020PM

Other amendments CR3 The City Deal was added to recognise the potential risks. Internal and external working groups and project boards have been set up in line with the City Deal timeline. (January 2020, CRR v14) CR4 Updated to reflect that the new regional arrangements were now in place. A part time Emergency Planning Officer was in post and the new ANDBC Emergency Plan, completed at the beginning of the year, was being tested in real time with the response to the pandemic. (Aug 2020, CRR v15) CR12 This risk had been updated. The DfI business case on the Planning Portal and Council’s contribution to same had been agreed by Council. Procurement timelines were on track. (Aug 2020, CRR v15)

Future Risk Register Development The Corporate Risk Register would undergo a complete review by Heads of Service, as part of the Risk Strategy development process, before the end of the calendar.

RECOMMENDED that the amended Corporate Risk Register be noted.

Councillor P Smith proposed, seconded by Alderman Irvine, that the recommendation be adopted.

The proposer, Councillor P Smith, noted that CR14 Response and Recovery from COVID19 Pandemic had scored particularly highly and asked if it was on a different scale to the others. He also referred to CR8 and sought an update on that.

In response the Director of Finance and Performance commented that CR14 was quite detailed on the register there was substantial other information to support the Councils efforts to mitigate the risks. It was noted the Strategic Covid19 Recovery Group would consider many aspects of the Council response to the pandemic.

Mr S Hagen referred to CR12 and CR13 and noted the element of risk in both areas and in light of that asked if there was anything further which could be done.

The Director of Finance and Performance referred firstly to CR12 and informed members that a budget had been set aside for this and progress was being made. Continuing he acknowledged the risks were deemed high as the current system was nearing the end of its natural life. In respect of CR13 there was a draft Cyber Security action plan which indicated the steps that could be taken to mitigate against cyber risks within the resources available. It was intended that the draft plan be approved by the Council in due course.

AGREED TO RECOMMEND, on the proposal of Councillor P Smith, seconded by Alderman Irvine, that the recommendation be adopted.

(b) Statements of Assurance Summary Report (FILE SOA1)

PREVIOUSLY CIRCULATED:- Report from the Director of Organisational Development and Administration stating that in accordance with the Council’s Risk

9

AC.17.08.2020PM

Management Strategy Heads of Service were required to provide Statements of Assurance. Assurance Statements comprised four main sections to be completed by each Head of Service following consultation with each of their Service Units.

All Interim Statements for the periods, April 2019 – September 2019 and October 2019 – March 2020 had been submitted. Interim Statements had been previously reported. This report was confined to the potential issues identified within the October 2019 - March 2020 period.

Findings

General – Identification of Risk, Monitoring and Control measures Services had confirmed the identification of principal risks and that those risks had associated controls in place. Further action, taken, necessary, new, outstanding or in-progress were confirmed as identified and, where appropriate were included within Service Plans.

Emerging risks were identified in March following in the lead up to and following the declaration of the Coronavirus Pandemic by the World Health Organisation and subsequent Lockdown. Services began to look at how they may be affected by, and respond to, the Pandemic. Following the establishment of the regional emergency planning and recovery structures, issues requiring Departmental consideration were escalated to the Northern Ireland Hub.

Section 1 – Strategic and Operational Risk Management No key issues had been declared as not having appropriate internal controls in place. All Services had confirmed that any risks identified had appropriate internal controls and any further actions taken, or to be taken, to adequately mitigate or resolve the risk had been identified.

Environmental Health, Protection and Development raised the potential risk of lack of funding for the Affordable Warmth Scheme. Following escalation to the Northern Ireland Hub and Solace, DfC subsequently provided some reassurance on the basis of emergency cases continuing to be referred with work on non-emergency referrals as far as possible without visits to people’s homes (reassurance provided May 2020, post Assurance Statement reporting period). In addition, liaison issues were escalated to Gold Command.

Section 2 – Internal Control Generally, there were no key issues arising to cause significant concern requiring immediate action. Progress on Internal Audit findings was reported to Committee separately although they were reflected in the Assurance Statements.

Environmental Health, Protection and Development had noted the impact on the service arising from preparations for exiting the European Union. Redirection of resources for exit preparation had impacted on service provision of food inspections. Work continues with the FSA and DAERA around the import and export of food.

Strategic Transformation and Performance had reported one outstanding Priority 1 and one outstanding Priority 3 audit recommendation for the Business Technology

10

AC.17.08.2020PM

Audit. Those recommendations would be addressed as resources allowed. An audit recommendation to address the issue of corporate contracts was being kept under review after funding was turned down due to competing priorities.

The Administration Service had identified one outstanding Priority 1 and three outstanding Priority 2 Audit recommendations.

• Priority 1 Cash Handling. Bespoke procedures would be developed for sites following the implementation of an overarching policy. This was currently being developed by the Finance Service. • Priority 2 Alignment of Business Continuity and Emergency Plans. This recommendation required input from two Services: Administration (Risk Management unit) for the Emergency Plan and Strategic Transformation and Performance (Performance unit), for the Business Continuity Plan. The revised Emergency Plan was completed in January 2020 however the Business Continuity Plan was still under development.

Revised Risk Strategy and Risk Register format. Both recommendations were addressed through the development of the Risk Strategy. The Risk Strategy was to be aligned with the 2020-2024 Corporate Plan. A timetable for development had previously been reported however the work on the Strategy, as with the Corporate Plan, had been delayed due to the Coronavirus Pandemic.

Corporate Communications had reported one outstanding Priority 2 Audit recommendation, a Social Media Policy. Delays in completion due to the external provider’s failure to deliver review within the agreed timescale. There was one Priority 3 recommendation relating to Training and Branding KPIs. Completion of this recommendation was dependent on the delivery of the above Priority 2 recommendation.

Section 3 – Governance Environmental Health, Protection and Development had noted significant resource and financial implications around ombudsman investigations linked to planning issues and COVID-19 response. A reduction in budget would severely impact the ability to deliver on statutory functions.

Community and Culture had advised potential significant legal or financial issues following the suspension of services due the Coronavirus Pandemic in March 2020.

Strategic Capital Development had reported that investigations into latent defects at Aurora were continuing.

Leisure and Amenities had reported potential financial difficulties within the service due to COVID 19 and further potential of significant loss of income claims from a contractor in respect of COVID 19 and one other matter.

11

AC.17.08.2020PM

The Finance Service reported previously potential impact of the interaction of overtime, holiday pay and the implications of the McCloud and Sargent court cases in relation to pension law. Those matters had not been resolved. With the exception of employer pension contributions, the implications of McCloud and Sargent cases were accounted for year ended 31 March 2019. The legal and financial implications of Brexit remained a concern together with emerging financial and sustainability implications of the COVID 19 response.

Finance Service had reported one attempted fraud. The attempt, by a third party, to fraudulently use a Council credit card had previously been reported to the Audit Committee.

Leisure and Amenities reported one single tender action, where a contract was awarded due to the limited timeframe for the works to be completed.

Section 4 – Miscellaneous Finance Service has highlighted three risks. The Core2 project user acceptance testing had proved challenging; two members of staff would be dedicated to complete the testing. The financial pressures arising out of COVID 19 in the 2020/21 financial year. This had resulted in the need to identify in year savings and the development of a Medium-Term Financial Strategy to provide guiding principles for budget setting and to increase reserves. Significant rates rises would be likely in 2021/22 and subsequent years.

RECOMMENDED that the report be noted.

AGREED TO RECOMMEND, on the proposal of Alderman Irvine, seconded by Councillor P Smith, that the recommendation be adopted.

(c ) Risk Strategy Update

PREVIOUSLY CIRCULATED:- Report from the Director of Organisational Development and Administration stating that the current risk management strategy was developed during the first year of the new Council, with the assistance of the Council’s Internal Auditor (Moore Stephens). It was approved in September 2015.

The organisation had changed and matured in the period since then, with structures settlings and processes and practices having developed from the initial phase. It had published the Big Plan for the Borough and was now on the point of publishing it’s second corporate plan with its new PEOPLE priorities. In the light of those events it was considered appropriate that the risk management strategy was updated to align with those plans.

As part of the Internal Audit follow-up process, it was indicated that this review process would be completed by the end of this March 2020. However, this had not been possible due to the Covid-19 pandemic. A revised timetable was set out for the Committee’s information:

Activity Target Date Draft strategy November 2020

12

AC.17.08.2020PM

Workshops and consultation December 2020 – January 2021 Final Draft strategy for consultation February 2021 Committee Approval March 2021

RECOMMENDED that the report be noted.

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

(d ) Policy Development Update (FILE FIN58)(Appendix XII)

PREVIOUSLY CIRCULATED:- Report from the Director of Finance and Performance stating that a policy register had been attached for all the corporate services policies providing details of policies status and review timetables, where available. Changes from the last committee meeting were highlighted in . A number of timescales had lengthened due to the COVID-19 emergency.

RECOMMENDED that the report be noted.

AGREED TO RECOMMEND, on the proposal of Councillor Armstrong-Cotter, seconded by Alderman Irvine, that the recommendation be adopted.

10. SELF ASSESSMENT (FILE AUD02) (Appendix XIII)

PREVIOUSLY CIRCULATED:- Report from the Director of Finance and Performance detailing that in line with good practice the Committee should undergo a self- assessment exercise periodically. The Committee last undertook this exercise in 2017.

In order to streamline this year’s exercise, officers had completed the assessment template to assist the Committee, indicating compliance with good practice or otherwise.

RECOMMENDED that the Committee approves the draft self-assessment checklist.

AGREED TO RECOMMEND, on the proposal of Councillor P Smith, seconded by Alderman Irvine, that the recommendation be adopted.

11. CONCLUSION OF INVESTIGATION ON ATTEMPTED FRAUD (FILE FIN67)

PREVIOUSLY CIRCULATED:- Report from the Director of Finance and Performance detailing that at the Committee’s December meeting the Chief Executive advised that there had been an attempt to carry out fraudulent transactions using one of the Council’s credit cards.

The Council’s bank had now completed its investigation and key outcomes were:

13

AC.17.08.2020PM

• The fraud was perpetrated from the city Uppsala in Sweden at 2.34am on the 6 December 2019. • The fraudsters tried to complete two transactions each to the value of £3,602.95 for a company known as ETravel.Icom.UK which was a fraudulent site. • Very unlikely that a Council computer was compromised/hacked, but they suspect a website that the Council made a payment on in the two weeks prior was compromised. They were unable to investigate company websites which were not Barclays clients and therefore could not advise which website was suspected to be compromised. • Barclaycard internal controls identified both transactions on the 6 December as “outside the normal course of business for the Council” and they subsequently suspended the card. • They called the Council offices on the 7 December at 9.30am to advise that they were cancelling the card. They were unable to speak to the cardholder to confirm if the transactions were genuine but took an action to suspend the card as a preventative measure.

Members should note that the Council used two credit cards; one held by the Chief Executive and the other held securely for use by Finance staff. Access to this second card was restricted to nominated Finance staff excluding any of the banking signatories and staff only use the card on secure websites. It was usual for one Team Leader or Accountant to attend an annual cyber security workshop held by the bank.

RECOMMENDED that the Council notes the report.

Councillor Chambers proposed, seconded by Alderman Irvine, that the recommendation be adopted.

The proposer, Councillor Chambers sought clarification that no money had been taken from the Council. He also asked if it had been ascertained which website the transaction had occurred within that two-week period.

The Director of Finance and Performance confirmed there had been no financial loss to the Council.

At this stage, the Head of Finance confirmed the Council’s bank had conducted its own investigation and identified that the transaction had occurred outside the UK. Council officers had also reviewed those websites used during that two-week period and there had been nothing out of the ordinary. Continuing he confirmed that the Council only used secured websites and the credit card was never used for telephone transactions.

Alderman Irvine noted the transaction had occurred ‘outside normal Council business hours’ and the Bank had been unable to speak to the card holder when they contacted the Council to discuss the matter. He sought further details on that.

14

AC.17.08.2020PM

In response the Head of Finance confirmed that the Council’s bank had contacted the Council and at that time the Council cardholder had not been in the office. He added that subsequently measures had been put into place to address that.

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

12. MEETING SCHEDULE AND WORK PLAN 2020/21 (FILE AUD02)

PREVIOUSLY CIRCULATED:- Report from the Director of Finance and Performance detailing that in order to assist the Committee with its oversight responsibilities a suggested meeting schedule and work plan for the remainder of the 2020/21 financial year had been prepared.

Meeting Date Agenda Items 14 December 2020 • Audited Financial Statements Approval • Draft Report to those charged with Governance • Improvement Audit and Assessment Reports • Statements of Assurance Update • Review of Internal Audit Contract

22 March 2021 • Final Report to Those charged with Governance • Final Audit Letter • Annual Internal Audit Report • Draft Internal Audit Plan for 2021/22 • Meeting Schedule and work plan 2021/22

In addition, there were standing items on the agenda: • Declarations of Interest • Follow-up actions from previous committee meetings • Outstanding Audit Recommendations Follow-up • Performance Improvement Progress • Internal Audit Update • Single Tender Action Update • Fraud, whistleblowing and data breaches update

RECOMMENDED that the Council approves the work plan for the 2020/21 financial year.

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

15

AC.17.08.2020PM

12.1. ANY OTHER NOTIFIED BUSINESS

The Chairman informed members there were no items of any other notified business.

NOTED.

EXCLUSION OF PUBLIC/PRESS

AGREED TO RECOMMEND, on the proposal of Councillor Chambers, seconded by Alderman Irvine, that the public/press be excluded during the discussion of the undernoted items of confidential business.

13. SINGLE TENDER ACTIONS UPDATE (FILE 231329)

***IN COMMITTEE***

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

14. DRAFT GOVERNANCE STATEMENT (FILE AUD07) (Appendix XIV)

***IN COMMITTEE***

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

15. DRAFT FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (FILE FIN65) (Appendix XV)

***IN COMMITTEE***

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

(Christine Hagan left the meeting at this stage – 7.20pm)

AGREED TO RECOMMEND, on the proposal of Councillor P Smith, seconded by Alderman Irvine, that the recommendation be adopted.

16. FRAUD, WHISTLEBLOWING AND DATA PROTECTION MATTERS

***IN COMMITTEE***

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

16

AC.17.08.2020PM

17. COVID-19 UPDATE (Appendix XVI)

***IN COMMITTEE***

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

18. MEETING WITH NI AUDIT OFFICE AND INTERNAL AUDIT SERVICE IN THE ABSENCE OF MANAGEMENT

***IN CONFIDENCE***

The Chief Executive, Director of Finance and Performance, Head of Finance and Democratic Services Officer all withdrew from the meeting during the discussion of the item (7.55pm).

NOTED.

TERMINATION OF MEETING

The meeting terminated at 7.58 pm.

17

Unclassified

ITEM 8

Ards and North Down Borough Council

Report Classification Unclassified

Council/Committee Council

Date of Meeting 26 August 2020

Responsible Director Chief Executive

Responsible Head of N/A Service

Date of Report 17 August 2020

File Reference CX210

Legislation Local Government Act (NI) 2014 Local Government (Coronavirus) (Flexibility of District Council Meetings) Regulations (NI) 2020

Section 75 Compliant Yes ☒ No ☐ Other ☐

If other, please add comment below:

Subject Updated Standing Orders

Attachments 1. List of amendments to Standing Orders 2. ANDBC Standing Orders, June 2020

It was agreed at the Special Council meeting on 19 March 2020 to revise the Council’s Standing Orders to include new Standing Order 29 entitled Civil Emergencies. This Standing Order provides for a power of delegation that the Chief Executive may exercise in emergency situations to act on behalf of the Council.

The Standing Orders were further amended, under Chief Executive delegated authority on 28 May 2020, to enable the remote attendance of Elected Members, the press and the public at Council and Committee meetings in line with the Local Government (Coronavirus) (Flexibility of District Council Meetings) Regulations.

The full list of amendments are attached to this report as Appendix 1, and the revised Standing Orders are attached at Appendix 2.

A report outlining these changes was brought to Council on 22 July with a recommendation that Council noted the report. It was proposed and seconded that the

Page 1 of 2

Unclassified recommendation be agreed with the exception of Standing Order 29. The proposer, Councillor Adair, indicated that he sought the removal of Standing Order 29.

Standing Order 28.2 provides that any motion to add to, vary or revoke the Standing Orders will, when proposed and seconded, stand adjourned and be referred without discussion to the next ordinary meeting of the Council and any resultant amendment will be ratified at an ordinary meeting of the Council.

The proposal to remove Standing Order 29 was therefore deferred to the 26 August Council meeting.

RECOMMENDATION

It is recommended that Council considers the proposal made at the 22 July 2020 Council meeting to remove Standing Order 29 – Civil Emergencies.

Page 2 of 2

AMENDMENTS MADE TO STANDING ORDERS

ADDED TO GLOSSARY OF TERMS (PG 5)

“2020 Regulations” means the Local Government (Coronavirus) (Flexibility of District Council Meetings) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2020

“remote access” means the ability to attend or participate in a meeting by electronic means, including by telephone conference, video conference, live webcasts, and live interactive streaming

STANDING ORDER 1(2) AMENDED TO INCLUDE THE TEXT IN RED

In any year which is a local government election year, the Annual Meeting shall be held within twenty-one days immediately following the election, at such time as the Council may fix at the offices of the Council, on the Council’s website in line with the 2020 Regulations, or at such other place as the Department may direct.

STANDING ORDER 2 AMENDED TO INCLUDE THE TEXT IN RED The Annual Meeting shall be held at 11.00am and other meetings of the Council shall be held at 7.00pm, or such other time as the Council may agree, at an agreed location in the Borough

STANDING ORDER 4(1) AMENDED TO INCLUDE THE TEXT IN RED Notice of the time and place of the intended meeting shall be published at the offices of the Council or on the Council’s website in line with the 2020 Regulations. Where the meeting is called by Councillors, the notice shall be signed by them, in writing or electronically, and shall specify the business proposed to be transacted thereat;

EXISTING STANDING ORDER 29 – INTERPRETATION OF STANDING ORDERS – RENUMBERED AS 31

NEW STANDING ORDER 29 ADDED

29. Civil Emergencies

In the event of any civil emergency or any situation in which urgent actions are required and it is either not reasonably practicable to convene a meeting of Council or Committee, or if any such meetings if called are inquorate, the Chief Executive or any Director nominated by him may exercise all or any of the functions of the Council except those which are reserved to the Council pursuant to Section 7 of the Local Government Act (NI) 2014. Any decisions taken pursuant to this Standing Order will be reported to the relevant Committee or Council at the next available meeting. This Standing Order may be read alongside the Council's Scheme of Delegation but operates separately to it.

NEW STANDING ORDER 30 ADDED

30. Remote Attendance

30.1 In line with the Local Government (Coronavirus) (Flexibility of District Council Meetings) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2020, any reference in these Standing Orders to a Council or Committee meeting is not limited to a meeting of persons all of whom, or any of whom, are present in the same place and any reference to a “place” where a meeting is held, or to be held, includes reference to more than one place including electronic, digital or virtual locations such as internet locations, web addresses or conference call telephone numbers.

30.2 An Elected Member in remote attendance attends the meeting at any time provided they are able:

(a) to hear, and where practicable see, and be so heard, and where practicable be seen by, the other members in attendance;

(b) to hear, and where practicable see, and be so heard and, where practicable, be seen by, any members of the public in attendance in order to exercise a right to speak at the meeting; and

(c) to be so heard and, where practicable, be seen by any other members of the public in attendance.

30.3 Any reference in these Standing Orders to a member of the public or press being present at a meeting includes such persons attending by remote access, and the reference in Standing Order 8.1 to every meeting being “open to the public and press” includes through enabling remote access.

30.4 References in Standing Orders 10 and 27 to excluding the public and press from the Council Chamber or removing them from the room, shall be read as removing their remote access where their attendance is, or would be but for their exclusion, remote attendance.

30.5 There is no requirement for an Elected Member in remote attendance to stand when addressing the Presiding Chairperson in line with Standing Order 20.6.

30.6 A Presiding Chairperson in remote attendance shall call a meeting to order, rather than rise to do so, in line with Standing Order 20.17.

30.7 Any vote that would otherwise be taken by a show of hands in line with Standing Order 21.4 will, if any of the Elected Members entitled to vote are in remote attendance, be taken by way of a verbal confirmation from each Member as to whether they are for or against the motion.

ARDS AND NORTH DOWN BOROUGH COUNCIL

STANDING ORDERS

VERSION 6 JUNE 2020

List of Contents

Standing Order The Council Page 1 Annual and Monthly Meetings 6 2 Time and Place of Meetings 6 3 Convening Special Meetings 6 4 Notice and Summons of Meetings 7 5 Chair to be taken 7 6 Chairperson of Meeting 7 7 Quorum 8 8 Admission to meetings 8 9 Record of attendances at meetings 8 10 Exclusion of the public 9 11 Attendance of members at Committees 9 12 Deputations ...... 10 13 Order of Business 10 14 Minutes of Council 11 14.1 Keeping of; as evidence; etc. 11 14. 2 Signing of; 11 15 Submission of Minutes 11 16 Minutes of Committees 11 17 Motions 12 17.1 On notice 12 18 Amendments 13 18.1 To amend the Proposal 13 18. 2 That the Council do now adjourn 13 18. 3 That the debate be adjourned 14 18. 4 That the question be now put 14 18. 5 That the Council do now proceed to the next business 14 19 Amendments to regulatory decisions 15 20 Rules of Debate 15 20. 1 Motions and amendments to be reduced to writing and seconded 15 20. 2 Alteration of motion 15 20. 3 Withdrawal of motion 15 20. 4 Mode of address 16 20. 5 Precedence in speaking ...... 16 20.6 Place of Member speaking 16 20. 7 Member called to order 16 20. 8 Definition of point of order 16 3 Standing Order The Council Page 20.9 Member may raise a point of order 16 20.10 Ruling of Chairperson on a point of order 16 20.11 Member to speak to motion 16 20.12 Member shall not speak more than once 16 20.13 Duration of speeches 17 20.14 Addressing the Council 17 20.15 Only one motion/amendment may be moved and discussed at a time 17 20.16 When a motion is under debate no other motion shall be moved 17 20.17 Chairperson rising during debate 17 20.18 Chairperson not to receive motion for direct negative 17 20.19 Mover’s right of reply 18 21 Voting 18 21.1 Majority 18 21. 2 Chairperson’s casting vote 18 21. 3 Qualified majority 18 21. 4 Show of hands 18 21. 5 Recorded vote 18 21.6 Single Transfeable Vote (STV) 18 22 Call-in Process 19 23 Positions of responsibility, etc. Time Limits 19 24 Appointment of more than one Committee 20 25 Rescission of a preceding resolution 20 26 Members’ conduct 20 26.1 Speaking through the Chair 20 26. 2 Chairperson standing 21 26. 3 Member not to be heard further 21 26. 4 Member to leave the meeting 21 26. 5 General disturbance 21 27 Disturbance by public 21 27.1 Removal of member of public 21 27. 2 Clearance of part of meeting room 21 28 Suspension and amendment of Standing Orders 22 28.1 Suspension 22 28. 2 Amendment 22 29 Civil Emergencies 22 30 Interpretation of Standing Orders 22 Annex 1 Protocol for the Operation of ANDBC Planning Committee 23 Annex 2 Call-in Protocol 39 Annex 3 Mandatory section in respect of Call-in 43

4 Ards and North Down Borough Council Standing Orders v.6 Introduction

In accordance with Section 37 of the Local Government Act (Northern Ireland) 2014, Councils are required to make Standing Orders for the regulation of the proceedings and business of the Council. A Council’s Standing Orders will include elements that the Act states they must include, elements that the Regulations state must be included and other elements which a Council may consider should be included. The Standing Orders provide a robust, clear and accountable framework to demonstrate how it will conduct meetings and transact business at those meetings.

Section 38 of the Act provides the Department with an enabling power to make Regulations about Standing Orders.

The proposed Regulations will make more detailed provision in relation to:

• decisions that will require a qualified majority vote; • the operation of the process for the reconsideration of a decision; • the timescales in which the appointment of a Councillor to hold a position of responsibility must take place; and • the procedure for appointing members to Committees, where the Council wishes to appoint more than one Committee at a time

Statutory Provisions

For information, convenience and completeness, provisions of the Local Government Act (Northern Ireland) 2014 have been cited in these Standing Orders.

It is considered correct that actual Standing Orders should make no reference to statutory provisions as such provisions cannot be part of Standing Orders.

Glossary of Terms

“2014 Act” means the Local Government Act (Northern Ireland) 2014 “2014 Executive Arrangements Regulations” means the Local Government (Executive Arrangements) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2014 “2014 Standing Orders Regulations” means the Local Government (Standing Orders) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2014 “call-in” means a requisition for the reconsideration of a decision as provided for in section 41(1) of the 2014 Act. “2020 Regulations” means the Local Government (Coronavirus) (Flexibility of District Council Meetings) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2020 “remote access” means the ability to attend or participate in a meeting by electronic means, including by telephone conference, video conference, live webcasts, and live interactive streaming

In Standing Order 23 “2000 Act” means the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000; “member” means Councillor; “nominating officer” in relation to a Party, means (a) the person registered under the 2000 Act as the Party’s nominating officers; or (b) a member of the Council nominated under the 2000 Act for the purposes of Schedule 1 to the 2014 Act; and “party” means a party registered under the 2000 Act in the Northern Ireland register (within the meaning of that Act).

The Council’s Planning Committee is managed using the Protocol for the Operation of Ards and North Down Borough Council Planning Committee. (Annex 1) This should be read in conjunction with the Standing Orders and is not intended to replace them. 5 ‘Working days’ excludes Public or Bank holidays, a Saturday or a Sunday. The deadline in respect of call-in is 5.00 pm. The deadline for Notice of Motions is 11.59 pm.

It should be noted that, in the case of a quorum, 1/4 of the Council/Committee membership should be in attendance (six for Planning Committee). If the figure arrived at is not a whole number, the figure must be rounded up to the next whole number.

Presiding Chairperson means the Elected Member chairing the Council or Committee Meeting.

1. Annual and Monthly Meetings

(1) In every year that is not a local election year the Council shall hold an Annual meeting on the first Wednesday in the month of June, unless the Council otherwise decides.

(2) In any year which is a local government election year, the Annual Meeting shall be held within twenty-one days immediately following the election, at such time as the Council may fix at the offices of the Council, on the Council’s website in line with the 2020 Regulations, or at such other place as the Department may direct.

(3) A meeting of the Council for the transaction of general business of the Council shall, subject to any deviation which special circumstances may render desirable, be held on the last Wednesday of every month. Other meetings of the Council for the transaction of general business shall be held as the Council considers necessary.

(4) Meetings of the Council shall not take place on a Public or Bank Holiday, a Saturday or a Sunday. When the day of a meeting falls on one of these days, the meeting shall be held on the next available date instead.

2. Time and place of meetings

(1) The Annual Meeting shall be held at 11.00am and other meetings of the Council shall be held at 7.00pm, or such other time as the Council may agree, at an agreed location in the Borough

(2) Council and Committee meetings are scheduled to last a maximum of two hours. After two hours a 15 minute break will be taken. Following the break, the meeting should continue for a maximum time of two hours. The Presiding Chairperson may exercise a level of discretion in this regard giving consideration to the importance of business to be considered and lateness of the hour.

3. Convening Special Meetings

(1) The Mayor of the Council may call a meeting of the Council at any time giving 5 working days’ notice.

(2) The Mayor may call a meeting of the Council if a requisition for such a meeting, signed by eight members, is presented to them; and; if they refuse to call a meeting on such a requisition or if, without so refusing they do not call a meeting within the period of five working days from the date of the service of the requisition on them, the eight members may, on that refusal or on the expiration of that period forthwith, call a meeting of the Council.

6 Ards and North Down Borough Council Standing Orders v.6 4. Notice and Summons of Meetings

Three working days at least before a meeting of the Council or, a Committee:

(1) Notice of the time and place of the intended meeting shall be published at the offices of the Council or on the Council’s website in line with the 2020 Regulations. Where the meeting is called by Councillors, the notice shall be signed by them, in writing or electronically, and shall specify the business proposed to be transacted thereat;

(2) A summons to attend the meeting, specifying the business proposed to be transacted thereat and signed by the Chief Executive shall be issued electronically to members via email. Want of service of this summons shall not affect the validity of a meeting:

(3) Except in the case of business required by statute, or where in the opinion of the Presiding Chairperson of the meeting the business should be considered by the meeting as a matter of urgency, no business shall be transacted at a meeting of the Council, a Committee or Sub- Committee other than that specified in the summons relating thereto;

(4) Any Other Notified Business (AONB) cannot be considered at Council meetings or the Planning Committee but may be considered at all other Committee meetings. AONB must be submitted in writing to Democratic Services not later than 4 pm one working day prior to the meeting. This should also be copied to the Chairperson and Director of the relevant Committee. AONB should be of an urgent nature and usually for information and can be accepted or denied at the discretion of the Chair. It should not be a matter that should be raised as a Notice of Motion.

(5) Council and Committee Agendas and reports which are being considered publicly will be uploaded onto the Council website within 24 hours of them being made available to Councillors.

(6) An audio recording shall be made of the proceedings of Council and Committee meetings, except in respect of any items to which the public and press have been excluded in accordance with Standing Order 10. The audio recordings shall be published on the Council website no more than five working days after each Council or Committee Meeting.

5. Chair to be taken

At each meeting of the Council, the Chair shall be taken at the time for which the meeting is convened, and business immediately proceeded with.

6. Chairperson of Meeting

(1) At a meeting of the Council, the Mayor of the Council, if present, shall preside.

(2) If the Mayor is absent from a meeting of the Council, the Deputy Mayor, if present, shall preside.

(3) If both the Mayor and Deputy Mayor are absent from a meeting of the Council, the members present shall nominate a member to preside in their absence.

(4) If discussion arises on the allocation of the position of Presiding Chairperson, the Chief Executive shall exercise the powers of the Presiding Chairperson to assist in the regulation of that discussion.

(5) Any power of the Mayor in relation to the conduct of a meeting may be exercised by the person presiding at the meeting.

(6) It should be noted that the same principles (1) to (5) above would apply to the Chair and Vice Chair of Committees.

7 7. Quorum

(1) No business shall be transacted at a meeting of the Council and its Committees unless at least one-quarter of the Council/Committee membership is present. No business shall be transacted at a meeting of the Planning Committee unless a minimum of six Councillors are present.

(2) If during a meeting, the person presiding, after the number of members present is counted, declares that a meeting is inquorate and it is unlikely that there will be a quorum present within fifteen minutes, they shall declare the meeting adjourned.

(3) Any uncompleted business on the agenda of a meeting adjourned under Standing Order 7(2) above, shall be tabled for discussion at the reconvened meeting. No business, other than the uncompleted business on the agenda of the meeting adjourned, may be discussed at the reconvened meeting.

8. Admission to meetings

(1) Subject to the provisions of this Standing Order, every meeting of the Council shall be open to the public and press.

(2) The public and press may attend only in those parts of the Council Chamber provided for their accommodation at meetings of the Council, unless specifically excluded in accordance with the provisions of Standing Order 10; or as required by the Council to comply with provisions in relation to Fire Safety and Health & Safety.

(3) The admission of the public and press is upon the understanding that they must continue at all times to be seated, and that no expression of opinion or noise of any kind be allowed from them.

(4) At all times during which a meeting of the Council is open to the public, the Council shall, so far as is practicable, cause to be made available to duly accredited representatives of newspapers attending for the purpose of reporting proceedings at the meeting reasonable facilities for taking reports of these proceedings.

(5) Taking photographs of proceedings or the use of any other means by members of the public or the press to enable persons not present to see or hear any proceedings (whether at that time or later) or making of any oral report of any proceedings as they take place shall be prohibited unless expressly permitted by the Council.

(6) The use of social media by Councillors, members of the public or journalists shall be permitted, during those proceedings that are open to the public, to the extent that its use does not disrupt proceedings.

9. Record of attendances at meetings

The names of the members present at a meeting of the Council shall be recorded by the minute taker. If a member is not present for the full duration of a meeting the minutes shall record when he or she enters and/or leaves the meeting.

8 Ards and North Down Borough Council Standing Orders v.6 10. Exclusion of the public and press

(1) The public and press shall be excluded from a meeting of the Council whenever it is likely that, during the transaction of an item of business, confidential information would be disclosed to them in breach of an obligation of confidence.

(2) The Council may by resolution exclude the public and press from a meeting of the Council (whether during the whole or part of the proceedings at the meeting) for such special reasons as may be specified in the resolution being reasons arising from the nature of the business to be transacted or of the proceedings at the meeting.

(3) The Presiding Chairperson may at any time during the proceedings, if they think it necessary to secure order, direct the removal of any individual or group of individuals from the Council Chamber, or order the Council Chamber to be wholly cleared of members of the public and press.

(4) The Council, having excluded the public, shall only consider the matter referred to it by the resolution. If it should be deemed necessary to consider any matter not included in the resolution, the public and press shall be re-admitted and the Presiding Chairperson may ask leave of the Council to take up the consideration of such additional matters as may be deemed desirable.

(5) The Council, having excluded the public and press, shall not have the power to adjourn its own sittings or to adjourn a debate to a future sitting. If the business referred to in the resolution is not transacted, the Council may be resumed and a member of the Council may move that the Council again exclude the public on a future day to deal with the business specified in the resolution which was not transacted.

(6) If the Council, with the public and press excluded, has transacted part of the business referred to it, without being able to reach a decision on all the business so referred, a member of the Council may, with leave of the Council, report on the progress to that point and ask the Council’s permission to sit again.

(7) When the Council, having transacted business with the public and press excluded, submits its report to the Council, a motion for its adoption shall then be moved and put. No questions or discussion shall be permitted on the report or the motion for its adoption.

11. Attendance of Members At Committees

Any Elected Member may attend a Committee meeting of which he/she is not a member, but may not take a Council seat within the main meeting area and instead should sit in the public gallery. If the public and press are excluded from the meeting the member is not required to leave the room but rather be bound by the restrictions imposed at that part of the meeting.

9 12. Deputations

(1) Deputations, from any source, shall only be admitted to address the Council provided the Chief Executive has received seven working days notice of the intended deputation and a statement of its objective, and subject to the agreement of the Council.

(2) In the case of an emergency, Deputations, from any source, shall only be admitted to address the Council provided the Clerk has received one working day’s notice of the intended deputation and a statement of its objective, and subject to the agreement of the Mayor.

(3) The deputation shall be confined to the presentation of a statement, or copy of resolutions, and shall not make more than two short addresses by any two members of the deputation. The totality of the address shall not exceed 10 minutes followed by a maximum 15 minutes question and answer session.

(4) Deputations should not be repetitive and, where possible, issues of a similar or linked nature should be contained in one deputation. Where a deputation has made a presentation to the Council, the Council will decline to accept another deputation on the same issue from the same individual or group for a period of six months.

(5) No further discussion or proposals beyond questions shall take place at a Council or Committee meeting until after the deputation has withdrawn. Any subsequent proposal made should be limited to a request for officers to bring back a report on the matters raised by the deputation.

13. Order of Business

Subject to any statutory requirements to the contrary, the order of business at every meeting of the Council shall be as follows:

a) Apologies;

b) declaration of members’ interests;

c) Mayor’s Remarks;

d) confirmation of the Minutes of the last stated meeting and of all adjourned meetings and special meetings held since the last stated meeting;

e) matters arising;

f) adoption of the minutes of the proceedings of any Committees and consideration of reports, if any, from such Committees;

g) requests for deputations;

h) business required by statute to be transacted at the meeting;

i) reports on decisions/recommendations subject to the reconsideration procedure;

j) correspondence;

k) sealing of documents, and

l) consideration of motions of which due notice has been given, in the order in which they have been received.

10 Ards and North Down Borough Council Standing Orders v.6 14. Minutes of the Council 14.1 Keeping of; as evidence; etc.

(1) Minutes of the proceedings of a meeting of the Council, or of a Committee or sub-Committee, shall be drawn up and entered in a bound book kept for that purpose.

(2) No discussion shall take place upon the previous month’s Council Minutes except upon their accuracy or matters for information.

(3) Any minute purporting to be signed as mentioned in sub-paragraph (1) shall be received in evidence without further proof.

(4) Until the contrary is proved, a meeting of the Council or of a Committee or Sub-Committee thereof in respect of the proceedings of which a minute has been so made and signed shall be deemed to have been duly convened and held, and all the members present at the meeting shall be deemed to have been duly qualified, and where the proceedings are proceedings of a Committee or Sub-Committee, the Committee or Sub-Committee shall be deemed to have been duly constituted and to have had power to deal with the matters referred to in the minutes.

[Paragraphs 10(2) and 10(3) of Schedule 5 to the 2014 Act applies].

14.2 Signing of

The Minutes of a meeting of the Council shall be signed at the next ensuing meeting of the Council by the Mayor, if approved by the meeting at which they fall to be signed.

[Paragraph 10(1) of Schedule 5 to the 2014 Act applies].

15. Submission of Minutes

(1) In order to give sufficient time for the preparation of the minutes and for their consideration by the members of the council, minutes of meetings of a Committee held later than five working days before the meeting of Council shall not be submitted to that meeting. This may be dis- applied where a Committee considers the matter to be of extreme urgency and records such a decision in it’s minutes.

(2) It shall be the duty of a Committee, through the Presiding Chairperson or their representative, when its minutes are submitted for approval, to call the attention of the Council to any resolution or matter of an unusual or special character contained therein.

16. Minutes of Committees

(1) A motion or amendment shall not be made or proposed, or any discussion allowed on the proceedings of Committees with reference to any matter within the remit of a Committee which does not appear on the minutes submitted to the meeting of the Council.

(2) Any matter in the minutes of a Committee on which a request for reconsideration, under Section 41 of the 2014 Act, has been lodged with the Chief Executive of the Council shall be identified, and may not be the subject of discussion at that meeting.

11 17. Motions

(1) Every motion shall be relevant to at least one of the following:

i) in relation to which the Council:

a) has power or duties;

b) is not prevented from taking action on by other legislation;

ii) which directly affects the local government district or its residents; and

iii) for which the Council is legally competent.

(2) The decision of the Mayor as to the relevancy of a motion shall be final.

17.1 On notice

(1) Notice of every motion, other than a motion which under Standing Order 17.2 may be moved without notice, shall be given in writing, signed by the member or members of the Council giving the notice, to the Chief Executive not later than at least five working days before the next meeting of the Council. The motion must be clear in meaning otherwise it shall be rejected until such time as it is resubmitted in clear language, and not later than five working days before the meeting.

(2) A motion shall be rejected if, in the opinion of the Chief Executive (having taken advice), the wording or nature of the motion is considered unlawful, improper or irrelevant.

(3) All notices shall be dated and numbered as received, and entered in a register to be kept for that purpose. This register shall be open to inspection by every member of the Council.

(4) Notices of motion shall be entered by the Chief Executive in their proper place upon the Summons Paper in the order in which they are received.

(5) If a motion set out in the Summons is not moved by a member who gave notice it shall, unless postponed by consent of the Council, be treated as withdrawn and shall not be moved without fresh notice. Should the proposer wish for the motion to be heard in his/her absence, consent must be indicated in writing to the Presiding Chairperson of the Council/Committee, nominating who will propose the Motion.

(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.

(7) If a notice of motion fails to be considered at a meeting of the Council/relevant Committee, such notice of motion will only be included on the Summons Paper for the following meeting if submitted in writing to the Chief Executive by the member concerned not later than five working days, at least, before the Council meeting.

(8) Any notice of motion which fails to be considered at two consecutive meetings will not be accepted for inclusion on the Summons Paper for a period of six months from the date of the second meeting at which the matter has failed to be considered.

(9) A member or members who sign and submit a motion which is then accepted as valid may propose or second the motion at any Committee it is referred to of which they are not a member, and shall have speaking but no voting rights on the same basis of other Committee members when the motion is being considered.

12 Ards and North Down Borough Council Standing Orders v.6 (10) Where the Chair of a Committee is bringing forward a motion, then he/she must relinquish the Chair and permit the Vice Chair to conduct the meeting during the moving of said motion. In the absence of both the Chair and Vice Chair, the members present shall nominate a member to preside in their absence, in line with Standing Order 6.3. This is not applicable to the Mayor at a Council meeting.

18. Amendments

(1) When a motion is under debate at any meeting of the Council, an amendment or further motion shall not be received, with the exception of the following:

a) to amend the proposal; or

b) that the Council do now adjourn; or

c) that the debate be adjourned; or

d) that the question be now put; or

e) that the Council do proceed to the next business.

18.1 To amend the Proposal

(1) An amendment must be legitimate and within the scope of the notice convening the meeting. It must not be a direct negative; must be relevant to the proposal which it seeks to amend, and not inconsistent with anything already agreed upon at the same meeting. An amendment must relate solely to the proposal which it seeks to amend, and not be, in effect, a new proposition on a different matter, and must not place a greater responsibility on the meeting than the original proposal.

(2) An amendment to a Motion shall be either:

a) to refer a subject of debate to a Committee or to an officer for consideration or re-consideration;

b) to leave out words;

c) to leave out words and insert or add others; or

d) to insert or add words

But such omission, insertion or addition of words shall not have the effect of directly negativing the Motion before the Council. This does not apply to Council meetings when ratifying Committee recommendations, as Council may agree to negativise a Committee decision or send it back to the Committee for further consideration.

(3) When an amendment upon an original proposal has been moved, the question to be put shall be “That the amendment be made”. Where any amendment is agreed, the question to be put shall be “That the proposal, as amended, be agreed”. Where any amendment is rejected the question of the substantive proposal shall be put.

18.2 That the Council Do Now Adjourn

(1) Any member of the Council who has not already spoken to the proposal or amendment then under debate may move “that the Council do now adjourn”. Such a proposal must be seconded, but it need not be reduced to writing. The mover and seconder shall not speak beyond formally moving and seconding the proposal, which shall be put to the vote without debate.

13 (2) In the event of the proposal for the adjournment being carried, the Presiding Chairperson shall (unless stated in the proposal) fix the date for the adjourned meeting for the continuation of the debate on the proposal or amendment under discussion at the time of the adjournment, and for the transaction of the remaining business (if any) on the Agenda for the meeting so adjourned.

(3) A second proposal “that the Council do now adjourn” shall not be made within half-an-hour unless, in the opinion of the Presiding Chairperson, the circumstances are materially altered.

18.3 That the Debate be Adjourned

(1) Any member of the Council who has not already spoken to the proposal or amendment then under debate may move “that the debate be adjourned”. Such a proposal must be seconded, but it need not be reduced to writing. The mover and seconder shall not speak beyond formally moving and seconding it.

(2) Before putting to the meeting a proposal “that the debate be adjourned”, the Presiding Chairperson shall call on the mover of the proposal or amendment under discussion to reply on the question of adjournment and, after such reply, which will not prejudice the right of the mover of a proposal to reply on the original question, shall put the proposal for adjournment of the debate to the vote without further debate.

(3) If the proposal be carried, the Council shall proceed to the next business on the agenda, and the discussion of the adjourned debate shall be resumed at the next meeting of the Council unless a special meeting of the Council shall be called for the purpose.

(4) On resuming an adjourned debate, the member who moved its adjournment shall be entitled to speak first. A second proposal “that the debate be adjourned” shall not be made within half-an- hour. A member shall not move or second more than one proposal for the adjournment of the same debate.

18.4 That the Question Be Now Put

(1) Any member who has not already spoken to the proposal or amendment then under debate may move “that the question be now put”. Such a proposal must be seconded, but it need not be reduced to writing. The mover and seconder shall not speak beyond formally moving and seconding it.

(2) If the Presiding Chairperson is of the opinion that the subject before the Council has been sufficiently discussed, they shall put the proposal “that the question be now put” to the vote without debate and if same is carried, the proposal or amendment under discussion shall be put to the Council.

(3) A second proposal “that the question be now put” shall not be made on the discussion of the same question within half-an-hour.

(4) A member shall not move or second more than one proposal “that the question be now put” on the discussion of the same question.

18.5 That the Council Do Now Proceed to the Next Business

(1) Any member of the Council who has not already spoken to any proposal or amendment then under debate may move, “that the Council do proceed to the next business”. Such a proposal must be seconded, but it need not be reduced to writing. The mover and seconder shall not speak beyond formally moving and seconding the proposal which shall be put to the vote without debate.

(2) If the Presiding Chairperson is of the opinion that the subject before the Council has been sufficiently discussed, they shall put the proposal “that the Council do proceed to the next business” to the vote without debate and if same is carried the proposal or amendment under discussion shall be put to the Council.

14 Ards and North Down Borough Council Standing Orders v.6 (3) When a proposal is carried “that the Council do proceed to the next business”, the question under discussion shall be considered as dropped.

(4) A second proposal “that the Council do proceed to the next business” shall not be made on the same question within half-an-hour.

(5) A member shall not move or second more than one proposal “that the Council do proceed to the next business” on the discussion of the same question.

19. Amendments to Regulatory Decisions

(1) No amendment may be moved to a minute which is a Regulatory Decision.

(2) For the purposes of these Standing Orders, a Regulatory Decision is a determination of an application for planning permission or any decision, determination, action, direction, order, approval, refusal, or enforcement action in exercise of powers of the Council as the local planning authority [or those powers specified in Executive Arrangements Regulations]; or any application for which the Council is the licensing authority.

20. Rules of Debate 20.1 Motions and amendments to be reduced to writing and seconded

(1) 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 Order 17.1, it shall be put into writing before it is further discussed or put to the meeting.

(2) A Member when seconding a motion or amendment may, if they then declare their intention to do so, reserve their speech until a later period of the debate.

20.2 Alteration of motion

(1) A Member may alter a motion of which they have given notice as proposed with the consent of the meeting. The meeting’s consent will be signified without discussion.

(2) A Member may alter a motion which they have moved without notice with the consent of both the meeting and the seconder. The meeting’s consent will be signified without discussion.

(3) Only alterations which could be made as an amendment may be made.

20.3 Withdrawal of motion

(1) A Member may withdraw a motion of which they have given notice under Standing Order 17.1 at any time after the meeting has commenced provided that they have not moved the motion or spoken on it and has the consent of the meeting. The meeting’s consent will be signified without discussion.

(2) A Member may withdraw any other motions which they have moved with the consent of both the meeting and seconder. The meeting’s consent will be signified without discussion.

(3) No Member may speak on the motion after the mover has asked permission to withdraw it unless permission is refused.

15 20.4 Mode of address

For meetings of Council, Committees and Sub-Committees the established mode of address for Members is to stand (if able to do so) when addressing the Mayor or Committee chairperson. While a Member is speaking, the other members shall remain seated unless rising to a point of order or in personal explanation. A member shall direct their speech to the question under discussion or to a personal explanation or to a point of order.

20.5 Precedence in speaking

Whenever two or more members indicate their intention to speak at the same time, the Presiding Chairperson shall decide who has precedence.

20.6 Place of member speaking

A member when addressing the Presiding Chairperson shall stand in the place allocated to them in the Council Chamber.

20.7 Member called to order

If any member, while speaking, be called to order, shall resume their seat and shall not rise again to address the Council until the Presiding Chairperson has disposed of the question of order.

20.8 Definition of point of order

A point of order shall relate only to an alleged breach of a Standing Order or statutory provision and the member shall specify the Standing Order or provision and the way in which they consider it has been broken.

20.9 Member may raise a point of order

A member may raise a point of order and shall be entitled to be heard immediately.

20.10 Ruling of Presiding Chairperson on point of order

The ruling of the Presiding Chairperson on a point of order shall not be open to discussion.

20.11 Member to speak to motion

A member who speaks shall direct their speech strictly to the Motion under discussion, or an amendment thereof.

20.12 Member shall not speak more than once

A member who has spoken on any Motion shall not speak again whilst it is the subject of debate, except:

a) to speak once on an amendment moved by another member;

b) if the Motion has been amended since they last spoke, to move a further amendment;

16 Ards and North Down Borough Council Standing Orders v.6 c) if their first speech was on an amendment moved by another Member to speak on the main issue whether or not the amendment on which they spoke was carried;

d) in the exercise of a right to reply given by Standing Order 20.19;

e) on a point of order.

20.13 Duration of speeches

Except with the permission of the Council, a member, in introducing a Motion, shall not speak for more than ten minutes and in replying, for more than five minutes. Other speakers shall be allowed one interaction which will last no longer than five minutes.

20.14 Addressing the Council

The Council during its sitting, shall not, unless with the consent of the Presiding Chairperson, be addressed by any person who is not either a member of the Council or the Chief Executive/Officer of the Council.

20.15 Only one amendment may be moved and discussed at a time

(1) Only one amendment may be moved and discussed at any one time. No further amendment may be moved until the amendment under discussion has been disposed of.

(2) If an amendment is not carried, other amendments to the original motion may be moved.

(3) If an amendment is carried, the motion as amended takes the place of the original motion. This becomes the substantive motion to which any further amendments are moved.

20.16 When a motion is under debate no other motion shall be moved

When a Motion is under debate no other Motion shall be moved except the following:

a) to amend the motion;

b) to adjourn the meeting;

c) to adjourn the debate;

d) to proceed to the next business;

e) that the question be now put;

f) that a Member be not further heard;

g) by the Presiding Chairperson under Standing Order 26.4, that a Member do leave the meeting.

20.17 Presiding Chairperson rising during debate

Whenever the Presiding Chairperson rises or otherwise calls the meeting to order during a debate, a Member then speaking shall cease and the Council shall be silent.

20.18 Presiding Chairperson not to receive motion for direct negative

The Presiding Chairperson shall not receive a Motion for a direct negative to a question but, on the conclusion of the debate, the question shall be put and resolved in the affirmative or negative.

17 20.19 Mover’s right of reply

The mover of a motion has a right to reply at the close of the debate on the motion, immediately before it is put to the vote. If an amendment is moved, the mover of the original motion shall also have a right of reply at the close of the debate on the amendment and shall not otherwise speak on the amendment. The mover of the amendment shall have no right of reply to the debate on their amendment.

21. Voting 21.1 Majority

Subject to any statutory provisions to the contrary, any matter will be decided by a simple majority of those members present and voting. A tied vote, where the Presiding Chairperson does not wish to use his/her casting vote, shall be declared not carried.

21.2 Presiding Chairperson’s casting vote

If there are equal numbers of votes for and against, the Presiding Chairperson will have a second or casting vote.

21.3 Qualified majority [Mandatory]

A qualified majority shall be required in relation to a Council’s decision on—

(a) the adoption of executive arrangements or prescribed arrangements as the Council’s form of governance (Section 19 of the 2014 Act);

(b) the method, other than d’Hondt, to be adopted for filling positions of responsibility (Schedule 1 of the 2014 Act);

(c) the method, other than Quota Greatest Remainder, to be adopted for appointing Councillors to Committees (Schedule 2 of the 2014 Act);

(d) the exercise of the general power of competence in accordance with Section 79 of the 2014 Act;

(e) a call-in made in accordance with Section 41(1) (b) of the 2014 Act; and

(f) the suspension of Standing Orders.

21.4 Show of hands

Unless a ballot or recorded vote is demanded under Standing Order 20.5, the Presiding Chairperson will take the vote by show of hands, or if there is no dissent, by the affirmation of the meeting.

21.5 Recorded vote

If, before a vote is called, any member present at the meeting demands it, the names for and against the motion or amendment or abstaining from voting will be taken down in writing and entered into the minutes. A demand for a recorded vote will override a demand for a ballot.

21.6 Single Transferable Vote (STV)

A vote using the STV method shall be deployed where there are more prescribed nominations for a fixed number of positions.

18 Ards and North Down Borough Council Standing Orders v.6 22. Call-in Process [Mandatory]

(1) In respect of those decisions to which this standing order applies, a decision of the Council must be reconsidered if a requisition is presented to the Clerk and Chief Executive of the Council signed by at least 15 % of the members of the Council.

(2) A requisition may only be presented on either or both of the following grounds;

(a) That the decision was not arrived at after a proper consideration of the relevant facts and issues (b) That the decision would disproportionately affect adversely any section of the inhabitants of the district.

(3) A call in must be submitted in writing to the clerk by 10am on the fifth working day following

(a) In the case of a decision of the council, the date of the council meeting at which the decision was taken (b) In the case of a decision of a committee, the date on which the decision to which the call in relates was published. Call-in Protocol attached at Annex 2.

(4) In respect of 2(b) above the Chief Executive of the Council will obtain the opinion of a practising solicitor or barrister.

(5) A qualified majority will be required in relation to a Council’s decision on a call-in made in accordance with Standing Order 21 (2)(b).

(6) Those decisions exempted from call in by the department will not be subject to this standing order.

(7) The following decisions shall not be subject to call-in:

(a) a decision on a regulatory or quasi-judicial function which is subject to a separate appeal mechanism, or (b) a decision where an unreasonable delay could be prejudicial to the Council’s or the public’s interests.

(8) No decision shall be subject to call-in more than once for each of the reasons specified in Section 41 (1) of the 2014 Act.

Full mandatory section in respect of Call-in attached at Annex 3.

23. Positions of responsibility, etc. – Time Limits [Mandatory]

(1) Subject to sub-paragraph (2) of this standing order, in relation to positions of responsibility selected in accordance with paragraphs 2(1) and 2(2) of Schedule 1 to the 2014 Act, the period specified for—

(a) the nominating officer to select a position of responsibility and the term for which it shall be held; and (b) the person nominated to accept the selected position shall be15 minutes.

(2) An extension to the period specified in sub-paragraph (1) of this standing order may be granted subject to the approval of the Council. Such an extension may be requested by—

(a) the nominating officer; (b) the person nominated to hold the selected position; or (c) another member.

19 24. Appointment of more than one Committee [Mandatory]

(1) Where the Council appoints more than one Committee at the same meeting in accordance with paragraph 5 of Schedule 2 to the 2014 Act, for the purposes of determining the number of places that must be allocated across the parties and independent members of the Council, it shall agree—

(a) the number of Committees to be appointed; and

(b) the number of Councillors that shall constitute the membership of each Committee.

(2) The total number of places to which a nominating officer of a party may nominate Councillors who stood in the name of that party when elected must be calculated in accordance with paragraphs 2 to 4 of Schedule 2 to the 2014 Act and any resolution of the Council made thereunder.

(3) A nominating officer’s function under paragraph 2(1)(b) of Schedule 2 to the 2014 Act shall be exercised in such manner as to ensure that—

(a) all members of a Committee are not nominated by the same nominating officer;

(b) a nominating officer of a party may nominate Councillors who stood in the name of that party to fill the majority of places on a Committee, if the majority of Councillors stood in the name of that party; and

(c) subject to (a) and (b), the number of Councillors nominated by each nominating officer of a party, in so far as is reasonably practicable, bear the same proportion to the number of places on that Committee as is borne by the number of members who stood in the name of that party.

(4) Nominations made in accordance with sub-paragraph (3) of this standing order shall take into account any positions of responsibility on a Committee held by a Councillor who stood in the name of a party.

25. Rescission of a Preceding Resolution

(1) No motion to rescind any resolution passed within the preceding six months, and no motion or amendment to the same effect as one which has been rejected within the preceding six months, shall be proposed by a member unless the notice thereof given in pursuance of Standing Order 17.1 bears the names of at least 15% of the members of the Council.

(2) When any such motion or amendment has been disposed of by the Council, it shall not be open to any member to propose a similar motion within a further period of six months.

(3) This Standing Order shall not apply to motions moved in pursuance of a recommendation of a Committee [or a Call-in]

26. Members’ conduct 26.1 Speaking through the Chair

When a member speaks at the Council they must stand (if able to do so) and address the meeting through the Presiding Chairperson. If more than one member wishes to speak, the Presiding Chairperson will ask one to speak and will allow the other members to speak in turn.

20 Ards and North Down Borough Council Standing Orders v.6 26.2 Presiding Chairperson standing

When the Presiding Chairperson stands during a debate, any member speaking at the time must stop and retake their seat. The meeting must be silent.

26.3 Member not to be heard further

If at a meeting any member of the Council, misconducts himself/herself by persistently disregarding the ruling of the chair, or by behaving irregularly, improperly or offensively or by willfully obstructing the business of the Council, the Presiding Chairperson or any other member may move “that the member named be not further heard”. The Motion, if seconded, shall be put and determined without discussion.

26.4 Member to leave the meeting

If the member named continues to behave improperly after such a motion is carried, the Presiding Chairperson or any other member may move that either the member leaves the meeting or that the meeting is adjourned for a specified period. If seconded, the motion will be voted on without discussion.

26.5 General disturbance

When the Presiding Chairperson is of the opinion that the due and orderly dispatch of business is impossible, they in addition to any other powers vested in them may, without question put, adjourn the meeting of the Council for such period as they in their discretion shall consider expedient.

26.6 Conduct during the meeting

Members must have due regard to the provisions of the Northern Ireland Local Government Code of Conduct for Councillors in relation to their conduct during the whole proceedings of a meeting of Council or Committee. Annex 1 Protocol for the Operation of Ards and North Down Borough Council Planning Committee Annex 2 Call-in Protocol Annex 3 Mandatory section in respect of Call-in

27. Disturbance by public 27.1 Removal of member of the public

If a member of the public interrupts proceedings, the Presiding Chairperson will warn the person concerned. If they continue to interrupt, the Chairperson will order their removal from the meeting room.

27.2 Clearance of part of meeting room

If there is a general disturbance in any part of the meeting room open to the public, the Presiding Chairperson may call for that part to be cleared.

21 28. Suspension and amendment of Standing Orders 28.1 Suspension

A member may move a motion for the suspension of one or more of these Council Standing Orders. A motion under this Standing Order shall require the support of a qualified majority vote within the meaning of Section 40 of the 2014 Act. Suspension can only be for the duration of the meeting. The minutes of the meeting must record the reason for the suspension. Mandatory Standing Orders may not be suspended by a Council. Non-mandatory Standing Orders may not be suspended by a Committee unless there is delegated powers in place to do so.

28.2 Amendment

Any motion to, add to, vary or revoke these Standing Orders will, when proposed and seconded, stand adjourned be referred without discussion to the next ordinary meeting of the Council and any resultant amendment will be ratified at an ordinary meeting of the Council.

29. Civil Emergencies

In the event of any civil emergency or any situation in which urgent actions are required and it is either not reasonably practicable to convene a meeting of Council or Committee, or if any such meetings if called are inquorate, the Chief Executive or any Director nominated by him may exercise all or any of the functions of the Council except those which are reserved to the Council pursuant to Section 7 of the Local Government Act (NI) 2014. Any decisions taken pursuant to this Standing Order will be reported to the relevant Committee or Council at the next available meeting. This Standing Order may be read alongside the Council’s Scheme of Delegation but operates separately to it.

30. Remote Attendance 30.1

In line with the Local Government (Coronavirus) (Flexibility of District Council Meetings) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2020, any reference in these Standing Orders to a Council or Committee meeting is not limited to a meeting of persons all of whom, or any of whom, are present in the same place and any reference to a “place” where a meeting is held, or to be held, includes reference to more than one place including electronic, digital or virtual locations such as internet locations, web addresses or conference call telephone numbers.

30.2

An Elected Member in remote attendance attends the meeting at any time provided they are able:

(a) to hear, and where practicable see, and be so heard, and where practicable be seen by, the other members in attendance;

(b) to hear, and where practicable see, and be so heard and, where practicable, be seen by, any members of the public in attendance in order to exercise a right to speak at the meeting; and

(c) to be so heard and, where practicable, be seen by any other members of the public in attendance.

22 Ards and North Down Borough Council Standing Orders v.6 30.3

Any reference in these Standing Orders to a member of the public or press being present at a meeting includes such persons attending by remote access, and the reference in Standing Order 8.1 to every meeting being “open to the public and press” includes through enabling remote access.

30.4

References in Standing Orders 10 and 27 to excluding the public and press from the Council Chamber or removing them from the room, shall be read as removing their remote access where their attendance is, or would be but for their exclusion, remote attendance.

30.5

There is no requirement for an Elected Member in remote attendance to stand when addressing the Presiding Chairperson in line with Standing Order 20.6.

30.6

A Presiding Chairperson in remote attendance shall call a meeting to order, rather than rise to do so, in line with Standing Order 20.17.

30.7

Any vote that would otherwise be taken by a show of hands in line with Standing Order 21.4 will, if any of the Elected Members entitled to vote are in remote attendance, be taken by way of a verbal confirmation from each Member as to whether they are for or against the motion.

31. Interpretation of Standing Orders

The ruling of the Presiding Chairperson as to the interpretation, construction or application of any of these Standing Orders or as to any proceedings of the Council, shall not be challenged at any meeting of the Council.

23 24 Ards and North Down Borough Council Standing Orders v.6 ANNEX 1

Protocol for the Operation of Ards and North Down Borough Council Planning Committee

25 Annex 1 List of Contents

Purpose of the Protocol 25 Remit of the Planning Committee 25 Size of Committee 26 Frequency of Meetings 26 Scheme of Delegation 26 Enforcement 26 Referral of Delegated Application to Committee 27 Format of Committee Meetings 28 Pre-Determination Hearings 29 Public Speaking 30 Running Order 30 Committee Decisions 31 Deferrals 33 Submission of Information 33 Site Visits 33 Training 34 Network 34 Review of Decisions 35 Legal Adviser 35 Review of Protocol 35 Appendix 1 36

26 Ards and North Down Borough Council Standing Orders v.6 Purpose of the Protocol

1. The purpose of this protocol is to outline practical handling arrangements for the operation of Ards and North Down Borough Council’s Planning Committee.

2. The protocol should be read in conjunction with the Council’s agreed Standing Orders and the Code of Conduct for Councillors. It is not intended to replace either document.

Remit of the Planning Committee Development Management

3. The main role of the Planning Committee is to consider planning applications made to the Council as the local planning authority and decide whether or not they should be approved. To this end the Planning Committee of Ards and North Down Borough Council has full delegated authority, meaning that the decisions of the Committee will not go to the full Council for ratification.

Development Plan

4. Ards and North Down Borough Council is required by Section 8 of the Planning Act (NI) 2011 to prepare a plan for its district. This plan forms the basis for public and private investment decisions, providing a degree of certainty as to how land will be developed. In law, planning applications must be determined in accordance with the development plan unless other material considerations indicate otherwise. This means that where land is zoned for a particular use, the Planning Committee should ensure it is reserved for that use: for example, an application for housing in an area zoned for housing should be approved unless the design and layout fails in terms of the environmental, open space and access standards, or its design and layout has a detrimental impact on the character of the area or neighbouring amenity.

5. The Planning Committee’s role in relation to the local development plan is to contribute to the development of and approve the local development plan before it is passed by resolution of the Council. The Planning Committee should also ensure that the local development plan is monitored annually, particularly in terms of the availability of housing and economic development land, and that it is reviewed every five years, giving consideration to whether there is a need to change the plan strategy or the zonings, designations and policies as contained in the local policies plan.

Development Plan Transition Arrangements

6. Until such time as Ards and North Down Borough Council has adopted its plan strategy the local development plans for the Council area will be taken to be the extant Departmental development plans, namely; the Belfast Metropolitan Area Plan and the Ards and Down Area Plan.

7. When the Council’s Plan Strategy is formally adopted, the local development plan will be the Council’s adopted plan strategy and the extant Departmental development plans, namely the Belfast Metropolitan Area Plan and the Ards and Down Area Plan, read together. If there is a conflict between the Council’s plan strategy and the extant Departmental development plan the conflict shall be settled in favour of the Council’s adopted plan strategy.

8. When the Council has adopted its local policies plan, the local development plan will be the Council’s adopted plan strategy and local policy plan as defined in Section 6 of the 2011 Act.

Enforcement

9. The enforcement of planning controls are delegated to appointed officers with the Planning Committee receiving regular reports on the progress of enforcement activities.

Annex 1 27 Size of the Planning Committee

10. Ards and North Down Borough Council Planning Committee comprises of 15 Members with no substitutions being permitted.

11. The Head of Planning will attend all Planning Committee meetings in addition to planning officers presenting their reports and recommendations.

Frequency of Meetings

12. In accordance with the Council’s Standing Orders, Committees will be held on a monthly basis. The Planning Committee of Ards and North Down Borough Council will meet on the first Tuesday in every month at 7pm in the Council Chamber at 2 Church Street, Newtownards. The Committee shall from time to time fix its own day and hour of meeting and notify the Council. Committee meeting dates and times will be published monthly on the Council’s website in advance of each meeting.

Scheme of Delegation

13. Section 31 of the Planning Act (NI) 2011 requires the Council to produce a Scheme of Delegation for operation in its area. A Scheme of Delegation is where decision-making for local applications is delegated to an appointed officer rather than the Council, thereby enabling speedier decisions and improved efficiency.

14. The Council’s Scheme of Delegation relates only to those applications that fall within the definition of regulation 2 of the Planning (Development Management) Regulations (NI) 2015. Certain statutory restrictions that apply to the Council’s scheme prevent particular types of application from being delegated to officers, thereby requiring them to be determined by the Planning Committee. The Scheme of Delegation agreed by Ards and North Down Borough Council reflects these restrictions and can be viewed on the Council’s website.

Enforcement

15. In accordance with the Planning Committee’s Scheme of Delegation, the enforcement of planning controls are delegated to appointed officers. The Planning Committee will be informed of progress on cases and can request a report from officers to the Committee on any enforcement matter.

16. The Head of Planning will prepare a quarterly report on enforcement including the progress of formal enforcement cases which will be circulated to all elected Members, detailing the number of live cases, details of notices issued, prosecutions and any other information deemed relevant.

17. An enforcement strategy detailing how enforcement action will be dealt with has been agreed by the Planning Committee and can be viewed on the Council’s website.

28 Ards and North Down Borough Council Standing Orders v.6 Referral of Delegated Applications to the Planning Committee

18. A weekly list of validated applications will be prepared and circulated to all Council Members and will be published on the Council website.

19. Members of the Council can request that a delegated application be referred (‘called-in’) to the Planning Committee.

20. In such cases, Members must notify the Head of Planning of requests in writing or by email stating clearly the reason(s) for such requests. Valid planning reasons must be provided for all applications ‘called-in’. Requests must be made within 25 working days of the application being made valid; however, Members should be aware that applications can be determined after the expiration of 14 days from the date the application is first advertised, neighbour notified or first published on the Council’s website, whichever date is the later or latest.

21. In addition, where applications have been delegated to officers, Planning Committee Members will be notified by email at noon on a Monday of a list of delegated decisions made but not yet issued which will detail the reference number, proposal, location, decision, number of objections, and a hyperlink to connect to the relevant part of the Planning Portal to enable Planning Committee Members to view more details about the application. If considered appropriate, Planning Committee Members can then request that applications are ‘called-in’. Such requests must be received via the [email protected] inbox (marked as ‘Call-In’ in the subject line) by 12 noon on the Wednesday (within 48 hours).

22. In either of the above circumstances an authorised senior officer will then liaise with the Chairperson to determine whether the reasons which have been set out constitute valid planning reasons so as to merit referral to the Planning Committee. If the reasons do not constitute valid planning reasons the member will be advised accordingly.

23. The agenda for the following meeting will be amended as soon as possible to reflect those applications that have been ‘called-in’.

24. The Head of Planning may also consider it prudent to refer a delegated application to the Planning Committee for determination.

25. Members of the public cannot directly request that an application be referred to the Planning Committee.

26. The number and nature of delegated applications referred to the Planning Committee will be reviewed on a regular basis.

Annex 1 29 Format of Planning Committee Meetings

27. Ards and North Down Borough Council will operate its Planning Committee in line with its approved Standing Orders. Standard Items

28. The agenda will allow for the inclusion of the following items:

• Notice of Meeting • Apologies • Declarations of Interests • Approval of the minutes of the previous meeting • Schedule of Planning Applications • Development Plan Issues • Enforcement Matters

Committee Papers

29. All Planning Committee Members will be sent an agenda five days in advance of the committee meeting. The following papers (where appropriate) will also be provided:

• Minutes of the previous meeting; • Details of Development Plan issues; • Details of relevant Enforcement matters; • Details of proposed pre-determination hearings; • Details of non-delegated applications (including those brought back following deferral) for consideration by the Planning Committee; • Details of applications of regional significance with an impact upon the Council area in response of which the Council is a statutory consultee or where it may wish to make representations; • Performance Management Reports.

30. When considered appropriate two sets of the detailed drawings will be made available in Members’ Room in both Church Street, Newtownards and in The Castle, Bangor for inspection from the Thursday before and each day up to and including the day of the scheduled Planning Committee meeting.

31. The Chairperson and Vice Chairperson of the Planning Committee along with the Head of Planning will hold a briefing session with planning officers on each application to be considered in advance of the Planning Committee meeting (normally ten days prior to the next Planning Committee meeting).

32. Where necessary, planning officers will prepare an addendum on the day of the Planning Committee meeting to report any updates since the agenda was issued.

33. Planning Committee meetings will be open to the public.

Declarations of Interests

34. At the beginning of every meeting, Members will be asked to declare an interest in any item on the agenda and must leave the Council Chamber (including the Public Gallery) for that item. Once discussions are complete, Members will be invited to return.

30 Ards and North Down Borough Council Standing Orders v.6 Pre-Determination Hearings

35. In order to enhance scrutiny of applications for major development which may raise issues with particular sensitivity for a local area, Regulation 7 of the Planning (Development Management) Regulations (NI) 2015 sets out a mandatory requirement for pre-determination hearings for those major developments which have been subject to notification (i.e. referred to the Department for call-in consideration, but that have been returned to a Council for determination). In such cases Ards and North Down Borough Council’s Planning Committee will hold a hearing prior to the application being determined.

36. In addition, the Planning Committee may also hold pre-determination hearings, at its discretion, when considered necessary, to take on board local community views, as well as those in support of the development. The intention is to give applicants and those who have submitted relevant representations the opportunity to be heard by the Planning Committee before it takes a decision. This will make the application process for major development more inclusive and transparent.

37. Any hearing should take place after the expiry of the period for making representations on the application but before the Planning Committee decides the application. It will be for the Planning Committee to decide whether it wishes to have a hearing on the same day as the related planning application is determined by the Planning Committee or to hold a separate hearing on a different day. The scale and complexity of the planning issues will have to be considered. In holding a hearing the Planning Committee procedures can be the same as for the normal Planning Committee meetings. The Planning Officer will produce a report detailing the processing of the application to date and the planning issues to be considered. If the Planning Committee decides to hold the hearing on the same day as it wishes to determine the application the report to elected Members should also contain a recommendation.

38. Whilst the Planning Committee will endeavour to hold its pre-determination hearings outwith the Planning Committee meeting at which the application will be considered, it is recognised that this may not always be possible.

Annex 1 31 Public Speaking Procedures for Public Speaking

39. The following procedures will apply to Ards and North Down Borough Council Planning Committee meetings:

• Requests to speak should be received by the Council (in writing or by email) at least 5 working days prior to the scheduled Planning Committee meeting (this includes requests from Members). Late requests will not be accommodated. The request must set out the planning reasons that the speaker wishes to raise. At the meeting the Chairperson will decide whether to allow any relevant information to be tabled which was not made available to Members in advance of the meeting; • Written requests should be addressed to Ards and North Down Borough Council Planning Department and highlighted “Request to Speak”; Email requests should be sent to planning@ ardsandnorthdown.gov.uk and specify “Request to Speak” in the subject line; • Members, whether or not on the Planning Committee, may speak in opposition or support of a proposal – in the case of a Member of the Planning Committee, that Member must declare an interest and be excluded from any discussion and decision on the application; • Members may speak for 5 minutes; however, where there is more than one request to speak, the 5 minutes will be shared or one Member can be appointed to speak. This 5 minutes applies to both speaking in opposition to or in support of the proposal; • In addition to Members addressing the Planning Committee, one member of the public (including agents/representatives) from those objecting to the proposal and one person in support of the proposal will be permitted to speak. Where there is more than one request to speak, the 5 minutes will be shared or one person can be appointed to speak; • Members of the public seeking to speak will be expected to have organised themselves in advance of the Planning Committee meeting and informed the Council of details of those individuals intending to share the time or of an appointed speaker; • The Planning Committee can seek clarification of those who have spoken but must not enter into a debate on any issue raised; • No documentation should be circulated at the meeting to any Members by speakers; • Applications where there will be speakers from the public will be taken first where possible; • Planning officers can address any issues raised.

40. The Chairperson may extend speaking times to 8 minutes only under exceptional circumstances.

41. Where an application has been debated by Planning Committee but no decision made and it is then deferred for any reason, when it is returned to a subsequent Planning Committee meeting there shall be no further exercise of speaking rights, whether or not exercised at the original meeting. It is considered that all points to be raised in support of or against the proposal should have been addressed through speaking rights at the original meeting at which the Planning Committee debated the proposal.

Running Order

42. Details of the running order for discussion of planning applications is included as Appendix 1 to this Protocol.

32 Ards and North Down Borough Council Standing Orders v.6 Committee Decisions

43. The main role of the Planning Committee is to consider applications made to the Council as the local planning authority and decide whether or not they should be approved.

44. A Planning Officer will prepare a report which will be circulated in advance. Members will be expected to appraise themselves of any relevant drawings/plans and other relevant information available to them on the Planning Portal. The application will be presented and a recommendation made on whether the application should be approved, approved with conditions or refused. Plans and photographs may be shown as appropriate.

45. After the Planning Officer presents the report, elected Members will have an opportunity to ask questions of the planning officer relating to the proposed development, those speaking for or against the proposal, and debate the case.

Committee Decision Making Options

46. The Planning Committee will discuss applications presented to it during the Planning Committee meeting before taking a vote on one of the following options:

• Approve the application with conditions as recommended; • Approve the application with amended conditions; • Refuse the application for the reasons recommended; • Refuse the application with additional or different reasons recommended; • Defer the application to allow additional information/clarification to be provided or a site visit to be arranged.

47. Any additional conditions/reasons for refusal must be proposed and seconded before being voted on by Members.

48. Members must be present for the entire item, including the officer’s introduction and update; otherwise they cannot take part in the debate or vote on that item. This also applies to those applications deferred from a previous meeting i.e. if a member was absent from the previous meeting at which an application was debated, but no decision reached and subsequently deferred, that member cannot take part in the vote on that application at the next meeting.

49. The Committee Chairperson has a casting vote.

50. A recorded vote will be taken where a motion is not unanimous whereby the names of Members voting for and against the proposal will be recorded manually and entered into the minutes.

51. Elected Members can add conditions to an approval but they cannot amend the application itself (for example, by allowing a one-bedroom flat if the application is for a two-bedroom flat). Any additional conditions should be proposed and seconded before being voted on by Members. Members should be aware that conditions can be tested at appeal and based on planning case law there are a number of requirements that they should therefore meet, namely that they should be necessary, relevant to planning and the development under consideration, enforceable, precise and reasonable in all other respects.

Decisions Contrary to Officer Recommendation

52. The Planning Committee has to reach its own decision. Planning officers offer advice and make a recommendation. Planning officers’ views, opinions and recommendations may, on occasion, be at odds with the views, opinions or decisions of the Planning Committee or its Members. There should always be scope for Members to express a different view from planning officers in appropriate circumstances.

53. The Planning Committee can accept, reject or place a different interpretation on, or give different weight to, the various arguments and material planning considerations.

Annex 1 33 54. Planning Committee decisions contrary to planning officer recommendation may be subject to legal challenge. Members should therefore ensure that the planning reasons for the decision are set out and based on proper planning reasons. The planning officer should always be given the opportunity to explain the implications of the Planning Committee’s decision.

55. Decisions contrary to an officer’s recommendation must be formally recorded in the Planning Committee minutes and a copy placed on the planning application file / electronic record.

56. Elected Members who reject a planning application that planning officers have advised them to accept, risk being overturned on appeal (to the Planning Appeals Commission), with the potential for costs awarded against the Council if no sound reasons for the decision have been given. The Chairperson should seek the views of planning officers (including the Council’s legal adviser (if appropriate) before going to the vote in terms of reasons for refusal that are contrary to an officer’s recommendation. Officers should endeavour to summarise what are considered to be the main reasons for refusal referred to by Members during the debate and include advice on what would be reasonable and what would not be reasonable reasons for refusal.

57. If officers consider that the suggested planning refusal reasons are reasonable and capable of being defended on appeal, Members should vote on the reasons for refusal. If the view of officers is that the reasons for refusal are either in whole or in part not capable of being defended then Members should give consideration to deferring determination of the planning application until the next Planning Committee and ask for a further report to ensure it has all the relevant information it considers necessary to inform its decision. Advice and assistance should be sought from the Council’s legal advisers, as necessary.

Appeal Contrary to Officer Recommendation

58. In the event of an appeal against a refusal of planning permission contrary to an officer’s recommendation, planning consultants or different planning officers than those who made the original recommendation may be appointed to represent the Council at appeal.

Overturning recommendation to refuse

59. If the Planning Committee decides to approve an application against an officer’s recommendation to refuse, the Planning Committee should be aware that, while there is no right of third party appeal, there is the possibility that the decision could be subject to judicial review.

60. Written minutes will be recorded at all Planning Committee meetings which will be published on the Council’s website. All minutes taken at Planning Committee meetings must reflect the discussions and decisions taken during the meetings as these could be used as evidence should any complaints be made about how decisions were taken.

Decisions Contrary to Local Development Plans

61. Planning decisions should be taken in accordance with the local development plan (in so far as it is relevant to the application) unless material considerations indicate otherwise.

62. Should a Planning Committee member propose, second or support a decision contrary to the local development plan they will need to clearly identify and understand the planning reasons for doing so, and clearly demonstrate how these reasons justify overruling the local development plan.

63. The reasons for any decisions which are made contrary to the development plan must be formally recorded in the minutes and a copy placed on the planning application file / electronic record.

64. All decisions, whether taken by the Council’s appointed planning officer, or by the Planning Committee, are decisions made by Ards and North Down Borough Council, and may be subject to challenge either by judicial review or appeal.

34 Ards and North Down Borough Council Standing Orders v.6 Deferrals

65. The Planning Committee can decide to defer consideration of an application to the next Planning Committee meeting to allow additional information/clarification to be provided or a site visit to be arranged. Such a decision should be proposed, seconded and subject to a majority vote.

66. Members of the Planning Committee should be aware that deferrals will inevitably have an adverse effect on processing times and will prolong future meetings, and therefore should be used as an exception. Members should therefore restrict themselves, where possible, to one deferral only per application. In addition, there should be clear reasons why a deferral is necessary.

Submission of Information

67. In the interests of efficient and timely decision-making on those applications being presented to the Planning Committee with a recommendation, it is imperative that all relevant and appropriate information as required has been received by planning officers, whether in support of or in opposition to proposals. To this effect no additional information will be accepted by the Council after 5pm on the Tuesday prior to the Planning Committee meeting scheduled to hear that application (one full week prior).

Site Visits

68. Planning Committee site visits can be useful to identify very important features of a proposal that may be impossible to convey in a written report or by photographs, video, plans and drawings. Site visits can cause delay and should only be used where the expected benefit is substantial.

69. Planning Committee visits will normally be arranged by the Head of Planning, in consultation with the Chairperson, where in their judgement the substantial benefit test applies, i.e.

• The impact of the proposed development is difficult/impossible to visualise from the officer’s report, photographs, video, plans, drawings and any other supporting material; • There is good reason why the comments of the applicant and objectors cannot be expressed adequately in writing; • The proposal is particularly contentious; • Non-visual considerations such as noise and smell are key issues on which the application will be determined.

70. If Planning Committee Members defer consideration of an application for a site visit this should only follow a formal proposal, the substantial benefit test and the vote being taken. The reason for deferral for a Planning Committee site visit shall be minuted.

71. The purpose of the Planning Committee site visit is a fact finding exercise which is not part of the formal consideration of the application and therefore public rights of attendance/speaking do not apply. The purpose is not to make a decision on the application.

72. Where a site visit is agreed, the planning case officer will contact the applicant/agent to arrange access to the site. Invitations will then be sent to Members of the Planning Committee

73. At the site visit the merits of application should not be discussed. The purpose of any discussion is to direct Planning Committee Members to the matters they have come to view or experience. Neither the applicant/agent, objectors, supporters, the Council nor any other member of the public, will be permitted to address Planning Committee Members, either individually or as a group. It is a function of the Chairperson of the Planning Committee, but also of any officer present and the Planning Committee Members themselves, to make this clear at the visit or beforehand if a member of the public enquires.

Annex 1 35 74. Members of the Planning Committee should not carry out their own unaccompanied site visits as there may be issues relating to permission for access to land, they will not have the information provided by the Planning Officer, and, in some circumstances (e.g. where an elected member is seen with applicant or objector) it might lead to allegations of bias.

75. Site visits must not be requested in any of the following cases:

• To consider boundary or neighbour disputes; • To consider objections raised on competition grounds; • To consider objections raised on the grounds of loss of property values; • To consider any other issues which are not material planning considerations; • Where Members of the Planning Committee have already visited a site within the last year, except in exceptional circumstances; or • To consider representations from friends, neighbours or relatives.

Site Visit Procedure

76. The Chairperson of the Planning Committee will oversee the conduct of site visits. They will start promptly at the time notified to Members and planning officers. At the request of the Planning Committee Chairperson, the planning officer may be invited to describe the proposal to Members. Whilst Planning Committee Members will be expected to be familiar with the planning officer’s report, plans/drawings may be used where necessary.

77. The planning officer may indicate matters of fact in relation to the proposal and surrounding land which Members can take account of. Through the Planning Committee Chairperson, Members may ask the planning officer for factual clarification on any planning matter relating to the proposal or surrounding land, such as distances to adjoining properties or the location of proposed car parking.

78. At no time during the site visit should Members debate the merits of the planning application. To do so outwith the Planning Committee meeting might imply that Members had made their mind up.

79. In order to assist Members to retain their objectivity, they should keep together in one group with the Chairperson and the planning officer and should avoid breaking away into smaller groups. Once a site visit is concluded, Members should leave the site promptly.

Record Keeping

80. The planning officer will keep a record of Members’ attendance at the site visit and will pass this information to Democratic Services for minute purposes. The planning officer will also prepare a written report on the site visit. This report will be presented at the next meeting of the Planning Committee scheduled to discuss the particular application.

Training

81. It is recommended that participating Planning Committee Members continue to attend relevant training on planning matters as required and/or provided in association with the Head of Planning.

Network

82. It is anticipated that a network of Planning Committee Chairpersons will be established and that Members should meet regularly to discuss items of common interest. Ards and North Down Borough Council will contribute to this network once established.

36 Ards and North Down Borough Council Standing Orders v.6 Review of Decisions

83. On an annual basis Members of the Planning Committee should inspect a sample of implemented planning decisions in order to assess the quality of decision-making. This should include a sample of decisions delegated to officers to give assurance that the scheme of delegation is operating effectively and in line with the council’s views. Procedures will be prepared to assist with this review.

Legal Adviser

84. Ards and North Down Borough Council will have access to legal advice to support the planning function. Members may require the Legal Adviser to provide legal advice on an issue which arises during the course of a meeting of the Planning Committee. In such circumstances, the Committee shall meet ‘in Committee’ with only Members of the Planning Committee, presiding officials and the legal adviser(s) remaining in the room. For the avoidance of doubt, all councillors who are not Members of the Planning Committee and Members of the said Committee who have chosen to speak as a supporter or objector to an application will be required to withdraw from the room while the legal advice is provided on the matter arising.

Review of Protocol

85. This protocol will be monitored and procedures reviewed as necessary to ensure that they remain current and relevant to the operational needs of the Ards and North Down Borough Council Planning Committee.

Annex 1 37 APPENDIX 1 RUNNING ORDER FOR PLANNING APPLICATIONS

1. Presentation of Application a. Oral update if required to report any updates since agenda Planning Officer was issued b. Presentation of application Planning Officer Officers’ reports will have been available on the NI Planning Portal and have been circulated to Planning Committee Members in advance.

The officer will detail the following: • Application Number • District Electoral Area • Committee Interest (why before Planning Committee) • Proposal • Site/Location • Any other facts considered necessary for the information of the Planning Committee

The officer will provide clarification on any issue raised by Planning Committee Members.

2. Speaking Arrangements a. People speaking in opposition of the application Chairperson (‘Against’)

5 minute allocation b. People speaking in support of the application Chairperson (‘For’)

5 minute allocation c. Member speaking in opposition of the application Chairperson (‘Against’)

5 minute allocation d. Member speaking in support of the application Chairperson (‘For’)

5 minute allocation The same procedure will be used for each speaker:

• Welcome by the Chairperson, including reminder to keep to planning issues and stating time limit. • Speaking, with Democratic Services Officer timing

Clarification questions from Planning Committee Members through the Chairperson – these should be points of fact, policy or other technical aspects and only refer to issues raised by the speakers

38 Ards and North Down Borough Council Standing Orders v.6 3. Debate a. Indication of Members who wish to speak Chairperson An initial indication to ensure all Planning Committee Members are able to speak or ask for additional information/clarification. Does not pre- clude another Member speaking later during the debate b. Debate (Planning Committee Members, through Chairperson, support Chairperson/ from officers) Planning Committee Member debate on the planning issues for the application. To be Members/Officers framed by (but not restricted to) the issues identified in the officer report and the resulting recommendation. Clarification available from officers. c. Invite proposing and seconding of the recommendation/alternative Chairperson recommendation (if applicable based on debate) If the debate appears to be contrary to the officer recommendations (i.e. decision to overturn or revision to conditions etc.) then the Chair- person should invite a proposal for alternative recommendation or deferral. If the debate appears to support a vote in line with officer recommendation, no action is required.

4. Vote a. Checking that the Planning Committee is ready to vote Chairperson The Chair will ascertain if the Planning Committee as a whole whether it feels it is now ready to vote on the application, leaving a pause for any Member to either request that the debate should continue or to seek clarification on a matter of fact, policy or other technical aspect. b. Summing up Chairperson Short conclusion, returning to the main issues raised by the officer re- port, the way in which Members have explored these and other issues. Clear reminder of the motion and the implication of a vote in either direction. c. Vote Democratic Services Clear show of hands raised above the head and held in place until the clerk acknowledges the count. Voting first in favour of the motion, then against, then for abstentions. Anyone not voting is subsequently deemed to have abstained. d. Recording of Decision Chairperson/ Democratic Services to announce the number of votes in each direction. Democratic Services Individual member voting to be recorded where not unanimous. Chair to clearly announce the decision and to be included in the minutes.

Annex 1 39 40 Ards and North Down Borough Council Standing Orders v.6 ANNEX 2

Call-in Protocol

41 Call-in Protocol

It is recommended that a decision log (cleared by the relevant Director) be issued within five working days of a Committee meeting.

In respect of decisions made by Council, it is recommended that a decision log (cleared by the Chief Executive) be issued within five working days. This would include:- • Any amended Committee decisions • Any Notice of Motion debated at the Council meeting • Any reports upon which decisions are taken In all cases, the Call-in timeframe would commence upon receipt of the relevant correspondence as outlined. This process will impact upon the actioning of decisions following Council meetings, to allow for the call-in period to be completed.

A Call-in of a decision must be received by the Chief Executive within five working days of receipt of a decision log, and no later than 5.00pm on that day. The following process would then apply:-

Requests for Call-in for procedural reasons

If, at 5.00pm on the fifth working day following the provision of the relevant correspondence at least 6 Members have requested a decision which is subject to Call In to be reconsidered (on procedural grounds) and have stated on their request the reasons why this should be the case, the Chief Executive shall within 1 working day of that date confirm that the request has the support of the minimum number of Members required and that those Members have stated the reason why the particular decision should be reconsidered. If any Call In request from a Member has not highlighted on their request why the decision should be reconsidered and have not redressed that omission upon being advised of such by the Chief Executive within the Call In period, then the Chief Executive will deem that request to be inadmissible.

If a decision is properly Called In by at least 6 members then a meeting of an Ad Hoc Committee comprising the Chairs and Vice Chairs of the 5 Standing Committees will be convened to consider if the Call In request is a valid one. That Ad Hoc Committee will be entitled to:

1. Decide that the request is valid and refer the decision back to the Committee which made it for reconsideration. In which case the decision will not be up for ratification at the Council meeting;

2. Decide that the request is not valid and, in the case of a decision taken under a Committee’s delegated authority, decide that the decision should be implemented or

3. Decide that the request is not valid and, in the case of a decision for ratification by the Council, refer the decision to the Council. Requests for Call-in on grounds of Community Impact

Any request for Call In of a decision on Community Impact Grounds must state in the reasons given as to why the decision should be called in:

1. The community that would be affected by the decision; and

2. The nature and extent of the disproportionate adverse impact

After the expiry of the five working days following the provision of the relevant correspondence, if the minimum required number of Members (6) have properly called in a decision and given the required evidence then the Chief Executive will within one working day seek the opinion of a practising solicitor or barrister.

42 Ards and North Down Borough Council Standing Orders v.6 Where the legal opinion confirms that the call in has merit, the Chief Executive will:

1. Circulate the legal opinion to all Members; and

2. Include the decision in question on the agenda for the next available meeting of the Council at which any decision will be required to be taken by a qualified majority (80%) of Members present and voting.

Where the legal opinion indicates that the call in does not have merit, the Chief Executive will:

1. Circulate the legal opinion to all Members; and

2. Make arrangements for the decision to be implemented (where the original Committee making the decision had delegated powers) or tabled for ratification at the Council meeting on the usual simple majority system.

Annex 2 43 44 Ards and North Down Borough Council Standing Orders v.6 ANNEX 3

Mandatory Section in respect of Call-in

45 Extract from The Local Government (Standing Orders) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2015 – Call-in

Decisions subject to call-in

3. (1) The following decisions may be subject to call-in and in such manner as is specified in these standing orders—

(a) a decision of the council; (b)a decision of the executive; (c) an executive decision taken under joint arrangements in accordance with section 26 of the 2014 Act; (d)a key decision taken by an officer of the council; (e) a decision taken by a committee under delegated authority in accordance with section 7 of the 2014 Act; and (f) a decision taken by a committee to make a recommendation for ratification by the council.

(2) The following decisions shall not be subject to call-in—

(a) a decision on a regulatory or quasi-judicial function which is subject to a separate appeal mechanism; (b) a decision which is deemed to be a case of special urgency in accordance with regulation 24 of the Executive Arrangements Regulations; (c) a decision where an unreasonable delay could be prejudicial to the council’s or the public’s interests; (d) a decision taken by an officer of the council which is not a key decision; (e) a decision by the executive which serves only to note a report from or the actions of an officer; (f)a decision which is required to be taken by a special resolution.

(3) No decision may be subject to call-in more than once for each of the grounds specified in section 41(1) of the 2014 Act.

Call-in procedure

4. (1) A call-in must be submitted in writing to the clerk by 10am on the fifth working day following—

(a) in the case of a decision of the council, the date of the council meeting at which the decision was taken; (b) in the case of a decision of a committee, the date on which the decision to which the call-in relates was published.

(2) If a call-in is received after the relevant period specified in sub-paragraph (1), it must be deemed inadmissible.

(3) A call-in shall—

(a)specify the reasons why a decision should be reconsidered; and (b)subject to sub-paragraph (6), be deemed to be inadmissible if the reasons are not specified.

(4) In the case of a call-in submitted under section 41(1)(b) of the 2014 Act, members must in the reasons specified under sub-paragraph (3)(a) specify—

(a) the section of the inhabitants of the district that would be affected by the decision; and (b) the nature and extent of the disproportionate adverse impact.

(5) Within one working day of receipt of a call-in, the clerk must confirm that—

(a) it has the support of 15 per cent of the members of council; and (b) the reasons for the call-in have been specified.

46 Ards and North Down Borough Council Standing Orders v.6 (6) Where the reasons have not been specified on the requisition, the clerk must notify the members making the requisition that it must be considered inadmissible if reasons are not specified in writing within the specified period.

(7) Within two working days of receipt of an admissible call-in submitted under section 41(1)(b) of the 2014 Act, the clerk must seek the opinion of a practising solicitor or barrister in accordance with section 41(2) of the 2014 Act.

(8) When the legal opinion obtained in accordance with section 41(2) of the 2014 Act is received, the clerk must—

(a) furnish the opinion to the members; and (b) include the decision on the agenda for the next available meeting of the council for reconsideration, at which it must be taken by a qualified majority.

The call-in process: committee arrangements

5. (1) For the purposes of reconsideration of a decision pursuant to a call-in, the minutes of a committee which record a decision—

(a) taken under delegated authority; or (b) for referral for ratification by the council must be published within five working days of the conclusion of the meeting. The date on which the minutes were published must be regarded as the relevant date for the purposes of a call-in.

(2) If a call-in is not received within the period specified in paragraph 4(1)— (a) a decision to which sub-paragraph (1)(a) applies must be implemented; or (b) a decision to which sub-paragraph (1)(b) applies must be tabled for ratification by the council.

(3) The tabling for ratification of a decision to which sub-paragraph (1)(b) applies, or the implementation of a decision to which sub-paragraph (1)(a) applies, must be postponed until the decision has been reconsidered. The decision maker may rescind the decision at any time prior to the decision being reconsidered.

(4) If a call-in is made in accordance with paragraph 4(3) and section 41(1)(a) of the 2014 Act, the council must appoint an ad hoc committee of the council, the membership of which will be—

(a) the chairpersons of all committees of the council; and (b) the deputy chairpersons of all committees of the council to consider the process adopted by the decision-making committee.

(5) The chairperson and deputy chairperson of the committee which was responsible for the decision which is the subject of the call-in must not have voting rights at a meeting of the committee appointed in accordance with sub-paragraph (4).

(6) The members of the ad hoc committee who are present shall choose a member to preside at the meeting.

(7) The members who submitted the call-in, or a member on their behalf, must be invited to attend the meeting at which the decision subject to the call-in is considered and may, upon the request of the chairperson, address the meeting, but must not have voting rights, unless they are voting members of the ad hoc committee.

(8) A committee appointed in accordance with sub-paragraph (4) may—

(a) refer the decision back to the decision maker; (b) in the case of a decision taken under delegated authority, support the decision; or (c) in the case of a decision requiring ratification by the council, refer the decision to the council.

Annex 3 47 (9) Where a decision has been supported in accordance with sub-paragraph (8), that decision must—

(a) be approved; (b) be inserted in the Register of Decisions; and (c) become operative from the date of the meeting at which the committee appointed in accordance with sub-paragraph (4) confirmed support for the decision.

The call-in process: council decisions

6. (1) If a call-in is not received within the period specified in paragraph 4(1) in respect of a decision, that decision may be implemented after that period expires.

(2) The implementation of a decision must be postponed until the decision has been reconsidered.

(3) The clerk must place a call-in on the agenda for the next meeting of the council.

The call-in process: executive arrangements

7. (1) A proper officer must, within two working days of the production of a statement in accordance with regulations 25 and 26 of the Executive Arrangements Regulations, submit to the council a notice detailing the decision(s) recorded in the statement.

(2) The notice prepared in accordance with sub-paragraph (1) must specify—

(a) those decisions that are not subject to call-in; (b) the period for receipt of a call-in; and (c) the overview and scrutiny committee, as determined by a proper officer, that will consider a call-in in accordance with section 41(1)(a) of the 2014 Act.

(3) If a call-in is not received in respect of a decision, that decision may be implemented after that period expires.

(4) If a call-in is received which specifies that the decision was not taken in accordance with the budget or policy framework agreed by the council, the call-in must be referred to the council for decision.

(5) The implementation of a decision must be postponed until the decision has been reconsidered. The decision maker may rescind the decision at any time prior to the decision being reconsidered.

(6) Subject to sub-paragraph (4) the clerk must place a call-in on the agenda of the overview and scrutiny committee specified in the notice prepared in accordance with sub-paragraph (2).

(7) The overview and scrutiny committee must meet within 5 working days of receipt of the call-in.

(8) More than one call-in may be considered at a meeting of an overview and scrutiny committee.

(9) Subject to sub-paragraph (10), the consideration of a matter under sub-paragraph (5) by an overview and scrutiny committee may be adjourned, provided that—

(a) the chairperson presiding at the meeting; and (b) the chairperson of the executive agree a date for the resumption of consideration of the call-in request.

(10) A meeting convened in accordance with sub-paragraph (6) may only be adjourned under sub- paragraph (9) in order to—

(a) allow for additional information to be obtained; or (b) permit additional witnesses to attend.

48 Ards and North Down Borough Council Standing Orders v.6 (11) The members who submitted the call-in, or a member on their behalf, must be invited to attend the meeting at which the decision subject to the call-in is considered and may, upon the request of the chairperson, address the meeting, but must not have voting rights, unless they are members of the overview and scrutiny committee.

(12) In response to a call-in made in accordance with section 41(1)(a) of the 2014 Act, an overview and scrutiny committee may—

(a) support the decision; or (b) refer the decision, along with the recommendation of the overview and scrutiny committee, back to the decision maker

(13) Where a decision has been supported in accordance with sub-paragraph (11), that decision must—

(a) be approved; (b) be inserted in the Register of Decisions; and (c) become operative from the date of the meeting at which the overview and scrutiny committee confirmed support for the decision.

(14) Where a decision has been referred back to a decision maker in accordance with sub-paragraph (12)(b), the decision maker must—

(a) consider the recommendation of the overview and scrutiny committee; and (b) reconsider the original decision.

Annex 3 49

Unclassified

ITEM 9

Ards and North Down Borough Council

Report Classification Unclassified

Council/Committee Council

Date of Meeting 26 August 2020

Responsible Director Chief Executive

Responsible Head of N/A Service

Date of Report 06 August 2020

File Reference N/A

Legislation Local Government Act (NI) 2014

Section 75 Compliant Yes ☒ No ☐ Other ☐ If other, please add comment below:

Subject Partnership Panel

Attachments None

The Minister for Communities has recently announced that she is to reconvene the Partnership Panel, with the first meeting to be held on 16th September 2020. The last meeting was held in October 2016.

The Partnership Panel was established under the Local Government Act (NI) 2014 and is intended to strengthen relationships between the Executive and local government. The Panel comprises Executive Ministers, an elected representative from each of the 11 local councils and the five office bearers from the NI Local Government Association (NILGA). Council Chief Executives also attend as observers.

The Partnership Panel place is a Position of Responsibility and it runs for a four-year term. The position was selected by the DUP at the Council’s Annual Meeting in May 2019 and the party nominated Councillor Dunne to this position, however, this has now been changed by the Party Nominating Officer to Councillor Adair.

RECOMMENDATION

It is recommended that Council notes the information contained in this report.

Page 1 of 1

Unclassified

ITEM 10

Ards and North Down Borough Council

Report Classification Unclassified

Council/Committee Council

Date of Meeting 26 August 2020

Responsible Director Chief Executive

Responsible Head of N/A Service

Date of Report 17 August 2020

File Reference CX210

Legislation Local Government (Coronavirus) (Flexibility of District Council Meetings) Regulations (NI) 2020

Section 75 Compliant Yes ☒ No ☐ Other ☐

If other, please add comment below:

Subject Arrangements for Council and Committee meetings

Attachments

As Members are aware, Council meetings and Planning Committee meetings resumed in June 2020, and all other Committee meetings in August 2020. These meetings have commenced at 6pm and have been held virtually via Zoom.

Further to discussion between the Chief Executive and the Party Group Leaders and due to additional costs associated with physical meetings, it is recommended that the virtual arrangements for Council and all Committee meetings will continue in September, but that all meetings will revert to the usual start time of 7pm. A further review of the arrangements will take place prior to the end of September and will be reported back to Council next month.

RECOMMENDATION

It is recommended that the Council approves that all Council and Committee meetings in September 2020 are held virtually held via Zoom and commence at 7pm, with a report on a review of these arrangements to be brought back to the 30 September Council meeting.

Page 1 of 1

Unclassified

ITEM 11

Ards and North Down Borough Council

Report Classification Unclassified

Council/Committee Council

Date of Meeting 26 August 2020

Responsible Director Chief Executive

Responsible Head of Director of Community and Wellbeing Service Director of Regeneration, Development and Planning.

Date of Report 14 August 2020

File Reference PEACE V 1

Legislation The Local Government Act (NI) 2014

Section 75 Compliant Yes ☒ No ☐ Other ☐ If other, please add comment below:

Subject PEACE Plus

Attachments Appendix 1 Presentation delivered to Council Officers

Members will be aware that the SEUPB PEACE IV programme is drawing to a close and the European Union has committed to funding a new programme which is due to be rolled out from 2021 and will be called PEACE Plus.

Consultation began in 2019 and officers and some members attended consultation events in 2019 and early 2020. The SEUPB will shortly be carrying out formal consultation on the draft programme that those earlier events have informed but, in the meantime, presented outline information indicating the likely content to date, which is in the attached PowerPoint presentation.

An outline of the comments of the Council service areas which will have a role in implementing the programme are set out below for members information.

Page 1 of 4

Unclassified

Regeneration and Development General:

• Overall, the Themes are in line with the strategic direction. • It would be good to get further detail on how the funds can be accessed – administration and delivery mechanisms need to be as simple and accessible as possible. • It would be good if they could be 100% funded and resources given to partners such as Councils to work up the projects

Economic Development:

Policy 1, A Smarter Europe; Policy 2, a Greener Lower Carbon Europe; and Policy 3, a more Connected Europe fit with the work that is being developed under Belfast Region City Deal (BRCD) pillars and Full Fibre Northern Ireland (FFNI) and Council aspiration towards a more sustainable borough. We will need to ensure that we work to ensure complementarity and leverage for best value and impact across all the different funds and streams.

Theme 5 : Actions to support collaboration in the trans-boundary management of the Marine and Coastal environment may be an avenue to revisit our issues on Coastal erosion and management.

The policy and thematic objectives outlined are reflected in the protocol that East Border Region (EBR) has presented and agreed with the member Councils earlier this year. Once defined EBR can begin to work towards priorities and project identification that can best impact the region.

Given the financial difficulties everyone will face going forward we should press for projects to be 100% funded and to allow for assistance to work up projects to support groups, making administration and delivery mechanisms as simple as possible.

Rural Regeneration:

There is a strong link outlined in the attached presentation regarding theme 2, theme 4 and theme 6 to elements of the current and previous Rural Development Programme (RDP) funds which were supported through European LEADER Funds. DAERA had previously mentioned that PEACE PLUS would be a source to replace this traditional LEADER funded activity in rural areas, as it will be the only European funding available for rural development going forward.

With reference to theme 2, Delivering Economic Regeneration and Transformation, the actions to support SMEs and to support the rebuilding of the tourism & hospitality sector would have been traditionally supported through amination funding and capital investment grants directly to the individual businesses. Is there an opportunity to distribute funding and support in this way through PEACE PLUS?

In regard to theme 4, Healthy and Inclusive Communities, actions referred to such as Mental Health interventions and rural development through support to regenerate and reimage physical infrastructure strongly links to the work undertaken in terms of the

Page 2 of 4

Unclassified

RDP Basic Services and Village Renewal Schemes. We are aware of a number of groups in communities who have expressed an interest in funding that could be accessed to further develop their project ideas which would address the priorities of this scheme. In terms of Village Renewal, there is currently a bank of identified schemes which could support ‘regenerate and reimage physical infrastructure’, some of which have initial concept designs in place.

With reference to theme 6, Building and Embedding Partnership and Collaboration, the development of tourism initiatives links to the current Co-Operation scheme which is underway between Grey Point Fort and Fort Dunree. There is potential to expand these links to include more coastal defence forts and develop a phase 2 of this scheme. In addition, there is scope to consider other initiatives such as Access to Strangford Lough and St Columbanus Way.

Community and Culture:

In relation to Theme 1 – Building Peaceful and Thriving Communities and the development and implementation of a local authority action plan, it would be helpful if SEUPB could provide a timeline for the commencement, submission and approvals process for this work, for the purposes of forward planning.

In addition, formal Guidance on the process and an indication of the resource allocation available would be beneficial, as the Council will be commencing its 2020/21 estimates and rate setting process in September 2020, and will need to know what level of financial contribution is required, if any.

ANDBC would raise concerns regarding the priority “Empowering Communities to Embed Peace through a small grants process”. Experience of previous Peace Programmes shows that small grants schemes are high risk for the Council, as the majority of local community groups do not have the capacity to deal with the level of bureaucracy associated with these schemes. PEACE IV has demonstrated that awards by tender is much more efficient for both the Council and the Delivery Agent, especially as a flat rate process can be applied to costs.

Likewise “Reimaging Communities” is challenging due to so many external and regional factors which influence the mood of communities.

PEACE IV has demonstrated that realistically there is very little scope for Councils and other agencies to influence reimaging at a local level, e.g. banners, murals, and kerb painting. Scope for Justice related interventions are also limited due mainly to the limited number of organisations who have the skills and expertise to deliver suitable interventions. In addition capacity could be an issue as restorative practices are key interventions supported through the Communities in Transition programme.

Page 3 of 4

Unclassified

RECOMMENDATION

It is recommended that the Council notes the above report and any further Member comments in advance of the formal consultation on the Peace Plus programme by SEUPB.

Page 4 of 4

PEACE PLUS PROGRAMME DEVELOPMENT STEERING GROUP 10 July 2020 REMEMBER: HOUSE RULES

– Devices muted when you are not talking – Cameras off, this will help reducing interference. – There will be points for questions / discussion – In these discussion session, when you want to talk, request it by using the chat functionality, by typing your name or raise your hand – We will support the switching on and off of microphones. PEACE PLUS PROGRAMME DEVELOPMENT STEERING GROUP 10 July 2020 SCHEMA - PEACE PLUS

PEACE PLUS Programme

Theme 1 Theme 2 Theme 3 Theme 4 Theme 5 Theme 6:

Building Delivering Empowering Healthy and Supporting a Building and Peaceful and Economic and Investing Inclusive Sustainable Embedding Thriving Regeneration in Our Young Communities Future Partnership Communities and People and Transformati Collaboration on Theme 1: Building Peaceful and Thriving Communities

At the core of the PEACE PLUS Programme is a need to recognise and continue to support the building of peaceful and thriving communities. Whilst significant progress has been made in improving relations between communities, divisions remain in some communities with low levels of trust and high levels of residential and social segregation. The PEACE PLUS Programme builds upon the efforts within and for communities and seeks to support a continued pathway to reconciliation.

• Pathways to Reconciliation through the development and implementation of a Local Authority Action Plan for each Local Authority area • Empowering Communities to Embed Peace through small project funds • Building Positive Relations • Developing Key Institutional Capacity • Reimage communities • Justice related community interventions Theme 2: Delivering Economic Regeneration and Transformation

A strong and vibrant Economy is critical to embedding peace and good relations as well as delivering economic prosperity. The economic challenges associated with the 2020 Covid-19 emergency also require the Programme to support regeneration actions which specifically target sectors and communities most affected by the crisis and as such most in need. This thematic area should take account of functional areas, and encourage actors outside the programme area to become part of projects that will help rebuild the economy, and implement actions that will assist in the mitigation of the effects of Brexit.

• Actions to support SMEs • Support for the development of Smart Cities, Towns and Villages – both urban and rural • Actions which support the development of Social Innovation in response to specific societal challenges, particularly where this brings communities together • Research and Innovation • Skills training and apprenticeships, particularly for those most marginalised from society • Actions to support the rebuilding of the tourism & hospitality sector Theme 3: Empowering and Investing in Our Young People

The PEACE PLUS Programme will invest in our young people so that they can reach their potential and maximise their contribution to a more peaceful, cohesive and inclusive society. Support from early years to young adults is critical in building a shared society which is resilient to current and future challenges. Investing in the empowerment of young people – their education, skills, active citizenship and mental health - is an investment in the future.

• Support for Shared Education initiatives • Mental Health and Well-being Programmes • Develop skills and enhance support services • Resource and empower young people to become leaders Theme 4: Healthy and Inclusive Communities

The PEACE PLUS programme will invest in actions which build healthy and inclusive communities. Support will be provided to tackle challenges which exist in relation to health inequalities but also support Government administrations address obstacles in relation to North /South Collaboration and cross border healthcare delivery. Specific issues pertaining to specific groups e.g. victims and survivors and rural communities could also be addressed under this theme.

• Innovations in e-health • Mental Health interventions • Actions which address specific rural issues • Rural development, through support to regenerate and reimage physical infrastructure • Support to victims and survivors Theme 5: Supporting a Sustainable Future

The PEACE PLUS Programme will respond to the climate emergency and support efforts to deliver a sustainable future for the environment in the programme area. The two jurisdictions share many of the same resources including habitat, freshwater and marine environments. It is therefore important that the Programme provides support for collaborative initiatives to ensure a sustainable future for the environment in the context of the climate emergency. Actions to address climate change are an essential part of all EU Programmes.

• Actions to support collaboration in the trans-boundary management of the Marine and Coastal environment • Support to protect biodiversity including nature recovery • Development and protection of water catchments and associated water quality • The monitoring and management of air quality and the development of renewable energy • Research and data collection • Investment in Cross Border rail infrastructure • Community engagement and participation through education and awareness programme Theme 6: Building and Embedding Partnership and Collaboration

Many of the challenges within the Programme area can only be resolved through cross border collaboration, particularly where strategic cooperation will deliver more efficient and effective ways of delivering services. The Programme can support this through actions which support the development of strategic cross border plans and through actions to support research to remove legal and administrative border obstacles. This is a mandatory element of all EU Cross Border Programmes and is still under development within the Commission however 15% (TBC) of any programme must go to these activities.

• Local Authority Strategic Area Plans • The development of tourism initiatives • Research and development of solutions INTERREG SPECIFIC OBJECTIVE 1

Theme 6, “Building and Embedding Partnership and Collaboration” represents the Interreg Specific Objective 1.

It is a regulatory requirement

The objectives of Interreg Specific Objective 1 are: • Institutional Capacity of public authorities • Legal and administrative cooperation • People-to-people actions for increased trust • Institutional capacity to manage macro-regional and other strategies • Support to democracy and civil society

15% of the programme must be allocated to Interreg Specific Objectives (no final agreement)

This theme will enable work between departments north and south, but also very small projects to engage with citizens SCHEMA - PEACE PLUS

PEACE PLUS Programme

PO1: A PO3: A PO2: A Interreg PO 4: A more Social Europe more Specific Smarter Connected Greener Objective Europe Europe Europe 1

Theme 1 Theme 3 Theme 4 Theme 2 Theme 5 Theme 5 Theme 6:

Building Empowerin Healthy Delivering A more Supporting Building Peaceful g and and Economic Connected a and Sustainable and Investing in Inclusive Regenerati Region Future Embedding Thriving Our Young Communiti on and Partnershi Communiti People es Transforma p and es tion Collaborati on STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT SURVEY. SUMMARY OF RESPONSES

320 valid responses 241 organisations 79 individuals

• Thematic Objectives / Priorities – Peace-Building Activities – North/South Economic, Social and Environmental Development

• Delivery Mechanisms and Administration Thematic Objectives / Priorities: Peace-Building Activities Thematic Objectives / Priorities: Peace-Building Activities

Actions to improve community and social cohesion • Creating opportunities for integration • Skills development • Leverage existing infrastructure (shared safe space) and other mediums • Target specific groups • Address specific topics • Build new structures

Actions to improve employment opportunities • Quality community and local authority based training • Supported work experience, research based apprenticeships and training opportunities, mentoring/role models, career pathway guidance • Peace building work leading to active citizenship • Target group: school leavers, young people, people out of work, job changers and those individuals furthest removed from the labour market Thematic Objectives / Priorities: Peace-Building Activities

Actions to increase access to quality and inclusive education

• Collaboration in the areas of shared education and integrated education partnerships and projects • Creating specific projects to address educational underachievement in the most affected groups, to encourage young entrepreneurs • To invest in bursaries to create higher education opportunities for the most marginalised

Actions to reduce marginalisation through improved housing and services

• Addressing segregated housing • Decreasing the polarisation Thematic Objectives / Priorities: Peace-Building Activities

Actions to increase access to quality healthcare • Social prescribing and actions led by communities • Signposting of mental health services and advice • Other mental health interventions including using the arts and nature based solutions • Development of a regional centre of excellence for addictions

Actions to other peace building activities • Specific topics: transgenerational and intergenerational trauma, Bereavement, conflict and language programmes • Structures / networks / capacities: cross community networking, cross border capacity building, citizen assemblies, community engagement with policy makers and capital grants to run projects in the community • Skills development: leadership, trauma training, relationship building and respect for diversity. Thematic Objectives / Priorities: Peace-Building Activities

CHALLENGES OPPORTUNITIES

• Challenges posed by Brexit: Social, • Social opportunities Economic, Political and Legislative • Children and young people • Education • Other challenges: Social, Dealing with • Language, culture and heritage the past and ongoing division, • Addressing legacy Economic, Language and Identity • Community development • Cross-border • Challenges for the delivery of the PEACE PLUS Programme for obtaining • Economic Peace and Reconciliation: Funding, • Shares Spaces Shared Facilities, Engagement, Contract hours, Partnership working, Sustainability, Mentoring and evaluation, Brexit Thematic Objectives / Priorities: North/South Economic, Social and Environmental Development Thematic Objectives / Priorities: North/South Economic, Social and Environmental Development

Policy Objective 1 – A Smarter Policy Objective 2 – A Greener Europe Lower Carbon Europe Broad themes Broad themes • Economy and employment • Environment • People and Community • Economy • Education and Skills • People / Community • Infrastructure • Cross Border Cooperation

Recommended initiatives: Recommended initiatives: • Innovation/R&D • Water and Waste Treatment • Advanced Technology • Disaster Monitoring, Warning or Response • Skills • Biodiversity • SMEs • Renewable / Energy • Digitalisation • Transport • Collaboration / Partnerships • Educational Programmes • Political / Local Authority • Rural/agricultural communities Thematic Objectives / Priorities: North/South Economic, Social and Environmental Development

Policy Objective 3 – A More Connected Europe Broad themes • Cross- Border Connectivity • Transport Connectivity • ICT Connectivity

Recommended initiatives: • Cross- Border Connectivity • Transport • ICT Thematic Objectives / Priorities: North/South Economic, Social and Environmental Development

Policy Objective 4 – A More Social Europe (not peace-building)

Broad themes • BAME, disabled persons and underprivileged communities • Gender inequality (e.g. in entrepreneurship, STEM workforce) • Homelessness

• resources, digital technologies), Recommended initiatives: integrated health hubs and data sharing • Cross-border links for education between heal and social care sectors • Access to quality healthcare (e.g. • Cross sectoral collaboration to improve health outcomes by addressing root causes, community based services (for palliative care and alcohol/drugs services) Thematic Objectives / Priorities: North/South Economic, Social and Environmental Development

Policy Objective 5 – A Europe Closer to Its Citizens

Broad themes • People and Community • Economy and employment • Addressing Imbalance

Recommended initiatives: • Improving community • Activities to boost tourism facilities • Measures to promote • Measures to improve cultural heritage security Thematic Objectives / Priorities: North/South Economic, Social and Environmental Development

CHALLENGES OPPORTUNITIES

• The political, legislative and economic • Different opportunities were identified challenges of Brexit for each Policy Objective • Long-term challenges • respondents to the survey identified a • Social challenges number of opportunities for • Technology/Infrastructure challenges programme delivery • Environmental challenges Delivery Mechanisms and Administration

• Increasing simplification: flat rates and unit costs • Project development support • Project preparation lump sums • Match-funding • Other programme delivery and implementation measures o Application and assessment processes o Eligibility and reimbursement of expenditure o Electronic Monitoring System (EMS)

NOTE: Respondents made other suggestions across a range of areas including project launches, communications, programme design and best practice all of which will be reviewed and considered by the SEUPB. Increasing simplification: flat rates and unit costs Project development support Project preparation lump sums Match-funding

Submissions indicate that the majority of respondents are in favour of the current arrangements of match-funding continuing in PEACE PLUS, i.e. projects commonly being funded 100%.

Reasons: • Several applicants would not in the position to match-fund • Obtaining match-funding from different funders would place additional administrative burden • 100% funding maximises investment potential of projects Other programme delivery and implementation measures

Application and assessment processes • Process: complex, bureaucratic and could be more accessible • Programme criteria: Can limit the ability of organisations to develop creative and innovative projects • These are limitations for smaller groups

Eligibility and reimbursement of expenditure • Clearer, more simplified guidance and regular training requested • Length of time for processing claims can result in cash flow issues

Electronic Monitoring System (EMS) • Training and demonstration workshops for all users, from the outset through the duration of project Equality Screening and Strategic Environmental Assessment

EQIA SEA

• Section 75 • Directive 2001/42/EC • Launch of the tender for the • Consult with Environmental equality screening Authorities • The results will be part of the • The results will be part of the statutory consultation statutory consultation Unclassified

ITEM 12

Ards and North Down Borough Council

Report Classification Unclassified

Council/Committee Council

Date of Meeting 26 August 2020

Responsible Director Director of Community and Wellbeing

Responsible Head of Head of Environmental Health Protection and Service Development

Date of Report 17 August 2020

File Reference CW8

Legislation N/A

Section 75 Compliant Yes ☒ No ☐ Other ☐ If other, please add comment below:

Subject Funding Proposals for the Affordable Warmth Scheme 2020/21

Attachments Letter to Council Chief Executives and Senior Officers August 2020 about delivery of AWs

Background

The Affordable Warmth (AW) Scheme provides a package of energy-efficiency and heating measures, tailored to each household that meets the assessment criteria in targeted areas. Funded by the Department for Communities (DfC) and delivered by Councils and Northern Ireland Housing Executive (NIHE) in partnership, Council AW Officers make contact with occupants from a list of addresses provided by DfC in order to undertake an assessment and determine eligibility. The primary criteria is a household income less than £20k per annum and AW Scheme therefore assists some of the most vulnerable in our community to tackle fuel poverty. It can however require as many as five letters/visits and numerous telephone calls in order to secure access to properties and examine the relevant documentation – this Borough experiences an extremely high contact to referral ratio compared to the majority of councils. Not all assessments will result in a referral being made to the NIHE to complete the grant application, as would be expected within a means tested screening process.

Page 1 of 6

Unclassified

It should also be noted that the role of Councils has changed considerably since the start of the Scheme in 2014. Since December 2015 AW Officers have been responsible for undertaking income verification, which was previously carried out by NIHE. As a result of this enhanced role, there has been a marked increase in staff time to complete the application process. The benefit however, has been the considerable reduction in those households dropping out of the scheme, which occurred when NIHE delivered this part of the service, therefore making the whole process more efficient, lower cost and better for the ratepayer.

In addition, those households that do not meet the requirements of the scheme are directed, where possible, to other schemes, such as boiler replacement, thus assisting additional households in fuel poverty and helping to meet the objectives of DfC’s Fuel Poverty Strategy. The AW Officers also provide a holistic service for the clients and make onward referrals to a wide range of other internal and external partners, including our Home Safety Team for accident prevention, Policing and Community Safety Partnership (PCSP) for home security and the Social Security Agency for benefit checks which nearly always result in an increase in benefits for the client.

Funding Proposals

Since the scheme started in 2015 there has been a decline in funding to the Council and despite our contributions “in kind” (management and accommodation costs) it has been impossible to meet the targets within the DfC allocated budget, which was originally supposed to run the scheme at no cost to councils. A report dated 23 February 2017 outlining these concerns was brought to Committee and Council in March 2017, and it was agreed that up to £30k of Council monies would be provided, and this was then included in the annual budget for Affordable Warmth. This recognised both the difficulties experienced in bringing referrals on board (thereby requiring more staff resource to meet targets than the grant allowed for); and the significant value of home improvements that the scheme brought into the Borough, addressing fuel poverty for some of our most vulnerable households.

Members are well aware of ongoing difficulties with operational requirements of the scheme (lack of committed funding, fluctuations in permitted referral rates affecting economies of scale, staff training and retention, adherence to an 80:20 targetted:non-targeted referral ratio etc) which have been reported to Council in several reports, resulting in numerous written communications to DfC. In July 2019, a cross party delegation of Elected Members, accompanied by Officers, met with the Permanent Secretary, Tracy Meharg to discuss concerns and shortly afterwards confirmation was received that a 5 year business case to the Department of Finance (DoF) had been approved, which would provide greater certainty of budget.

Unfortunately, part of the stipulation of the DoF approval was that the Councils were funded on a “pay by referral” basis with an offer of £222.92 for the first 300 referrals and £186.25 per referral thereafter (in this year 52). Whilst recognising the economies of scale in relation to the referral targets, Councils would contend that this is not a true reflection of the cost of providing the scheme, as they now contribute management and accommodation costs, which were initially covered, and have reminded DfC that this was supposed to operate at no cost to the councils.

Page 2 of 6

Unclassified

The “pay by referral” stipulation has been unanimously rejected by council officials as historically the funding was issued as quarterly grants, based on the agreed referral numbers, and was not affected by performance. This provided councils with some degree of financial security for employing staff as salaries could be covered. DfC state that for 2020/21 “pay by referral” is the only option as it is a requirement of DoF. They did however provide a one-off payment of £10,888.56 for Q1, because of the unique circumstances with Covid 19 preventing normal operation of service whilst DfC still required emergency cover provision – but this grant was only paid after much pressure from Councils.

DfC are now asking for 44 referrals per month to be delivered from August 2020 – March 2021 on a “pay by referral” basis and this has financial implications for council. To put into context, the table below shows DfC funding to the scheme since 2015, alongside referral targets, the financial summary and staffing levels.

Year Referrals Grant Council Value of Staffing provided provision* Approvals 15/16 1000 Based on £153,000 - £1,603,057.25 1 Co-ordinator NIHE doing 3 X AW officers eligibility checks. 1X Admin Officer Target met. = 5 FTE 16/17 506 Enhanced £107,000 - £1,782,811.79 1 Co-ordinator Council Role 2 x AW officers 6 mths. doing eligibility 3 X AW officers 6 mths checks. Target = 3.5 FTE met. 17/18 405 Enhanced £73,305 £19,096.18 £1,178,478.90 1 Co-ordinator role. Target met. 2 x AW officers 11mths 3 x AW officers 1 month = 3.08 FTE 18/19 337 Enhanced £68,780 £3,881.87 £1,043,366.86 1 Co-ordinator role. Target met. 3 x AW officers 3 mths 1 x AW officer 8 mths = 2.4 FTE 19/20 275 Enhanced £55,965 £17,614.73 £939,749.24 1 Co-ordinator role. 3.6 x AW officers 2 mths 255 referred – 2.2 x AW officers 1 mth unable to submit 1 x AW officer 5 mths remaining due to = 2.2 FTE COVID 19. 20/21 No target Apr-Jul £10,888. £1,450 £56,358.80 1 Co-ordinator emergency 56 (Q1) 0.2 AW Officer (6weeks) referrals only

352 Aug-Mar £76,561 To be Funding, if target met, if target determined will pay for 3.5 FTE met

*Council provision does not include in kind contribution i.e. management costs and overheads.

Page 3 of 6

Unclassified

The proposal for 2020/21 funding would allow the council to pay for 3.5 staff but from experience it will take 4 staff to deliver 352 referrals in 8 months which would cost the council up to £10,000 provided targets are met. This would be in line with previous contributions but with a potentially higher return in terms of value of approvals than in recent years. The concern would be if the team fails to achieve the set referral rate, the council will also have to meet the resulting deficit in income at £222 per referral.

If targets are not met and officers achieve in worst case scenario: 30 referrals per month = 240 referrals = £53,500.80 funding Therefore council contribution required is £23.5K to maintain 3.5 staff or £33K to maintain 4 staff (budget is £30k)

The council has to date always met targets, primarily due to the ability to access the existing council contribution and it is felt that a return as low as 30 referrals per month is unlikely if 4 staff are employed.

39 referrals per month = 312 referrals = £69,111 funding Therefore council contribution £8K to maintain 3.5 staff or £17.5K to maintain 4 staff (£10k less than budget)

44 referrals per month = 352 referral = £76,561 Therefore no council contribution to maintain 3.5 staff or £10k to maintain 4 staff. (£20k less than current budget)

To date the council contribution has been carefully managed and only utilised as and when required to meet targets, with less than £41k spent of an agreed £90k budget over 3 years. Demand on budget is impacted by sudden increases in referral rates set mid-year, high staff turnover due to job insecurity, the need to recruit and train up new staff, difficulties in obtaining targeted area lists, etc which are all outside council control. Every effort has been made to ensure that staff numbers are appropriate and at the minimum level required to deliver service, thus

Based on previous experience, 3.5 may struggle to achieve targets therefore 4 staff are now in place to deliver 44 referral per month thereby maximising likelihood of obtaining full DfC payment with least amount of Council contribution. There is however the concern that the new requirements to ensure households are not shielding, to assist with arranging a technical inspection by the NIHE, may make obtaining normal referral rates more difficult. Questions have also been raised with DfC regarding the implications for the service should a second wave occur and the need to provide guaranteed income rather than the “pay by referral” basis.

Letter to Chief Executives

On 14 August 2020 DfC wrote to the Chief Executive (attached “Letter to Council Chief Executives and Senior Officers August 2020 about delivery of Aws”) asking Councils to confirm their commitment to the scheme otherwise they will reserve the right to seek a different provider. They continue to offer Councils a payment per referral (£222.92) but have relaxed slightly the 80:20 criteria stating that “As far as

Page 4 of 6

Unclassified possible the majority (at least 60%) of these referrals should be from the targeted list however the Department is currently reviewing this requirement.”

Options:

1. Decline to continue with the scheme. In view of the stipulation of DfC/DoF that the scheme is on a “pay by referral” basis, this places the council at greater financial risk should targets not be achieved. Whilst to date, our AW team has always met targets, it has been assisted to do so by the ability to recruit additional manpower because of the up to £30k budget provision made available to manage the scheme - yet this was originally supposed to be a “no cost to council” scheme. The increased uncertainty regarding ability to meet targets with the additional burden of having to ensure that clients are not shielding, coupled with the threat of a second wave, further increases the financial risk to the council

2. Agree to continue with the scheme as per the DfC proposed SLA. Members are aware that the benefits on this scheme has resulted in over £6.6 million of home improvements in the past 5 years to some of the most vulnerable households in the borough. In additional, households have been assisted with signposting to other support services and undoubtedly council involvement has resulted in an enhanced, more efficient, holistic service to clients. Careful management has ensured the service is delivered on target and within budget and projections based on this experience, as detailed in this report, would be that we should be able to do so, albeit there is greater uncertainty regarding the ongoing impact of Covid 19 on service delivery.

3. Agree to continue with the scheme (with reservations) but review after 4 months. In recognition of the value of the scheme and previous past performance but tempered with the greater uncertainty on the current and future impact of Covid 19, the Council could agree to continue the service with the existing 4 staff but review both targets and the subsequent financial position after 4 months to determine future viability. It would also provide a better indication of the additional challenges arising in relation to service delivery.

Further, the Council should continue to raise its ongoing unease with DfC by writing to the minister outlining our concerns that the, councils are the poor partner, in the scheme. While there was a feeling that we were part of a partnership at the onset of the Scheme, since then we have never been fully listened to, nor consulted, on Scheme developments or directions that have been presented to us as a fait accompli by the DfC. The funding position, number of referrals and our role have been changed with no consultation. There has never been any clarity has to how the other main partner in the scheme the NIHE has been funded. The four-month period would allow the Council to press for more positive responses to our concerns and allow time to review our future participation on that basis.

Page 5 of 6

Unclassified

RECOMMENDATION

It is Recommended that the Council writes to the Minister for Communities stating its concern regarding the operation of the Affordable Warmth Scheme and to seek assurances that it will be reviewed so that the Council will not be put in an untenable financial position by the currently imposed funding model, in particular in the context of the uncertainties of a global pandemic.

However, as the service should be able to meet the targets with four staff and operate within the existing budget, it is also recommended that the Council approves Option 3 and agrees to continue to provide the service for now, but formally reviews this in light of the response from the Minister and within a 4 month period.

Page 6 of 6

From: David Polley Level 3 Causeway Exchange [email protected] 1-7 Bedford Street Belfast BT2 7EG

Our ref:

Date: 14 August 2020 Chief Executives and Senior Officials (Affordable Warmth Scheme)

Dear Chief Executive

AFFORDABLE WARMTH SCHEME

You may be aware that I have been engaging extensively with the Council Officers responsible for assisting with the delivery of the Department’s Affordable Warmth Scheme. I am conscious of the difficult situation we have all had to cope with during the current health crisis however it is more important than ever that collectively we continue to assist the most vulnerable and in particular those in fuel poverty.

You will recall that in May I set out proposals for temporary arrangements for emergency referrals during the COVID-19 pandemic i.e there would be a flat rate payment for the period April to June of £10.9k per Council. These arrangements were agreed on the condition that Councils would be in a position to meet an agreed monthly target rate of referrals once restrictions were lifted.

In June I wrote again to ask when Councils would expect to be in a position, following your own risk assessments etc. to re-open the Scheme and to send referrals to the Housing Executive as soon as possible (previously set at 39 per month). Furthermore in July the Department emailed all Council Senior officers in an effort to confirm how many referrals could be made. Most Councils responded to say this would depend on the method of payment going forward and would not make any commitment until after a scheduled meeting with the Department on 5 August.

My team confirmed at this meeting that there is now a confirmed budget of at least £12m to spend on the Affordable Warmth Scheme before the end of the financial year. Council officers were also informed that to maximise the budget available that each Council would be required to make 44 referrals to the Housing Executive each month from August. It was our view that this target is achievable should Councils fulfil their agreement to work on emergency referrals during the period when restrictions to the scheme were in place and to process normal referrals as far as possible. As agreed Councils will be paid per referral (£222.92). As far as possible the majority (at least 60%) of these referrals should be from the targeted list however the Department is currently reviewing this requirement.

It is essential that if we are to maximise the available budget Councils need to start delivering immediately in line with the above arrangements and my team have worked closely with Councils and NIHE to make this happen. Whilst some councils have responded more positively than others the level of co-operation has been disappointing. The Department would prefer Councils to continue delivering the scheme in line with the agreed terms and conditions however should this not be possible then the Department reserves the right to review and potentially seek alternatives to the current delivery model

I should therefore be grateful if you would confirm by Friday 21 August 2020 if your Council is in a position to continue to deliver the Affordable Warmth Scheme in your Council area in line with the conditions set out.

If we do not receive a response by 21 August we may assume that you no longer wish to remain in your role as a delivery partner of the Affordable Warmth Scheme. It would also be our intention to have the SLA formally agreed before the end of August and performance against targets will be monitored monthly. I should be grateful if you would copy your response to Avril Hiles, Head of the Fuel Poverty Team.

I look forward to hearing from you.

Yours sincerely

David Polley

ITEM 16

Ards and North Down Borough Council

Report Classification Unclassified

Council/Committee Council

Date of Meeting 28 August 2020

Responsible Director Director of Organisational Development and Administration

Responsible Head of Head of Administration Service

Date of Report 19 August 2020

File Reference CG 12172

Legislation Local Government Act (NI) 2014

Section 75 Compliant Yes ☐ No ☐ Not Applicable ☒

Subject Notices of Motion

Attachments Notices of Motion - Status Report

Please find attached a Status Report in respect of Notices of Motion.

This is a standing item on the Council agenda each month and its aim is to keep members updated on the outcome of motions. Please note that as each motion is dealt with it will be removed from the report.

RECOMMENDATION

It is recommended that the Council notes the report.

ITEM 16

NOTICE OF MOTIONS UPDATE – AUGUST 2020

TO BE POPULATED BY DEMOCRATIC SERVICES

DATE NOTICE SUBMITTED COUNCIL COMMITTEE OUTCOME OF MONTH IT OTHER RECEIVED BY MEETING REFERRED TO COMMITTEE WILL BE ACTION TO BE DATE WHERE NOM REPORTED TAKEN DEBATED BACK TO COMMITTEE 31/05/15 Permanent recognition of Councillor 24/06/15 Corporate Services Agreed Ongoing Rory McIlroy in Holywood Muir Committee – October 2015

2/3/18 Online community directory Councillor Council – Community & Agreed to TBC Douglas March Wellbeing – April bring back 2018 2018 - deferred report 19/7/18 Appropriate signage at Councillor Council – Community & Referred to Ongoing Movilla Cemetery McIlveen August Wellbeing – October Corporate 2018 2018 Committee to progress 21/8/18 Memorial to 8 people killed at Councillor Council – Corporate - Oct 18 Agreed TBC 1936 TT Race Kennedy August Deferred to 2018 November 2018

21/1/19 Shelter at slipway in Councillor Council – Environment Agreed September Donaghadee Brooks & January Committee 2020 Councillor 2019 Smith

Page 1 of 7

ITEM 16

TO BE POPULATED BY DEMOCRATIC SERVICES

DATE NOTICE SUBMITTED COUNCIL COMMITTEE OUTCOME OF MONTH IT OTHER RECEIVED BY MEETING REFERRED TO COMMITTEE WILL BE ACTION TO BE DATE WHERE NOM REPORTED TAKEN DEBATED BACK TO COMMITTEE 22/1/19 Climate breakdown Councillor Council – Environment Agreed Ongoing as Woods January Committee part of and 2019 Council’s Councillor “Pathway to a McKee Sustainable Future – 2020-24” 22/7/19 Fossil fuel divestment Councillor Council – Corporate Services Agreed. Report to Survey has McKee & July 2019 Committee - Deputation by Corporate been Councillor September 2019 NILGOSC to Services conducted Dunlop full Council – Committee with ANDBC Jan 2020 11/2/20 staff to find out their views - results to be advised

14/8/19 Review into entrance policy Councillor Council – Environment Agreed August 2020 @ wrcs Armstrong- August Committee – – deferred Cotter & 2019 September 2019 (further info Councillor being sought) Edmund

Page 2 of 7

ITEM 16

TO BE POPULATED BY DEMOCRATIC SERVICES

DATE NOTICE SUBMITTED COUNCIL COMMITTEE OUTCOME OF MONTH IT OTHER RECEIVED BY MEETING REFERRED TO COMMITTEE WILL BE ACTION TO BE DATE WHERE NOM REPORTED TAKEN DEBATED BACK TO COMMITTEE 19/8/19 Commencement of Process Councillor Council Corporate Services Agreed TBC to acquire ownership of Bank Cathcart August – September 2019 (enquiries Lane, Ballyholme 2019 ongoing) 30/8/19 Cross Party Working Group – Councillor Council – Corporate Services Agreed TBC Meeting held Health & Social Care Douglas September – October 2019 – with Officers and Greer moved to C&WB and Elected Members in February 30/8/19 Report to advise how to Councillor Council – Community and Agreed TBC increase tree planting Douglas September Wellbeing – October and Wilson 2019

2/9/19 Review of Byelaws Councillor Council – Environment Agreed TBC - Cathcart September Committee – Ongoing October

25/9/19 Report on feasibility of Councillor Council – Corporate Services Agreed Reported to holding annual remembrance Martin October – November 2019 Corporate service for those lost to Committee suicide January 2020. Further report to come back in due course.

Page 3 of 7

ITEM 16

TO BE POPULATED BY DEMOCRATIC SERVICES

DATE NOTICE SUBMITTED COUNCIL COMMITTEE OUTCOME OF MONTH IT OTHER RECEIVED BY MEETING REFERRED TO COMMITTEE WILL BE ACTION TO BE DATE WHERE NOM REPORTED TAKEN DEBATED BACK TO COMMITTEE 10/10/19 Morning crossing times of the Councillor Council – Regeneration & Agreed TBC Due to C-19, Strangford Ferry Service from Boyle October Development – HoR to Portaferry. 2019 November 2019 request a virtual meeting with Minister to progress. 14/10/19 Public meeting to be held at Councillor Council – Regeneration & Agreed TBC Public Comber Leisure Centre to P Smith October Development – meetings not consider residents’ concerns 2019 November 2019 yet feasible about overdevelopment of due to C-19; Comber town virtual meeting not considered an appropriate alternative. 15/10/19 Feasibility of a Councillor Council – Community & Agreed TBC Commemorative and Martin October Wellbeing – Informational Plaque in Ward 2019 November 2019 Park for the USAAF and Polish Airmen 21/10/19 Reuse of items currently Alderman Council- Environment Agreed TBC - treated as waste Muir November Committee – Ongoing 2019 December 2019

Page 4 of 7

ITEM 16

TO BE POPULATED BY DEMOCRATIC SERVICES

DATE NOTICE SUBMITTED COUNCIL COMMITTEE OUTCOME OF MONTH IT OTHER RECEIVED BY MEETING REFERRED TO COMMITTEE WILL BE ACTION TO BE DATE WHERE NOM REPORTED TAKEN DEBATED BACK TO COMMITTEE 28/10/19 Management of Grey Councillor Council – Community & TBC Squirrels Martin November Wellbeing 2019 Committee – December 2019 4/11/19 Reliance on single use plastic Councillor Council- Environment Agreed TBC - water bottles Greer November Committee – Ongoing 2019 December 2019 7/11/19 Restoration of historic stone Councillor Council – Environment Agreed September wall and turret observation Chambers November Committee – 2020 platform in Groomsport 2019 December 2019 10/12/19 Sustainable Energy Councillor Council – Environment Agreed August 2020 To be ratified Management Strategy for the Mathison December Committee – - Agreed by Council Council estate and 2019 January 2020 Councillor Egan 07/01/20 That Council writes to DfI Councillor Council – Corporate Agreed August 2020 Further letter calling for the prioritisation of P Smith January Committee – to be sent the resurfacing of a section of 2020 February 2020 A22.

09/01/20 That Council expresses Alderman Council – Corporate Agreed and August 2020 Further letter concern at plans to close Irvine January Committee – Amended to be sent Bennett House, Portrush – 2020 February 2020 RBL veterans respite centre.

Page 5 of 7

ITEM 16

TO BE POPULATED BY DEMOCRATIC SERVICES

DATE NOTICE SUBMITTED COUNCIL COMMITTEE OUTCOME OF MONTH IT OTHER RECEIVED BY MEETING REFERRED TO COMMITTEE WILL BE ACTION TO BE DATE WHERE NOM REPORTED TAKEN DEBATED BACK TO COMMITTEE 16/01/20 That Council brings a report Alderman Council – Environment Agreed September with PSNI input, looking at Keery January Committee – 2020 erection of a gate at Marlo 2020 February 2020 Link / Linear Park to reduce anti-social behaviour. 16/01/20 Installation of CCTV for Alderman Council – Environment Agreed TBC Donaghadee with costings Keery January Committee – 2020 February 2020 27/2/20 Council opposes money Councillor Council- Corporate Agreed spent on Irish Language Act Cooper June 2020 Committee – August 2020 2/3/20 Further enhance recycling Councillor Council – Environment Withdrawn - - performance Greer June 2020 Committee – August 2020 2/3/20 Climate change emergency Councillor Council – Corporate Withdrawn Walker June 2020 Committee – August 2020 3/3/20 Management of Sand Dune Councillor Council – Community and Agreed to Systems in Cloughey and Adair June 2020 Wellbeing defer until Portavogie Committee – August September 2020 11/3/20 Bicentenary of the laying of Councillor Council – Corporate Agreed the foundation stone for the Brooks & June 2020 Committee – August iconic Donaghadee harbour Chambers 2020

Page 6 of 7

ITEM 16

TO BE POPULATED BY DEMOCRATIC SERVICES

DATE NOTICE SUBMITTED COUNCIL COMMITTEE OUTCOME OF MONTH IT OTHER RECEIVED BY MEETING REFERRED TO COMMITTEE WILL BE ACTION TO BE DATE WHERE NOM REPORTED TAKEN DEBATED BACK TO COMMITTEE 16/3/20 Collapse of Flybe Councillor Council – Regen & Agreed Adair June 2020 Development Committee – August 2020 3/6/20 This Council recognises the Councillor Council – Corporate Agreed impact of misogyny and McNickle & June 2020 Committee – August transmisogyny on those Douglas 2020 affected by it 30/6/20 Council write to DAERA Councillor Council – Environment Agreed requesting the maximum McClean July 2020 Committee – August penalty in respect of littering 2020 and dog fouling to be increased and a report on annual cost of cleansing to Council 30/6/20 Council writes to DAERA to Councillor Council Environment Agreed request Litter Strategy is Douglas July 2020 Committee – August drawn up with media and 2020 campaign Councillor McRandal

Page 7 of 7